This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Social and political / Contemporary Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Contemporary philosophy Business High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have expanded info on Weber's theories on bureaucracy. Perhaps at some future's date majority of that can be moved to their own specialized articles, but for present I think it is the best home for them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:49, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to mention the film Brazil, which is almost entirely about the dehumanising effects of bureaucracy run wild... not sure which section though. Perhaps a whole new one concerning bureaucracy in literature and film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.204.137 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If one were to do this, maybe include the movie Office Space? It is pretty much how pop culture views the bureaucracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.29.227.4 (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. (Maybe not Office Space, but certainly Brazil.) And perhaps a tounge-in-cheek reference to the bureaucracy of the wiki itself might be fun too, and worthwhile. For instance, that so many of the ideals that are attempted to be portrayed in this encyclopaedia are in such contrast with the pace of modern living. (eg. the tension between the world of blogs as a personal model of expression vs. the wiki as a public model held to certain standards.) Information doesn't seem to be viewed as being inclusive to the wiki if it hasn't been run through the non-virtual publishing bureaucracy first. This seems quite backwards when the entire project of the wiki is founded upon the freedom of the virtual, open-source edit. Is this not stifling, and retrogressive, from a certain vantage point? Not that any of this is definitively true, but that these kinds of ubquitous bureaucratic cages are present (as explored in the film Brazil), seems worth mentioning in any progressive article on bureaucracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.25.7 (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not office space? There could be a section as to movie references eg. Office Space, Pretender, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallman12q (talk • contribs) 23:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went here tying to locate the side effects from the imposed bureaucracy, the old ways(wich are mostly present in Brazil or in any other 3° world contrys). If anyone could write it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.151.191 (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came on here to suggest adding a link to Brazil, but found that it had already been suggested! Wikipedia is pretty freakin cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.83.220 (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If one is going to mention Brazil which i agree is as the person above put it "pretty freakin cool" then one should also mention other bureaucrats in fiction primarily the Vogon from Douglas Adams's acclaimed Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy series those being a race supposedly entirely bureaucratic. Though do mention the Vogons from the audio play and the books rather than the movie version, it really was appalling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJosephVZByrne (talk • contribs) 23:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider including the story Bartleby, the Scrivener and its adaptations, too. Shoreranger (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need a new article regarding bureaucratic agencies as in (US) government. With such points as GS ratings, Senior Executive Service, and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.55.67 (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. Be bold, register and try creating them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following was added by an anon to the bottom. Perhaps it can be incorportated into the text: Some procedures that are created from bureaucracy to solve one particular problem often become another problem within itself due to differing viewpoints and intentions of all members involved in the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piotrus (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some citations? The two sections on Marx and Weber read like OR. POV of the article seems unneccessarily swayed towards Weber. --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 21:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "read like original research"? 99 % of that stuff on weber can be found in a basic University text-book (one of which I have added to sources). And how do you mean "swayed towards Weber?" Weber is the person everyone refers to when introducing the concept of bureaucracy. Yes, one should be careful in adding information without sources but one should be equally careful about filling a page with templates "just because". For example, there is no way one can claim that the sentence "the Oxford English Dictionary cites usage in several different years between 1818 and 1860, prior to Weber's birth in 1864" lacks sources. They are right there. -Samulili 19:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the Peter_principle be mentioned in here somewhere?SMesser 22:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why there is so much Marx in this article. Bureaucracy refers to the methodology of public and private administration. What does this have to do with Marxism in particular? IF Marx should be mentioned (I don't see why), it should not go to the extend of arguing about the feasibility of socialism. That's just totally off topic. Dietwald 09:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I. Marx didn't say much about the topic... With the excetion of the excellent section on Weber written by Piotrus, this article needs a rewrite. I hope to get around to rewriting it myself in the near future, unless someone beats me to it. 172 | Talk 03:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dudes, marx was the first to make considerations from de bureaucracy, and Weber wrote all of his principles in bureaucracy(valids until today), based on Marx!Totaly necessary. For me, you should include Trotsky and Stalin too!The first sense of bureaucracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.151.191 (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Karl Marx section (tagged with original research) should be deleted. I agree with the above comments that it is not relevant. --Vince 18:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps split instead of deletion would be better?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean delete the section and split it up into existing sections? Or make new sections? I think some of the material could be summarized and included in the introduction or a theory section. --Vince 20:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Marx theory on the historical basis for bureaucracy is useful. It might be shortened, worked into the History section, or possibly placed after Weber's theory. It's not merely American & English capitalists who use bureacracies.SMesser 22:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, now – 5 dec 2011 – there's nothing! The article should treat bureaucracy per se before mentioning sociological models for bureaucracy. Karl Marx is regarded as one of the three founding sociologists, the other two being Emile Durkheim and Max Weber. (Weber is the primary modeller of bureaucracy, but I think Marx said important things too when formulating his theory of alienation). Despite Marx'es ideology is seemingly dead and buried, he also made other contributions which are really considered scientific, namely his modelling of capitalist economy, and his sociology. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHA oh I am getting so sick of reading from people who haven't gone in depth with (or read more than a few pages of) marx saying this nonsense about "dead and buried" - marx is one of the most relevant thinkers today. Look around you! Trichometetrahydron (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, but the film is higly relevant to the word "bureacracy". I think it is an excellent idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.167.66 (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says:

"Not allowing people to use common sense, as everything must be as is written by the law. For example: a particular person cannot be convicted even if they are clearly guilty of a crime, simply because the law does not accept the evidence given against them."

But many philosophies consider this procedural justice, not an anomaly of bureaucracy gone wild. Letting someone go who can't be convicted in the eyes of the law? The article says it is against common sense. I say it is common sense. Either way it's POV. I deleted the example. Illuminatingvision 07:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under Criticism: "As Max Weber himself noted, in reality no ideal type organization can exist. Thus the real bureaucracy will be less optimal and effective than his ideal model. Each of Weber's seven principles can degenerate."

This so-called criticism misses the point of Weber's Ideal type, completely. In short not a valid criticism of Weber’s model and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.139.120.169 (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The part you quoted is confusing. I don't think it should be removed but it should be improved, for Weber did point out that "total bureaucracy" will fail. In other words Weber believed that an ideal (pure, ideal type) bureaucracy will not be ideal (good).

Basically, what I think is wrong with those sentences is the word "thus". The two aren't in fact connected. I'll remove the first one. -Samulili 09:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weber did think of ideal as being synonymous with good. He meant ideal type, which means an abstract, pure type.AnaSoc (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marx died in 1883. Weber died in 1920. Yet most of this article tells us what Weber and Marx said. While it is true that this article ought to include these viewpoints--especially Weber's contributions, which are still taught in college courses on bureaucracy--the focus of this article ought to be elsewhere. Our understanding of bureaucracy has progressed considerably since 1883 and 1920. Now, we mostly worry about the policy implications of delegating rule-making powers (among other responsibilities) from elected politicians to unelected bureaucracies. This concern is dominant both in politics (how many times have you heard a campaign advertisment mention "unaccountable bureaucrats?") as well as in academia (which has moved from "iron triangles" to "capture theory" to "police patrols and fire alarms"). Indeed, the bulk of the bureaucratic studies literature focuses exclusively on questions of delegation and policy control: Legislatures delegate regulatory authority to bureaucrats, who may use this authority in unexpected ways.

I wrote a section on these topics a couple months ago (the "Current Debates" section in the article), which should probably be renamed, expanded, and moved upward (IMHO). To make this article relevant to the typical visitor, should we not be focusing more on these issues of accountability and regulation? While Weber's contributions are relevant (probably more so than Marx's), the detailed summary of them available here belongs in a textbook, or in a less prominent part of the present article.

Implementing these suggestions would involve rather radical changes to the article as presently constituted. Although Wikipedia's guidelines encourage us to be bold, I'll forego overhauling the article until waiting for some feedback. (Better yet, since I'm quite pressed for time, perhaps somebody else wants to step up to the plate.)

Apologies for the long rant. A10brown 20:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the Talk page which I created "Government Reform subset Bureaucratic Reform"

I have recently added this talk page with references to my web blog on government Reform at: http://managementconsultant.blogsome.com and my Ebook site at: http://ebooksbylrosier.blogspot.com Reprinted articles are noted but few all other material is my original work and constitutes a break through in Bureaucratic reform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.244.153.189 (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that the wiki adds "nofollow" tags to those links, right? Perhaps your SEO efforts would be better spent elsewhere....

- A10brown 20:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources suggest the Ottoman city of Bursa as the first source of bureaucracy, I see no mention of it in the article though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris.Haamer (talk • contribs) 16:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, alternately, any mention of the extensive Chinese bureaucratic systems that extend back into ancient times. The "Development of Bureaucracy" section seems to assume the ridiculous idea that the first bureaucracy to develop was in the United States. siafu 03:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any good sources on the history of bureaucratic government or authority (Foucault maybe?), but surely the United States is not the origin of the idea. Granted, early bureaucracies weren't called "bureaucracies" or any similar name (bureaucracies precede both the French and English languages after all), but the general idea was already taking shape in the ancient world-- the cursus honorum in the Roman Empire, for example, was a series of bureaucratic posts (aediles and censors in particular), and the ancient Chinese states (even those preceding the Qin Dynasty) were known for their bureaucratic functioning and authority.

So, in short, the section needs a complete rewrite. Anyone have anything to suggest or argue? siafu 22:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--I wrote a description of some of the origins of bureaucracy from ancient Sumer to the modern day. Most of that is based on my own personal knowledge of history, which is pretty thorough. If anyone wants to make any changes, though, that's fine. Segregold 17:55, 17 August 2007

I contributed the bit on the etymology and a bit on the Marxian interpretation. However there exists a large contemporary literature on bureaucracy and therefore I agree the article could be expanded. Both the Marxist and Weberian interpretations have been very influential though. User:Jurriaan 23:57 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The banned user Serafin, editing anonymously, insists on including this information at the top of the article:

"In a literal sense, Bureaucracy means the rule of offices. In democratic systems however political power belongs to the people, and administrative offices are created only for the execution of legal rules not for political or other influences."

It is a complete non sequitur, and contradicts another part of the lead section:

"Examples of everyday bureaucracies include governments, armed forces, corporations, hospitals, courts, ministries and schools."

Of these, only (some) governments are "democratic systems". Yet Serafin insists on making his argument in the lead paragraph, violating WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. -- Karldoh 11:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to restore what was before. Please watch this page, everybody. His edits can be reverted on sight and should be reported, for example at User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin or WP:AIV. Sciurinæ 20:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-section selectively uses definitions to try to prove a POV. In each example, two or more definitions, listed earlier in precedence in the source, do not have any negative connotation to them. I do not suggest that the assertion is entirely false, only that the citations used do not prove the claims made and, in fact, imply the claims are not as widely accepted as indicated. Shoreranger (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the addition of a discussion of Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy will provide sufficient amplification of the typical American attitude toward this institution to account for the negative connotation almost universally accorded the concept of bureaucracy in American culture, in which the bureaucratic imperative [1] — however it manifests — is utterly despised. Indeed, Pournelle's relatively dispassionate criticism of bureaucracy may not go far enough to accurately convey the pure hatred held by the average American for bureaucrats and everything having to do with the institution of bureaucracy in both the private and the public sectors. It does not (for example) address the bureacrat's propensity for sloughing responsibility:[2]

"There's a reason bureaucrats are seen as ass-coverers whose foremost priority is to ensure that they're never accountable for anything. It's because many bureaucrats really are ass-coverers whose overriding priority is to ensure that they're never accountable for anything. As a corollary, if things go wrong, support for the idea that you predicted it may be helpful in building your bureaucracy's importance at the expense of its rivals.

"This is as true within corporations as it is in the public sector or the military. If you've spent much time in the working world, you've seen this tendency in action."

...which is (in American eyes) particularly despicable for its abject cowardice as well as its wastefulness, ineffectiveness, and inherently obstructionist effects.

Hm. And while we're at it, how come we're not discussing the sheer Vogosity of bureaucracy?

This attitude toward the bureaucrats doesn't really seem to be an exclusively American peculiarity at all, does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.140.111 (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presently, the article credit Thomas Lowi (1971) for coining the phrase. It's been quite a while since I've checked the original sources, but I've usually seen credit going to Douglass Cates, Power in Washington, which was published quite a few years earlier (1964) by Random House. I'm not a registered "user," but I have no objections to having my "IP address" recorded -- I'm professor Wm. Freudenburg, UCSB <freudenburg@es.ucsb.edu> if anyone wants to follow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.76.21 (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section of the work of the French Sociologist Michel Crozier - I was surprised to find that there was no mention of his work here although his work is widely cited in the French speaking world [[3]]

Compo (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucracy is a formal organization based on rationality and efficiency. ^[1] And also add in the reference. Smallman12q (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, perhaps a wiktionary link would help.

Bureaucracy is one of the most misspelled words in the English language. Even google calmly accepts the misspelling beaurocrasy without further comment. Can we redirect Beaurocrasy to Bureaucracy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.12.184 (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} This article show the "broken references" warning. I suppose you know how to fix that one. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was because those footnotes were defined below the reflist function. Fixed by removing them. Martin^msgj 22:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the fact that Scientology, despite claiming to be a religion, operates more like a money-grubbing cult^[1], I think that Scientology could be classified as a bureaucracy. However, the article isn't very clear on the structure of its organization, such as who ranks where, how labor is divided, the qualifications to be employed by an institution of Scientology, and how promotions can occur (among other features of a bureaucracy.) So, does Scientology bear the trappings of a bureaucracy, or am I just deluding myself? --Luigifan (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Max Weber, it's not very much a bureaucratic, but rather a charismatic organization. For the rest see Scientology, and take a look on Jehovah's Witnesses and Landmark Education regarding building their organizations entire existence on expensively sold cheap-quality products. Regarding relation between bureaucracy and power, examine the Debian/GNU/Linux distribution (see this image): no top power (except a weak democratic presidency), no profit, heavy and slow but still efficient bureaucracy. Things aren't simple, bureaucracy doesn't necessarily come from the high bosses, isn't necessarily profitable, and isn't necessarily evil. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Marx, Weber and the like get so much attention, I think Mises might be worth a look in?

"Mises's 1944 book applies his insight concerning economic calculation to delineate the difference between bureaucratic management and profit-and-loss management in the free market. The implications of his argument are far reaching, for it shows that all types of public administration lack the ability to conduct their affairs in an economic rational manner." http://mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp

I'd suggest just as an external link, but a little section might be ok too.Larklight (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the addition at the top of a direct to the Wikipedia guideline WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY would be good. Fences and windows (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI - the section of "criticism" seems to be plagiarized from this book:

Chattopadhyay, H.P., and Indu Baghel. Indian Administration Vol. 1. New Dehli: Global Vision Publishing House, 2009. Print.

http://books.google.com/books?id=-wfGxBk09uAC&pg=PR3&dq=Chattopadhyay,+H.P.,+and+Indu+Baghel.+Indian+Administration&hl=en&ei=YZrIS6rMIcH-8Aa6g52LBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Chattopadhyay%2C%20H.P.%2C%20and%20Indu%20Baghel.%20Indian%20Administration&f=false

Just try searching for that first phrase "As Max Weber himself noted, real bureaucracy will be less optimal and effective than his ideal type model. " and you'll find it on page 89.130.156.46.252 (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)TIMER[reply]

Thanks for finding the similarity! It looks, though, as if they copied from Wikipedia. The book claims its first edition is 2009. That sentence has been in the article since January 2007, where it matured from a seed planted in June 2005. I'm not sure how extensive the copying may be in that book, but if it should prove to be extensive, {{backwardscopyvio}} might be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closer examination tells me they've been quite liberal with their taking from the article. Pages 84-91 seem to be nearly verbatim. I'm tagging the article accordingly; if they have not properly cited Wikipedia, content contributions to this article can see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for potential remedies. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} Add citation for Bureaucracy:

USLaw.com Dictionary (http://www.uslaw.com/us_law_dictionary/b/Bureaucracy)

168.68.1.127 (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Is this really necessary? They have the definition well cemented using other resources? -- Crazysane (^T/_C\^D) 17:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article itself has asked for many citations and refernces, and a legal source normally does well. This may be away of the user trying to put his two-cents in, I have replaced the template with {{edit semi-protected}} until we get a user reply either way. --Wolfnix • Talk • 18:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC) If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.[reply]

I ran across this in the Illinois employer handbook: http://www.ides.state.il.us/employer/magnetic-filing.asp

Though someone mite want to use it to talk about some of the possible side effects of bureaucracy.

Smittycity42 (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)smittycity42[reply]

The article says "The Sumerian script was so complicated that it required specialists who had trained for their entire lives in the discipline of writing to manipulate it."

Is Sumerian really more complicated than, say, English (which, after all, has no systematic rules for spelling)?

I suspect the real problem is this: in a primarily non-literate culture, where only a few people learn to read and write, these few people will form a class that is very hard to enter. After, most of us here spent years learning to read and write; if schools weren't widespread this would seem like a mammoth undertaking. But that doesn't mean we "trained for our entire lives" in order to read and write. It just feels that way when we're in high school or college.  :-)

Hmm, but I guess if the life expectancy were about 30-40 years, it would be closer to true...

Anyway: I'm questioning whether Sumerian is really particularly complicated as written languages go.

John Baez (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't mean to be a pain, but in the Weber section it says:

"However, he also emphasized that bureaucracy becomes inefficient when a decision must be adopted to an individual case."

I think there's a grammar/spelling issue here. Shouldn't it either be adapted to an individual case or adopted for an individual case?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebeccawidom (talk • contribs) 19:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This recent edit removed the {{Over detailed|section}} tag, suggesting that the material was in fact "pretty short". Given that this chunky section deals with just one writer—the only one to get such treatment in this broad-brush article—wouldn't WP:UNDUE be more appropriate? If Crozier does have sufficient significance over the topic to warrant an individual mention then a WP:SS template would do, otherwise treat him in the same way as the others, with a "see also" link at the foot of the page.

Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely WP:UNDUE. What's there actually refers to Weber but doesn't discuss it first. Makes no sense. Shoreranger (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked at this article for some time - it looks like it has been hacked about a bit. Including Marx was always a moot point, the material on Crozier was too detailed and needed to be reduced but cutting out Weber is going to far. The problem is not that Crozier is too long for only one author, it is the fact that he is the only author left! Compo (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section removed, leaving only the link to his WP page. Max Weber likewise. Is there scope for a more general section to deal with academic study of the topic, along the lines suggested by User:Compo? --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now perhaps I am confused here, but I thought this was a social and political philosophy article (see the rather confusing list of categories at the bottom of the page) - I find it a bit difficult to even think about an article that deals with social and political philosophy that does not include at least some consideration of the academic study of the topic. Like I said before, it seems to me that the article has been subject to some over zealous hacking that was intended to clean it up but has actually resulted a lot of stuff that was central to the original article being cut out. Compo (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take that as a "yes", then: a section dealing with bureaucracy as an academic subject is required. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} the term "bureaucracy" was first coined by Vincent de Gournay, a french economist in 1745. he stated,"we have an illnes in france which bids fair to play havoc with us; this illness is called Burreaumania." In French word 'bureau' means a desk.

Er.avijit.pandey (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Atmoz (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A series of recent edits have removed almost the entire content of the article: [4]. I am not sure if this improved the article, much content was unreferenced, but was roughly correct and useful (for example, the Weber section). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the second thought, most of that was quite bad. Interested editors can find the content in the history of the article, maybe something is salvageable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of it was at least good enough to be included in a published book - see the "Plagiarism" discussion above. It seems that a hatchet was used on this article when a knife, if not a scalpel, would have been the proper instrument. Shoreranger (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are more then welcome to try to salvage anything from the past mess. I am an inclusionist, so I'd support restoring old content - but let's try to reference it first... and yes, there was some total garbage in the mix, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The initial "the purpose of a bureaucracy" blub reads more like an advertisement and less like something that distinguishes a bureaucracy from an non-bureaucracy. Heck, the sentence would not lose any meaning if "bureaucracy" was changed to "form of government" or "organizational methodology". The distinguishing characteristic between a bureaucratic and a non-bureaucratic organization seems to be the the former has its activities or governance split across a number of "bureaus", "departments", or other groupings. Admittedly, today, it seems like an obvious necessity for larger organizations. Still, the initial text should list the defining characteristic. Mike Mondy (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Mike[reply]

I just removed the material below from the article, because it's biased and has no sources. I think it would be fine to add something like this back once it's properly sourced, and balanced by differing points of view. If nobody else does that I will try to come back and do it myself; I can't do it right now though. Sue Gardner (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

==Negative Stereotypes==

"In modern use, the term bureaucracy refers to an organization that has a combination of the following traits: inefficent, slow moving, uncreative, wasting of time, money, and resources, making ineffectual decisions based on misinformation passed up through overly complex chains of command and control, having complex and overly hierachical structures, confusing and overly complex rules and procedures that defeat the purpose of the rules. Bureacracies are said to create red tape. Example, to bog^{[clarification needed]} down progress and wrap the project in red tape. Another common expression related with bureaucracy is "Too many chiefs and not enough Indians" referring to the fact that poorly functioning bureaucratic structures are often^{[weasel words]} overly top heavy and operate in unproductive circular motions without forward progress.^{[original research?]}"

-- You raise a good point, but I think the negative connotations of the word bureaucracy should be a section in the overall topic, rather than characterising the entire topic. Many people don't like paying tax but you wouldn't expect the opening sentence of the Wiki entry for 'Tax' to present it negatively; you would expect an objective presentation of the topic. This Wiki page opens with bureaucracy being defined as creating red tape and other negative connotations. kabl00ey (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the article have been absurdly pruned to only contain Max Weber. Max Weber isn't bureaucracy. He didn't invent it, and presumably he didn't even invent the term, he is one of the main founding sociologers modelling it. The article should contain:

1. the etymology of the word "bureaucracy", what it meant, and what it means today (w references),

2. how bureaucracies were described by various scientists, and how they defined it, and how they modelled it.

Personally I believe the Romans invented bureaucracy based on my observations from reading the Asterix cartoon, but an alternative theory is that the Roman Catholic church modified it extensively, and then offered it as a holy gift to ruling almost-christian barbarian kings in migration age Europe. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are trying to put togehter a comprehensive list of relevant models, don't forget the Aston Group's achievements. Besides, Henry Mintzbergs configurations, Charles Handy's cultures, all contain significant bureaucratic elements. In its current state, this article is very sorry. Yotwen (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as almost every edit in January is vandalism. Perhaps some in December as well. Jokeyxero (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is terrible. This is an important subject for people to understand, Wikipedia contributors shouls do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.76.223 (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed completely. The summary is particularly dreadful. It's full of bias and irrelevance, although I am unfortunately not adequately qualified to re-write it myself. I hope someone who knows what they're doing comes along and resolves this. Cheers. 172.248.191.33 (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Four years later, and we're still waiting for that Hero.* Double Plus Ungood (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article begins as if "bureaucracy" were a term referring exclusively to public ("governmental") organizations. Regardless of how one views bureaucracy, all organization theorists worthy of the name now recognize that "bureaucracy" refers to the structure of the organization, whether publicly- or privately-owned. I have more to say on this topic much further down the page. Landrumkelly (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the page had some flaws back in January 2011, but at least it contained useful material. Since then, it's been pruned out of existence. Revert and try again? 190.42.170.72 (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors were in agreement, over a period of several months, that the referencing was inadequate and that some of what was left was given undue prominence. The deletions were a valid response: see "Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed" in WP:V. Better, perhaps, not to reinstate but to start from scratch, making sure everything is referenced and balanced as we go. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it was much better before. This article is unbalance and misleading as it is. Shoreranger (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence from the introductory paragraph: " In other words, a government bureaucracy carries out the decisions of the legislature or democratically-elected representation of a state."

It implies that bureaucracies only exist in democratic systems of government, and do not exist in non-democratic forms (ie dictatorships, communism, etc). CDB-Man (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"individual power-seekers in creating politicized organizations characterized by internal conflict"

and what in the name bourgeois socioligist crap does the above mean?. Bureacracy is formed in the interest of the Capitalist ruling class for their benefit. It will fade away in the ensuing Socialist and then Communist socio-economic relations of production — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.200.133 (talk • contribs)

-----
Please sign your posts with the four tildes: ~~~~

Bureaucracies exist an any large organization. They are needed to carry out the functions of the organization.

Does a dictator not need a bureaucracy to implement his/her policies, such as propaganda or taxation? Does a Socialist government not need a bureaucracy to run all of their social programs, such as health care or or social security?

My quote from the article, " In other words, a government bureaucracy carries out the decisions of the legislature or democratically-elected representation of a state." the quote is implying bureaucracies ONLY exist to carry out the decisions of a legislature or democratic representation, to the exclusion on non-legislature/democratic governments (ie dictatorships/autocrats). But like I described, any large organization, such as a government, needs a bureaucracy to implement its functions.

CDB-Man (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC); Edited: CDB-Man (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved it from the lead to the section to one on modern bureaucracy since it is talking solely about modern application and is an inappropriate for the lead for a topic that covers thousands of years of applications most of which have NOTHING to do with democracies. WP:UNDUE.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this article has been trimmed to the point that it contains almost no relevant information, and is a hollow shell. it needs a fresh start, with accurate, cited information. Aunva6 (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a solid outline of the subject with accurate, cited information. This included a description of bureaucracy, etymology of the historical origins of the word, historical examples of bureaucracies, and theoretical approaches to understanding this system of government. Everything was carefully sourced.

This revision was deleted by the site's editors. However, you can still find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bureaucracy&oldid=517350592

Feel free to expand and improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.193.65 (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like an explanation of why all the information was trimmed. it was all sourced and neutral. I do not see ANY reason for the information to have been trimmed. Aunva6 (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content in that revision looks great, and I also wonder why it was removed. If nobody objects, I am going to begin re-adding parts of it. Shirudo talk 23:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've finally gotten around to attempting to bring back parts of the good version, I've realized that there have been practically no additions to the article since that time, other than the Imperial China section (which can easily be re-added). Since the old version is so radically better, I believe the best course of action is to just revert to it and re-add the few things which have been added since then, rather than add the old article in piece by piece to the current very skimpy and mostly unreferenced article. Shirudo talk 00:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The areas that might benefit from updating is "The German sociologist, Max Weber, argued that bureaucracy constitutes the most efficient..." is missing commas before and after "Max Webers" name.

"Here, too, the sense was pejorative, with Irish novelist Lady Morgan referring to "the Bureaucratie, or office tyranny, by which Ireland has so long been governed."[19]  There doesn't need to be a comma after pejorative.  Mel29g (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bureaucracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141222072511/http://www.civilservant.org.uk:80/northcotetrevelyan.pdf to http://www.civilservant.org.uk/northcotetrevelyan.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100101031942/http://www.businessweek.com:80/1996/44/b34991.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/1996/44/b34991.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My plan for contributing to the Bureaucracy article in Wikipedia is focused on adding a section on women in bureaucracy. This is a widely discussed topic in academia with many scholarly conversations to back it up. With my plan I will be adding on a section to the end of the article that expands the term of bureaucracy and how it relates to women/ women in charge. I plan to start with statistics of women in the bureaucracy and go into explaining the barriers that women face when trying to rise to positions of power in bureaucratic agencies. I will also talk about the effect of the lack of representation of women in the bureaucracy in terms of passive and active representation including policy areas women represent and what in turn it means for their constituents. My main source, “Some Ceilings Have More Cracks: Representative Bureaucracy in Federal Agencies” by Amy Smith,^[1] outlines the number of women in bureaucratic agencies and the glass ceiling they experience. I will use this article to get statistics on the number of women in the federal bureaucracy and how it relates to the number of men. I will use my other sources to get information on how women struggle to reach positions of power in bureaucratic agencies. One of my sources proposes a theory that women are put in charge of agencies that are seen as weak or set for failure. It includes proper research to support this concept. AfWill (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AfWill: Can I ask why this is important and relevant. Your arguments do hold for many organisations, but seem to have to do more with "old boys" network of men promoting men to high positions and less with bureaucracy as a system. That many institutions, both commercial and governmental happen to have this problem with women representation and at the same time happen to be bureaucracies does not justify the link (it seems more like a spurious relationship than anything else). To make your point it is essential to develop the argument (supported by reliable secondary sources) that bureaucracies (regardless of their current gender balance in staffing) favour men over women. Arnoutf (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Arnoutf: Thanks for your input! If you look at my source you'll see that it focuses specifically on women in bureaucracy and the effect of representation on policy implementation. My sources are specific to bureaucratic agencies as the lack of representation of women leads to different issues in bureaucracies specifically than elected bodies. Adding a section on women's representation in bureaucratic agencies is supported by wikipedia's goal to act as a comprehensive source that contains extensive information. This is an active issue with scholarly conversation. By adding a section of women's role in the bureaucracy I will be adding on information that is relevant and important to the topic. AfWill (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is indeed an active topic in scholarly discussion than it would make sense to add this. But please make sure that you include multiple sources, as scientific papers are considered primary sources regarding their own findings. Also carefully read the papers as in my experience political and policy science papers sometimes present a normative outlook as the core of their argument / analysis. This is not necessarily wrong or bad science, but it makes it even more a primary source. All the best in developing this. Arnoutf (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Arnoutf: Thank you for the advice! I will keep it in mind as I go forward with adding information to this article. AfWill (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the addition. Because this section focused on the U.S., I moved the info to Government employees in the United States. I also condensed it down a bit. Kfc 930 (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is almost no mention of PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS AS BUREAUCRACIES! What there is is buried deep in the article. I have taught in two graduate programs in public administration since the early 1980s (and in undergraduate programs in public administration since 1977), as well as offered the occasional course on modern organizations/organizational behavior in a business department. The bureaucratic form of social organization is ubiquitous in modern society, and everything that Weber wrote about publicly-owned organizations can as easily be applied to private organizations. My view is not "marxist." Among organization theorists (and I am one, along with being a political theorist) such a perspective is mainstream. The article says next to nothing about (typically large) private organizations as being inherently bureaucratic, but the way the article leads off suggests that bureaucracies are inherently public in nature. They are NOT. This results in a gross distortion of readers' understanding of modern organizations, almost all of which are bureaucratic in nature. Lest I be misunderstood, both private and public organizations tend to be bureaucratic in nature. Weber's descriptors of "bureaucracy" are the same, whether the organization is publicly-owned or privately-owned. We can argue here forever about both the positive and negative aspects of bureaucratization in culture, but we must first make clear to readers that bureaucracy in itself is not inherently something having to do with the public sphere. It is NOT. --J. Landrum Kelly, Ph.D., (Florida) Landrumkelly (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AfWill.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging in nearest future AI and self-aware, self-conscious AI will lead to birth of self-making AI. That may have a potential of creating pure AI micro and macro societies. A human competition with AI is not only possible, it is one of the scenarios of AI developing and auto-recognizing itself in human society.

As such AI very unlikely inherit or create a system of bureaucracy for its own society. Every innovation or invention that AI brings to life would go seamlessly from idea to production without relying on a bureaucratic system , registering, reporting and so on.

At the peaceful stage of competition between human society and that of AI society - human system of bureaucracy might be severely diminished or even destroyed - in order to be able to compete with non-bureaucratic AI society(societies).

A human bureaucracy system might experience a severe blow as a result of such competition. AI would minimize time between making a decision and executing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerraliberta (talk • contribs) 16:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinions on whether The Utopia of Rules should be given weight here? It's cited 683 times in Google Scholar as of this writing.[5] Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The use of Ashanti Empire, the United Kingdom, and France as the three examples of "Modern" bureaucracy is odd. While the Ashanti Empire is worthy of greater recognition, I don't think that its bureaucratic systems and processes are sufficiently understood to make meaningful contributions to our understanding of bureaucracy itself. In place of (or in addition to) the Ashanti Empire, I would argue that the United States has relevancy to the study of bureaucracy and would be of interest to readers. Elements of interest would be the history of the federal government bureaucracy during the times of the founding fathers and the patronage of Andrew Jackson, the development of the merit system through mechanisms like the Pendleton Act, and the difficulty in measuring the size of the American bureaucracy.

Another interesting element of modern bureaucracy would be the rise of multinational organizations such as the EU and the United Nations. JSF2009 (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)JSF2009[reply]