Bureaucracy, Public Management Reform, and the Reconfiguration of Public Sector Governance

FORM FOR THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSED COURSEWORK
Student Number (7 digit number)








Unit Code








Unit Title








this form must be completed and attached to all assessed work.
By submitting this work online using my unique log-in and password, I hereby confirm that this work is entirely my own and that I have watched and understood the References and Plagiarism video. I understand that all marks are provisional until ratified by the Faculty Examination Board.
Please remember to save your work either as a Word document (.doc or as a PDF (.pdf) with the filename [Unit Code_Student Number] e.g. EFIM20002_1794411.docx.
1. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of bureaucracy and evaluate to what extent it still operates in the public sector today. Use relevant examples.
Modern statecraft relies heavily on bureaucracy, originating from the necessity of formalised administrative structures. The UK’s public sector uses bureaucratic principles to ensure organised administration and dependable service delivery. Given its historical development, Max Weber’s discussion of rational-legal authority provides the most concise theoretical foundation for bureaucracy. Weber emphasised the significance of a hierarchical structure governed by predetermined guidelines to ensure that tasks are carried out precisely and impartially. This hierarchy is intended to eliminate arbitrariness and biases, thereby promoting efficiency, along with a focus on impersonal relations. However, while impersonality ensures equality in the provision of services, it also raises questions about the bureaucracy’s capacity to consider unique nuances (Langer, 2022). Additionally, despite fostering consistency, strict adherence to the rules frequently invites criticisms of inflexibility and red tape (Vogel, Vogel, and Reuber, 2022). Thus, while the UK’s public sector’s bureaucracy is essential, it constantly balances efficiency and impersonality.
Despite being frequently viewed as an administrative behemoth, bureaucracy has many advantages, the most important of which are stability and predictability. The foundation of bureaucratic systems is maintaining a rigid administrative procedure, which enables operations to be consistent despite shifting external environments (Lapuente and Suzuki, 2020). For instance, despite shifting political leadership, the UK Home Office consistently issues passports, upholding public confidence. The components of accountability and transparency further support this stability. Each level is accountable to the one above due to the bureaucracies’ inherent chain of command. The UK’s Civil Service Code, which requires civil servants to uphold the principles of integrity, honesty, impartiality, and objectivity, is a clear example. This structure defines roles and fosters public confidence in the system. Comprehensive record-keeping is another one of its strengths. A hallmark of bureaucratic systems, thorough documentation guarantees accountability, historical traceability, and service continuity. It is demonstrated by the fact that the UK’s National Archives in Kew are home to a vast collection of records detailing the administrative history of the country. Additionally, bureaucracies’ inherent labour division encourages specialisation and expertise (Vogel, Vogel, and Reuber, 2022). Division of labour ensures that decisions are well-informed, accurate, and efficient; for example, the HM Treasury is responsible for handling only financial and economic issues.
However, the same organisational framework that helps bureaucracies succeed can also be a significant liability. These systems frequently need help with red tape and inefficiency, primarily due to an excessive emphasis on rules and procedures. Owen (2016) highlighted that the desire for uniformity occasionally takes the form of blatant impersonality, wherein formal procedures take precedence over peculiar circumstances. The “Windrush scandal” is a sobering reminder of this fact, as it details the unjust detention and deportation of legal migrants who had done nothing wrong, all because of rigid adherence to bureaucratic procedures that lacked the required empathy.
Moreover, bureaucratic systems can be resistant to change due to the stability that has come to be associated with them. For instance, the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) faces significant obstacles when attempting to embrace newer technologies swiftly. Although the NHS is a cornerstone of public health in the UK, bureaucratic inertia within the organisation frequently prevents it from making quick changes, even when those changes promise improved efficacy and patient care. Therefore, bureaucracy struggles with inefficiency, impersonality, and an often frustrating resistance to change, but it is undeniably valuable for its stability, predictability, and specialised expertise.
Despite criticism, bureaucracy remains a prominent feature in the public sector due to its various strengths. Its ability to maintain continuity is one of its underappreciated advantages. Regardless of changes in political leadership, bureaucratic structures ensure that operations can continue without interruption. For instance, the UK Foreign Office has maintained consistent diplomatic relations thanks to its bureaucratic infrastructure despite undergoing various administrative changes. Also, these structures are evident in multiple departments, exemplified by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), which effectively oversees extensive systems related to pensions and benefits firmly rooted in bureaucratic procedures. Besides, standardisation is often linked to bureaucracies (Thomas, 2022). Bureaucracies minimise the risk of arbitrariness by ensuring services are delivered consistently by establishing procedures for various tasks. It is demonstrated by the UK’s Driver and Vehicle Licencing Agency’s (DVLA) approach to vehicle registration and driver licensing, which ensures uniformity and fairness in its operations through bureaucratic procedures.
Nevertheless, the persistence of these systems does not necessarily indicate a state of immobility. A growing awareness of bureaucratic shortcomings is accompanied by deliberate efforts to transform them into more responsive organisations. Initiatives like e-Government, which aims to digitise and streamline traditional bureaucratic procedures, fusing tradition with innovation and convenience, serve as an example of this evolution (Lapuente and Suzuki, 2020). Thus, the persistence of bureaucracy in contemporary public administration highlights its practicality and adaptability. It provides a solid framework for contemporary reforms and innovations, ensuring stability in the face of change.
Comparing theory and practice in a more critical context frequently reveals unsettling inconsistencies. Weber’s influential theory on bureaucracy emphasises the importance of efficiency. However, the actual experiences often diverge significantly from this ideal. Despite being firmly rooted in Weberian principles, the UK’s Home Office, for instance, has been subject to criticisms focused on delays and inefficiencies. This discrepancy between theoretical foundations and practical application has widened societal repercussions. Lapuente and Suzuki (2020) illustrated that modern bureaucracies face a challenge in maintaining a fine line between satisfying the public’s demand for more individualised, effective public service delivery and upholding the methodical rigour that ensures consistency.
Upon analysing these observations, it becomes apparent that bureaucracy creates a complex and interconnected system. It is a dynamic entity with undeniable strengths and struggles with its inborn weaknesses rather than an unblemished panacea or a relic of the past. When considering its history, especially in the context of the public sector in the UK, bureaucratic structures cannot be dismissed. Their adaptability, resiliency, and sheer omnipresence highlight their function as the silent scaffolding supporting the structure of contemporary public sector operations. However, as with any system, it requires constant contemplation, modification, and development to ensure it efficiently and equitably meets the needs of its constituents.
2. “What have been the key influences shaping public management reform over the last four decades? Have public sector organisations become more ‘businesslike’? Develop answer to these questions using relevant examples.”
Public management (PM) has changed dramatically over the past forty years. The public sector needs help with reforms to redefine its role, improve efficiency, and increase public value due to political ideology, economic factors, and technological advances. At the core of these discussions lies the thought-provoking enquiry: To what extent has the public sector genuinely adopted businesslike practices?
Political choices, social and economic forces, and global trends interweave to create public management reform history. Under the Thatcher administration, this reform journey began in the 1980s. PM witnessed the beginning stages of market-oriented reforms driven by a neoliberal agenda during this period. Privatisation, contracting out, and deregulation became the norm in the public sector (Colak, 2019). Iconic choices like the privatisation of British Telecom underlined the significance of this change (Nevalainen, 2017). By the 2000s, NPM’s emerge faded. It resulted in a period known as Post-NPM, characterised by a fusion of the traditional ethos of public administration and the market-oriented features of NPM (Colak, 2019). Here, integrating dispersed services and promoting cross-sector collaboration was given renewed attention.
The landscape changed in the 2010s. With technological advancements enabling more streamlined, efficient, and citizen-centric services, digital transformation transformed how public services were delivered—websites like GOV.UK, which provided a centralised portal for various government services, was an example of this trend (Febiri and Hub, 2021). The paradigm shift involved rethinking the citizen’s role from a passive recipient to an active participant, not just in terms of technology.
Accordingly, ‘Public sector bad, private sector good’ was the catchphrase of New Public Management (NPM), which dominated the 1980s and 1990s. NPM promoted outsourcing, market-oriented mechanisms, and a results-based framework to promote a leaner, more effective public sector. Afterwards, the concepts of governance and collaboration emerged as pivotal factors. The Digital Era Governance (DEG), which emphasises the role of technology, also emerged within this context (Colak, 2019). The reintegration, needs-based holism, and digitisation principles of DEG placed technology not just as a tool but as a strategic ally in reimagining the delivery of public services.
As the field of public management develops, the public sector in the UK has begun to operate with more ‘businesslike’ methods. This shift has manifested itself in various ways and has produced significant benefits. Efficiency gains have been one of the most visible benefits of this business-centric shift. Notable privatisations include British Telecom, two former public behemoths. Moreover, institutions like schools and hospitals have been subjected to new metrics like Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and league tables to foster a more performance-oriented mindset (Febiri and Hub, 2021). These metrics sought to inc...