Some notes from Wilson's Bureaucracy

Some notes from Wilson's Bureaucracy

There has been much talk recently about the ineffectiveness of government in dealing with pressing social problems. The U.S. federal government currently employs over 3.1 million people-- The Executive branch with its 14 departments (State, Defense, Justice, etc.) and 16 Independent Agencies (Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), National Aeronautics and Space Association (NASA), etc. employ over 3 million workers, alone. When combined with the 15.2 million people employed by state and local governments, the "public bureaucracy" comprises a significant proportion of America's 125 million person labor force.

James Q. Wilson is one of this country's foremost scholars on the subject of U.S. government bureaucracy, having been Harvard's Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Government for 25 years before moving to UCLA as a professor of management. With nine books and numerous articles in academic journals, he has achieved a remarkable level of scholarship and knowledge. He shares much of that knowledge in his book, Bureaucracy.

One of the things that I mentioned in class was that Wilson provided insight into how private, non-government "interest groups" exert influence over public (government) agencies. These interest groups can be anything from small citizens' organizations or large businesses and corporations. In his book he says that there are four "political environments" that determine the influence of outside interests on a government agency, (p. 76). I'll describe these shortly, but first I must mention that in some cases, a corporate industry may capture a federal agency which means that the corporation will exert tremendous control over it. (I must point out that Wilson has argued that the ability to capture a public agency has weakened because of 4 things: 1.) the appointment of single administrators 2.) the imposition of stricter campaign finance laws; 3.) the "decentralization" of congress; and 4.) broadened access to the courts-- private parties can sue the government of a broader list of issues and the government must foot the cost of the legal bill if the agency loses).

Now, returning to the four political environments that determine how outside interests influence a public agency (You need only to concern yourself with the first, but read the others for a fuller understanding of what Wilson is saying:

In the first environment a dominant interest group favors its respective agency's goals and practices what Wilson calls, "client politics." The government agency becomes a CLIENT AGENCY. The example that I gave in class involved the Civil Aeronautics Board. It needs the support of the industry to do its job, but must fend off the attempts by the single dominating industry to control it. Otherwise, it is "captured." (I also mentioned that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as another example, but this is a bit more complicated. The NHTSB must rely on the auto industry for support because it does not have sufficient resources of its own to do all that it must do, but there is an important difference as explained, below:

In the second political environment, we have a situation like this—A powerful, grass-roots, social movement emerges in response to a social problem. An example would be auto safety. In the 1960s Ralph Nader led a consumer movement that demanded strong government standards for highway (and automobile) safety. As a result, politicians in Washington create a government agency whose responsibility is to solve the problem. Wilson calls such an agency an ENTREPRENEURIAL AGENCY and an example of such an agency is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The NHTSA exists in an environment where a dominant interest group (the automotive industry) may oppose the agency’s goals. This agency, according to Wilson must practice "entrepreneurial politics" and hope that the social movement that founded it and supports it does not dissolve. Without social activists providing political support to the agency, the danger of being captured by the auto industry increases. For an example of the relationship between the NHTSA and Ford Motor Company, see the following web site (Pinto Madness): <http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/SO77/dowie.html>

For the record, here are the other two political environments: The third exists where two or more rival interest groups that conflict over a particular agency's goals. Wilson says that in this situation you will encounter "interest-group politics" and he calls such an agency an "INTEREST GROUP AGENCY" (An example would be the Occupational Health and Safety Administration). Agency directors are particularly challenged in this situation because must pick the right interest group to support at the right time

The last political environment is where no important interest group exists in the operational area of an agency. Wilson calls this "majoritarian politics" and such an agency is a "MAJORITARIAN AGENCY" (Here, an example would be the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department). The big challenge here is to be careful to act in a way that doesn't create enemies. If you don’t do this interest groups and social movements may form to capture your agency and direct its course of action.

Top of Page