Complementary Bureaucracy: Reimagining Weberian Impersonalism with Indigenous Relationality

Abstract

Weber’s ideal-type bureaucracy demands impersonalism premised on assumptions regarding egalitarianism and polity scale, explaining why it is able to excel with large-scale population policymaking. Transport, national infrastructure, taxation, and defense are classic success examples of what is called the actions of government that are done “to” and “for” the polity. However, government fails in important areas of action done “with” citizens and communities, such as health, education, and justice, which do not fit one-size-fits-all approaches. Calls to personalize policy delivery chafe at Weberian bureaucracy and inevitably will do so until form change is recognized as necessary. One way forward may be found in Indigenous worldviews and clan governance concepts of relationality. This article uses William Ouchi\'s organizational form arguments that privilege clans alongside markets and hierarchies, as well as illustrative examples of Indigenous public service leadership, to propose a new conceptual approach—complementary bureaucracy—to demonstrate clan approaches that provide rich practical and theoretical opportunities to engage in bureaucratic personalism. Taking the best of impersonalism and relationality helps meet modern societal needs, building off the wisdom of governance practices that have served this planet’s oldest enduring civilizations.

Interrogating hegemonic embraces: Representative bureaucracy, methodological Whiteness, and non‐West exclusions

“…There are opportunities to build upon nascent literatures and to widen the circle of voices. This includes literatures that explore the exclusion of indigenous public administration (e.g., Althaus, 2020Althaus, , 2022 and Islamic, Buddhist, and Hindu administrative systems (e.g., Alkadry, 2002;Drechsler, 2013;Koujaenak, 2019;Tummala, 1996). It may also include understanding administrative systems within autocratic regimes and their many parallels to how democracies administrate as well as their (more frequently researched) differences.…”