NotesandReferencesFull publication details of works cited will be found in the Bibliography.

IntroductionI Parliamenrary Debates, House of Commons Official Report, Vol. 757, no. 48,

January 29, 1968, col. 885, ' Growth of Bureaucracy'.2 Ibid., col. 967. The speaker was Mr J. W. Pardoe, Liberal member for

Cornwall, North.3 Ibid., col. 980. Mr George Lawson, Labour member for MotherweU, reply­

ing to Sir Harmar Nicholls, Conservative member for Peterborough.4 W. R. Sharp, "La Developpement de la Bureaucratie aux Btats-Unis",

RevuedesSciences Politiques, Vol. So, 1927, p. 394.5 F. Morstein Marx, 'Bureaucracy and Consultation', Reviewof Politics, Vol.

1,1939, p. 87:6 In Readerin Bureaucracy, edited by R. K. Merton et al., J952, and Bureau­

cracy and Bureaucratization, a trend report and bibliography by S. N.Eisenstadt, J958.

1/The Emergence of the ConceptVincent de Goumay (1712-59) translated infhlential writers on economics,such as Child and Culpepper, into French. Himself an intendant du com­merce, he was an important member of the group of economists known asthe Physiocrats . For biographical details see G. ScheUe, Vinunt deGournay,J897.

2 Baron de Grimm and Diderot, Correspondance, Litt/raire, Philosphique etCritique, 1753~9, 1813 edn, VoL 4, p. J46. De Gournay's verbal inventive­ness appears to have been considerable. The slogan, 'kzissez faire, laissezpasser', has also been attributed to him.

3 Ibid., p. 508. Letter of July J5, 1765.4 D. Wamotte in "Bureaucratie et Fonetionnairisme", 1937, recounts that de

Goumay invented the term after a visit to Hamburg in J745 but gives nosource for this story.

5 N. Machiavelli, The Prince, Ch. 22.6 See H. G. Creel, "The Beginnings of Bureaucracy in China : The Origin

of the Hsien", 1964.7 Dktionnairede la LangueFrancoise, Supplement, J798.8 J. H. Campe, W6rterbuch zu Erklllnmg und VertleutschUfrl der unseren

Sprache aufgedrungenenfremden Ausdracke, Braunschweig 18J3, p. 16J.9 M. A. Marchi, Dizionario Technico-Etimilogico-Filologico,MiIan J828,p. 138.

10 Honore de Balzac, Les Employ/s, 1836, translated by B. Marriage asBureaucracy, 1898, p. 84.

II F. Le Play, .La R/form4 Sociale en France, 1864, p. 237.12 B. Littre, Dictionnaire dela Langue FranfOise, Hachette, Paris 1873.13 M. Block, Petit Dictionnaire Politique et Social,Perrin, Paris, 1896, p. 94­14 H. Schuh, Deutsches Fremdworterbuch, Trllbner, Straasburg 1913, p, 102.

128/Notes and References

IS C. J. Kraus, Vermischte Schriften, Nicolovius, Konigsberg 1808, p. 247.16 W. von Humboldt, Ideen zu einem Versuch die Grdnzen der Wirksamkeit des

Staats zu bestimmen, first published 185[.17 Die Briefe des Freiherrn von Stein an den Freiherrn von Gagern 181;-18J1,

Cotta, Stuttgart 1833. pp . 90-2, letter of August 24, 1821.18 K. Heinzen, Die Preussische Bureaukratie, 1845, p. II. It is worth noting

Stein's emphasis on the caste nature of the bureaucrats. Marx was familiarwith Heinzen's work and would have come across this passage by Stein inHeinzen, if not in the original.

19 J. J. von Gorrcs, Europa und die Revolution, 1821, p, 149.20 J. J. von Gorres, Deutschland und die Revolution, 1819.21 In the translation by J. Black (Longrnans, London 1820) it was rendered as

'regulated on the principle of offices or bureaus' (p . 253). In the anonymoustranslation in The Pamphleteer (London 1820), it was omitted throughabridgement.

22 Tour in England, Ir eland, and France, by a German Pr ince (Prince vonPUckler-Muskau), tr. by Mrs S. Austen, Effingham, Wilson, London 1832,P·34·

23 The Popular Encyclopaedia, Blackie, Glasgow 1837, p. 755,24 Thomas Car lyle, Latter Day Pamphlets, No. IV, "The New Downing

Street", April IS, 1850, in Collected Works, Vol. 19, Chapman and Hall,London [870, p , 173.

25 H . Spencer, The Study of Sociology, tst cdn 1837; 1961, p. III.26 Arnout O'Donnel, "State Education in France", p. 583.27 J. S. Blackie, "Prussia and the Prussian System", passim .28 J. S. Mill, Principlesof Political Economy, Vol. 2, p, 528.29 J. S. Mill, On Liberty, 1892 eOO, p, 66.30 J. S. Mill, Considerationson Representative Government, p. II3.3 I Ibid., p. II4.32 Ibid., p . lIS.33 Ibid., p. II7.34 W. Bagehot, The Eflglish Constitution, 1963 coo, p. 197.35 Ibid., p. 198.36 E. Fischel, Die Ver/assung Englands, 1862, pp. 132-6 and 249-52.37 F. von Schulte, "Bureaucracy and its Operation in Germany and Austria-

Hungary", p. 456.38 Ibid., p. 432.39 Ibld., p. 458.40 Ibid., p. 433.41 See A. Lang, Life, Letters and Diaries of Sir Stafford Northcote, Blackwood,

Edinburgh and London 1890, Vol. 2, p. 219.42 Published in book form the following year as The Man versus the State, they

were entitled "Tile New Toryism", "The Coming Slavery", "The Sins ofthe Legislators", and "The Great Political Superstition".

43 H. Spencer, The Man versus the State, p. 33. In an cssay of 1871, "Speci­alized Administration", Spencer outlined his theory of the negative role ofthe state and his absolute opposition to positive interference.

44 F. C. Montague, The Limits of Individual Liberty, p, 229.45 A. S. Green, "Growing Bureaucracy and Parliamentary Decline", 1900.46 "The Encroaching Bureaucracy" (anonymous), The Quarter(y Review,

1917, p. 52.47 J. Ramsay Muir, Peers andBureaucrats, p. 8.48 Ibid., p. 14-

Notes aIId References/129

49 Ibid., p. 22.SO L. von Stein, DN Vcrwa!tungslehre, znd eOO 1869, p. 14-SI A good source in English is H. C. Johnson's "Concept of Bureaucracy in

Cameralism". 196+ This is somewhat unhappily-titled since, as the authorstates, the term 'bureaucracy' was not current in the writing he discusses,and indeed the German concept of bureaucracy was developed to highlighta contrast with cameralist thinking,

SZ See in particular the frequently cited text by a Westphalian finance minister,C. A. von Malchus, Politik der inneren StaatSfler,walrung, 18z3, especiallyPl'. S-8.

S3 Allgemeine deursche Real-Encyclopaedie oder Conflcrsationslexikon, Brock­haus, Leipzig, Sth eOO 1819, Vol. 2, p. 1S8.

S4 Heinzen, op. cit., p. 12.SS F. Rohmer, Deutschlandsalt«und neueBureaukratit, 1848, p . 1. An anony­

mous article of 18S7, "Der bureaukratische Staat nach seinem Ausgangs­punkt und Ziel", offered yet another solution to bureaucracy in the form ofa society based on professional groups.

S6 As, for instance, in Das Staatslexicon, edited by K. von Rotteck and K.Welcker, 18S9, and Deutsches Staatsworterbuch, edited by J. C. Bluntschliand K. Beater,18S7.

S7 Conversationslexicon, Brockhaus, Leipzig 1864, Vol. 3, Pl'. 873......S8 Stein, op. cit., p, 287.59 R. von Mohl, "Ueber Bureaukratie", 1862 coo, claims that after 1846

everyone began to discuss this topic.60 Ibid., p . 108.61 K. Brater, in Bluntsch1i and Brater, op. clt., p. 294 strongly deprecsted this

usage.6z J. Olszewski, Bureaukratie, 1904. This volume has gone unnoticed in the

Anglo-Saxon-literature. It appears to be the first separate volume devotedwholly to the topic of bureaucracy, but a full length study entitled "LaBurocrazia e il Govemo Parlamentare", by I. Santangelo Spoto appearedtwo yeaxs earlier in the Biblioteca di ScUMePolitiche eAmminim"ative, editedby A. Brunialti. Relying largely on the sources discussed in this chapter,this study is concerned with the genesis and structure of bureaucracy, itsorganization in Italy and France, its reform, and the idea of responsiblebureaucracy:

63 F. Le Play, op. cit., Pl'. 236-5.64 For instance L. Vivien's Etudes Administratifles, 1845. IIIIIkes no reference

to the problem.6S A. de TocquevI1le, L'Ancien Regime et la Riwhaion, 8th edn 1877, p. 246.66 P. Leroy-Beaulieu, L'Etat Moderne et ses Ponctions, especiallyp. 49 and

Pl'. 80-8.

2/The Classical formulations1 The edition wasdated 1896.2 In his Sulla Teorica dd GOfierm , ml GOfiernoPar~ 1884, Ch . 1.3 Ibid., p. 18.4 Storia delle Dottritul Politiche, 1933, Ch, 40. An BDglish tranIlation of this

chapter is given by J. H. Meiselat the end of TINM:Jth oj tJr,RillingClass,19S8.

5 See "The Anti-Aristotelianism of GaetanO Moac:a md its Fate". by R.Sereno in Ethiu. Vol.48. 1937-38.

130/Notes and Referenas

6 Sulla Teorica, p. 19 as translated by Meisel, op, cit., p, 32.7 In the Storia he added the city state to make a third type.8 The importance Mosca attached to bureaucracy was a feature of TM Ruling

Class which represented a novel development compared with his earlierSulla Teorica. ~ Meisel (op. cit., p. 137), says, it was introduced 'rathersuddenly'. It is not possible to ascertain what, if any, new influences hadaffected Moeca.

9 The last six chapterS of the English edition of TM RulingClasswere writtenin 1920-23. These were especially marked by their opposition to bureau­cratic rule, but it is also evident in the earlier chapters.

10 TM RulingClass,pp, 142-3. Subsequently (p. 284) Mosca said, 'Communistand collectivist societies would beyond any doubt be managed by officials'.This snccessful prediction should encourage all who despair of the pre­dictive powers of social science.

II Ibid., p. 134­12 Ibid., p. 269-13 As Meisel points out (op. cit., pp. 196-206) Mosca never bothered to define

bureaucracy and he neglected Max Weber and his school,14 Mosca, op, cit., pp. 83-4-IS Published in German as Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modemen

Demokrati«;16 Mosca, op. cit., p. 365.17 Ibid., p. 338.18 The fatalism of-Michels's approach as compared with Mosca's was reflected

in their political careers. Believing oligarchy inevitable Michels supportedthe Fascists in Italy, whereas Mosca never joined them.

19 See above, p, 32.20 The best account of Weber's substantive sociological work is that of R.

Bendix, Max Web8r, An Intellectual Portrait, 1960.21 The first, "Weaen, Voraussetzungen und Entfaltung der bUrokratischen

Herrschaft", stemmed from the years 19II-I3 and appeared on pp . 559-87of Wirtsclw/t und Gesellschaft 4th edn (cited henceforward as WuG). It hasbeentranslated by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mi1ls on pp. 196-244 oftheirselection FromMax Weber:Essaysin Sociology, 1948. The second, writtenbetween 1918-20, appeared in WuG, pp. 125-3°. It has been translated byA. M. Hendenon and T. Parsons in The TMory of Social and EconomicOrganisation, 1947, pp. 329-41.

22 "Parlament und Regierung im neugeordneten Deutschland", wasreprintedin Max Weber's Gesammelte Politische Schrijten,2nd edn 1958, pp. 294-431(henceforward referred to as GPS).

23 A very recent example of emphasis upon the methodology of Weber'swriting on bureaucracy is N. MoU2elis,Organization and Bureaucracy, 1967.For an article interpreting Weber's theory as an expression of a philosophyof history see A. Gouldner, "Metaphysical Pathos and the Theory ofBureaucracy", Atneriam PoliticalScience RefJiefll, Vol. 49, 1955. This issuewill be diacuased funher in the next chapter.

24 In Henderson and Parsom,op. cit., see pp. I45-S2.25 Henderson and Panona translate Verband as 'corporate group'. This sounds

too legalistic to this writer. Verbandis as common a term in German asorganization is In Englbb.

26 Henderson and Panoas, op. cit., p. IS0.27 Ibid., p . I46-

Notes and Rejerencesjl31

28 WaG, p. 545. Cf. M. Rheinstein, Max Weber011lAw in 1konomyand Society,1954, p. 330.

29 Henderson and Parsons, op. cit ., p. 152. Parsons notes 'the term HeTTschafthas no satisfactory English equivalent'. Rheinstein prefers to translate it as'domination'. The nearest ttanslation is 'rule' as in 'rule of kings', butunfortunately 'rule' has another meaning as in 'of 'rules of the game'.'Authority' seems the best translation since Weber himself, WaG, p. 544used Autorita: as a synonym for his special mesning ofBeTTs.haft.

30 WaG, p. 28. Cf. Henderson and Parsons, op, cit., p. 152.31 WuG, p, 28.32 Rheinstein, op, cit., p. 330, WuG, p. 541.33 WuG, p. 28, Henderson and Parsons, op. cit., p. 152.34 WuG, p, 548, translated in Rhelnstein, op. cit ., p. 334- He referred to ' the

so-called "advantage of the small number" '.35 WaG, p. 153. Cf. Henderson and Parsons, op . cit., p. 382.36 Weber outlined this scheme several times : WuG, pp. 12~7, translated by

Henderson and Parsons, op, cit., pp. 324-92; WuG, pp. 549-50, translatedby Rheinstein, op, cit., pp. 336-7; WuG, pp. 551-8.

37 e.g, WaG, p. 126, p. 550.38 WuG, p. 127; Henderson and Parsons, op. cit., p. 335; GPS, p. 319.39 e.g, WaG, pp. 126, 552.40 GPS, pp. 308-10.41 WuG, p. 552.42 WuG, p. 552 •43 A very good, briefsummary of these is available in R. Aron, Main Currents

in Sociological Thought, Vol. 2, 1967, pp. 197-204-'44 The following version of Weber's ideal typical formulation on legal authority

and a bureaucratic administrative staff is taken from WuG, pp . 124-8. Fora translation see Henderson and Parsons, op. cit., pp. 329-34.

45 These propositions are also set out in abbreviated form.46 WaG, pp. 126-7; Henderson and Parsons, op. cit., p. 334.47 WaG, p, 128; Henderson and Parsons, op. cit ., p. 337.48 e.g. GPS, pp. 318, 321.49 GPS, p. 310.50 WaG, pp . 154, 564-51 Ibld., pp. 158-76; Henderson and Parsons, op. cit., pp. 392-423. These

were apart from the legal definition of the rights and duties of the bureau­crats.

52 As early as 1895, in his inauguralleeture, Weber had taken 'national power'as a political good of paramount importance. The extent of Weber'snationalism and responsibility for later developments in Germany havebecome a matter for heated debate.

3JThe Debate with WeberI For an account see A. Oberschall, Empirical Social Reuar.h in G,rmany,

1848-1914, pp. 134-6, where the author also 'refers to Weber's non-idealtype of bureaucracy,

2 In Il Pennero Moderno, VoL I, 1912, pp. 310-16, cited by J. H. Meisel,op. cit.

3 From Max Weber, edited by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, 1948, p. 232.4 Ibid., p. 232. A good account ofthe carefulexmsideration Weber gave to the

problem of power and bureaucracy is A. Diamant's "The Bureaucratic

132/ Notes and References

Model: Max Weber Rejected, Rediscovered, Reformed", in Papers inCompararive PublicAdministration, edited by F. Heady and S. L. Stokes,1962.

5 "Die BchOrdenorganisation und die allgemeine Staatsverwaltung Preussensim 18 Jahrhundert", in Acta Borussica, Vol. I and "Der deutsche Beamten­staat vom 16 bis 18 Jahrhunden", in Umrisse und Untersuchungen zurVerfassungs- Verwaltungs- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 1898.

6 Schmoller, "Die BchOrdenorganisation", p. 31 (this author's translation).7 Ib id., p. 32.8 E. Strauss, The Ruling Seroants,1961, pp. 40-1.9 Available in his Readerin Bureaucracy, 1952, pp. 361-71.

10 Ib id., p. 362.II The major statement of his theory is in TVA and the Grass Roots, 1949. An

earlier version is contained in his "An Approach to a Theory of Bureau­cracy", in the American Sociological Rtfliew, 1943.

12 For a useful account of these see G. Friedman, Industrial Society, 1955.13 Henderson and Parsons, op. cit., pp. 58-60.14 Gouldner also mentions a third type, mock-bureaucracy, where the rules

are not taken seriously by any of the participants.15 In Verjassung und Verfassungsrecht, reprinted in Staats rechtliche Abhand­

lungen und andere A!ifsiitze, 1955, p. 30 (this author's translation).16 See "Bureaucracy: the Problem and its Setting", in the American Soci­

ological Rwiew, 1947.17 R. Bendix, HigherCivil Seroantsin AmericanSociety,p. rz,18 "Some Observations on Weber's Analysis of Bureaucracy", in R. K.

Menon, Readerin Bureaucracy, 1952, p. 31.19 "Theoretical Llmltations of Max Weber's Systematic Analysis of Bureau-'

cracy", in the PhilippineJournalof PublicAdministration, 1957.20 P. M. Blau, The Dynamics of Burearu:racy, p. 201.21 "Bureaucratic and Craft Administration of Production: A Comparative

Study", AdministrativeScience Quarterly,1959-60. .22 See G. SjOberg, R. A. Brymer and B. Farris, "Bureaucracy and the Lower

Class", in Sociology andSocial-Research, 1966.23 See B. Litwak and H. J. Meyer, "A Balance Theory of Co-ordination be­

tween Bureaucratic Organisations and Community Primary Groups", inAdministratifle Science Quarterly, 1966-67.

24 In "Weberian v. Welfare Bureaucracy in Traditional Society", Adminis­trative Science Quarterly,1961-62.

25 "The Development and Decline of Patrimonial and Bureaucratic Adminis­trations", Administratw, Sciena Quarterly, 1962-63.

26 See his introduction to that volume, "An Overview of Bureaucracy andPolitical Development".

27 "Metaphysical Pathos and the Theory of Bureaucracy", AmericanPoliticalSciena RftIkvI, 1955.

28 "Max Weber's Two Conceptions of Bureaucracy", American Journal ofSociology, 1957-58.

29 "Max Weber et La Russic", Le C<mtrat Social, 1960. Similarly F. S. Burinbaa argued that Weber would not have been able to account for -the Naziparty's subversion of the German civil service (in "Bureaucracy andNational Socialism: A Reconsideration of Weberian Theory", in R. K.Menon's Readao in BureauatUJl, 1952).

30 "The Besinnfnp of Butcaucracy in China: The OrlBln of the Hsien",JOl/mal 01Man Stl/diu, 1964.

Nom and Referenasf133

31 "The Bureaucrat as Pro-Consul: The Restoration Prefect and the PoliceGenerale", Comparative Swdils in Society and History, 1965.

32 M. Berger, Bureaucracy and Society in Modern Egypt, 1957 and C. Beclc,'Bureaucracy and Political Development in Eastern Europe" in La Palom­bara, op, cit., 1963.

33 See above, note 18.34 As examples of this point of view one may mention S. R. Udy, "Bureau­

cracy and Rationality in Weber's Organisation Theory", American Soci­ological Reoiet», 1959; R. H. Hall, "The Concept of Bureaucracy-anBmpitical Assessment", AmericanJournal of Sociology, 1963; C. R. Hiningset al., "An Approach to the Study of Bureaucracy", Sociology, 1967.

35 Blau and Scott, op , clt., p. 534.36 For a more recent restatement of this view see N. Mouzelis, Organisation

and Bureaucracy, 1967.37 March and Simon, op, cit., p, 36.38 R. G. Francis and R. C. Stone, Serv ice and Procedure in Bureaucracy,

P·7.39 Mouzelis, op. cit., p. 51.40 "Max Weber's Ideal typus der BUrokratieund die Organisationssoziologie",

Kslner Zeitschrift far Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 1965.41 "Rationality" or a cognate term appears on twenty-three occasions even in

the briefest of Weber's three essays on bureaucracy.42 WuG, p, 124; Henderson and Parsons, op, eit., p. 328.43 WI/G, p. 125; Henderson and Parsons, op. cir., p. 329. This wac the first of

Weber's five propositions on the basis of legal authority (see above p. 43).Weber used his two technical terms, ZweckrarionalitlJt (purposive rationa­lity) and Wertrationalitat (value rationality), to express the differencebetween laws which were means to ends and laws which were the directembodiment of values.

44 WuG, p. 125; Henderson and Parsons, op. elr., p. 330. This was the secondof his five propositions.

45 WI/G, p. us; Henderson and Parsons, op. cit., p. 330. nuswas the fifth ofthe five proposit ions.

46 WuG, p, 126; Henderson and Parson, op. eit., 331. Parson notes that hefinds this distinction unclarified by Weber, It is best understood as theinstitutional counterpart of Weber's two types ofrational action.

47 WI/G, p. 126; Henderson and Parsons, op. cit., p. 331.48 WuG, p. 129; Henderson and Parsons, op. cit., p. 339.49 WuG, p. 141; Henderson and Parsons, op. cit" p. 361.50 This was especially true of the Germany of Weber's time. Even today the

majority of higher civil servants in Germany are trained lawyers. But, ofcourse, even in countries without systems of administrative law the inter­pretation of laws and regulations is an important part of administrativeactivity.

51 Weber sometimes termed this the 'paradox of consequences' (Paradoxie derFolgen). Merton's "Bureaucratic Structure and Personality" does at leastacknowledge the importance of this idea and Weber's emphasis on it. It isironic that it should have been used in criticism of Weber.

52 Sec E. Baumgarten, Max Weber: Werk lindPerson, 1964, p, 514.S3 Ibid., p. 516.54 It is, therefore, not without significance that Mayntz (see above, note 40),

finds it necessary to attribute to Weber a concern for 'Effimnzo',"2 word hedid not use.

134/Notesand Referenas

55 A good example of the over-eagemess of writers in EngIUh to make anissue out ofWeber's supposed concern for efficiency is provided by Gould­ner in the introduction to Patternsof IndustrialBureaucracy, pp. 19-21. Heassumes Weber was discussing what made bureaucracy effective. But thequotation he takesfor aiticism involves an altogether unwarranted insert ionof the idea of effectiveness by the translator.

56 For a discussion of the difficulties see the entry on 'efficiency' in A Diction­ary of th« Social Scienees, edited by J. Gould and W. L. Kolb, 1964.

57 Implicit in Weber's distinction was the difference between the rationality ofthought and the rationality of conduct. A similar distinction in a differentcontext has recently beenmade by f. C. Jarvie and J. Agassi, "The Problemof the Rationality of Magic" in the British Journal of Sociolcgy, 1967.

58 See above, p. 61.59 Thus Weber viewed the Taylor theories of management as a contribution

to ratiooalizing production. See Henderson and Parsons, op. cit., p. 261.60 See "Der Beamte", an essay reprinted in Idem zur Stats-und Kultur­

:lomolcgie, 1927.61 The best statement of Weiler's position is contained in Herbert Sultan's

essay"Bllrokratie und Politische Machtblldung", 1955. He makes a pointof explaining the small part the problem of inefficiency played inj,Weber'sconceptualization of bureaucracy.

4/Bureaucracy and the IdeologistsI In the Marx-EngelsGesamtausgabe (henceforward cited as MEGA), Section I,

VoL I. The relevant section, "Die Regierungsgewalt", is on pp, 448~+2 Hegel's P1n70sophy of Right, translated by T. M. Knox, 1942, p. 193.3 P. Naville, Le Nouveau LeTJiathan, 1957, p. 98.4 MEGA, p. 4S6:'The bureaucratic spirit is an out and out jesuitical, theological

spirit. The bureaucrats are the state Jesuits and state theologians. Bureau­cracy is 14rlpublique pretre.'

5 Ibld., p. 4S7.6 K. Marx and F. Engels, The German Ideology, p. 78.7 In Marx and Engels:Basic Writings on Politicsand Philosophy, edited by

L. S. Feuer, 1959, p. 29.8 rsa, p. 127.9 IbieL,p. 456. For Heinzen, see above Ch. I, p. 28.

10 Navll1e,op. eit., p. 101, says that at this stage Marx was still a democrat andnot yet a communist.

II Marx and Engels, TheGermanIdeology,pp. 208-9.12 In an article in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, November 12, 1848, "Die

Kontrerevoluticn in Berlin", reprinted in MEGA, Section 7, Vol. I, p. 430.13 Feuer, op. cII., p. 343.14 IbieL, p. 343.15 Ibid., p, 29.16 For Bakunin'. vieWi on bureaucracy see G. P. Maximoff, The Political

Philosophy of Bakunin: ScientificAnarchism.17 K. Wittfogel, "The Ruling Bureaucracy of Oriental Despotism. A Pheno­

menon that Paralyzed Marx", RefJiew of Politics,Vol IS, 1953. S. Avineri,The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx, 1968, p, 51, records aninstance where Marx spoke of India being ruled by a bureaucracy. But thisis insufficient to warrant rejecting Wittfoge!'s interpretation. which isshared by G. Lichtheim, Marxism, 1961, p . 384.

Notes and Referenas/13S

18 One Step Fonvard, Two Steps Back, quoted in T. Anderson, Masters ofRussian Ma rxism, 1963, p. 66.

19 Die VorallSSetzuncendes -Sozialismus una die Arifgaben der SolIialdemokratie,1899, translated as Evolutionary Socialism, 1909, p, 55.

20 "Leninism or Marxism?", 1904, in The Russian Reflolution and Leninism andMarxism, edited by B. D. Wolfe, 1961, p. len.

21 Ibld., "The Russian Revolution", 1918, p, 71.22 The Labour Reoolution, 1925, includes a chapter devoted to bureaucracy.23 Collected Works, Vol. 25, 1964, pp. 486-7.24 Ibid., p. 481.25 Ibid., pp. 486-7.26 See R. V. Daniels, The Conscience of the Reoolution: Communist Opposition

in Soviet Russia, 1960, pp. Il5-8.27 Ibid., p. 145.28 See T . Anderson, op. cit., pp. 179-88.29 See A. G. Meyer, Leninism, 1957, p, 214­30 J. Stalin, Leninism, 1928, Vol. 2, pp. 372-3.31 See A. Brumberg, "Soviet Campaign against Survivals of Capitalism",

Russian Refliew, Vol. 12, 1953.32 See K . P. Mangold, "Lenin's Cardinal Rules of Poverty and Recall: Neg­

lected Ideological WeapOns for the West", Orbis, Vol. 8, 1964-5.33 MEGA, Section 1,Vol. nr, "Kritische Randglossen zu dem Artikel: 'Der Konig

vom Preussen und die Sozialreform, Von einem Preussen' ", 1844, p. 14.34 G. D. H. Cole sees bureaucratization as the real issue between Trotsky and

Stalin in his History of Socialist Thought, Vol. 4, 1963, p. 861.35 The N ew Course, translated by M. Schachtman, 1943, pp . 50-I.36 The Revolution Betrayed, p. 235.37 Published under the pseudonym Bruno R.38 Published in a collected edition as The Bureaucratic Reflolution: The Rise of

the Stalinist State, 1962.39 'Mussolini's and Hitler's regimes have come to be essentially similar to

Stalin's.... The rest is choreography.' Ri22i,op, cir., p. 314-40 This did not prevent Rizzi from calling for a proletarian revolution to

repl ace the existing bureaucracy with a new directing class.41 See J. Djordevic, " Local Self-Government in Yugoslavia", American Slavic

andEast European Reoia», Vol. 12, 1953.42 State and Law: Soviet and Yugoslav Theory, 1964, p. 50.43 The Thoughts of Chairman Mao Tse-tung, 1967, especially pp. 24, 30, 35,

74-5,80 and 174- Chen Po-Ta, in Mao Tse-tung on the Chinese Reoolution,1953, pp. 25-6, notes the importance of the element 'bureaucratic-capita­lism' in Mao's revolutionary formula.

44 See Cuba, Socialisme et Dlveloppemenr, 1964, p . 108. He bas also written onthe theme of Cuba and bureaucracy izleLands Alio», 1965, 01.7.

45 As reported by Theodore Draper, Castroism, Theory and Practice, 1965,pp, 192-7, where he gives an account of the dispute between a FrenchCommunist, Charles Bettelheim, and Che Guevara.

46 Marxism in Modem France, 1966, pp . 182-90.47 See J. Sauvageot, A. Geismar, D. Cohn-Bendit, and J.-P. Duteuil, The

Student Reuolt, 1968, p. 60. Geismar is speaking.48 Ibid., p. 79.49 For the United States see The New Radicals, edited by P. Jacobs and S.

Landau, 1966, especially the sixth section, "The FSM-Revolt againstLiberal Bureaucracy".

136/Notes and References

50 An additional exception can be made of Bukharin who was familiar withsome sociology, in particular that of Michels . The nearest approach to acritical analysis of the concept of bureaucracy among Marxists is to befound in Andre Stawar's Ubres Emm Marmtes, 1963. His essay "LaBureaucratie Sovietique" dates from 1934. He was under the surveillanceof both his owngovercuneot in Poland and the Stalinists,

51 Good accounts of the response of the Fascists to bureaucracy will be foundin S. Neumann, Permanent Reoohuion, 1942; Franz Neumann, Behemoth,The Structure andPractice of National Socialism, 1942; F. Morstdn Marx,"Bureaucracy and Dictatorship", RefJiefJJ ofPolitics, 1941.

52 This Is the view of Franz Neumann, op, cir.,p. 39.53 B. Mussolini, TM Doarine ofFascism, 1935, p. 12.54 A. Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 154. Similar statements can also be found In

Alfred Rosenberg's work, e.g, in Der Mythus des zo Jahrhunderts, 1930,1943 edn, p. 526.

55 Quoted by Franz Neumann, op. cit., p. 68.56 B. Musso!ini, My Autobiography, n.d., p. 268.57 B. Mussolinl, The Corporate State, 1938, p. 28.58 For an account of Musso!ini's methods see T. Cole, " I taly's Fascist Bureau­

cracy", American Political Science Reoiea, 1938.59 B. Mussollni, The Corporate State, p, 46. Both capitalist and socialist

systems were going in this direction according to Mussolini; something ofan anticipation of Rizzi's position.

60 Hitler, op. cit., pp. II9, 156-7.61 See for example F. Morstein Marx, " Gennan Bureaucracy in Transition",

American Political Science Reoie», 1934; F. S. Burin, "Bureaucracy andNational Soclalism-a Reconsideration of Weberlan Theory", in R. K.Merton et al., Reader in Bureaucracy, 1952.

62 Blut undEhre, 1936, Vol. 2, p. 68.63 See his "Legalitiit und Legitimitat", 1932, reprinted In Verfassungsrecht­

liche Aufsat:;:e19z4-54, 1958.64 Examples include J. M. Beck, Our Wonderland of Bureaucracy, 1932; J. H.

Crider, The Bureaucrat, 1944; L. Sullivan, The Dead Hand ofBureaucracy,1940; and Bureaucracy Runs Amuck, 1944.

65 E. Pendelton Herring, Public Administration and the Public Interest, p. IS.Hermann Finer, "Critics of 'Bureaucracy' ", Political Science Quarterly,1945, also attacks these writers on bureaucracy for their Indiscriminate useof the term.

66 L. von Mises, Bureaucracy, 1946, p.a,67 J. A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, third cdn 1950,

p.206.68 For a good survey of the attitudes of various socialists to bureaucracy see

R. Bendix, "Socialism and the Theory of Bureaucracy", Canadian Journalof Economic and Political Science, 1950. A book as Influential as C. A. R.Crosland's The Future ofSocialism, 1956,omits anydiscussion of the problem.

69 "The Future of Politics", three articles In The Guardian, January 8, 9,10,1968, the quotation coming from the first, "Bureaucrats In the Saddle",

5/Seven Modern Concepts of BureaucracyExamples of this tabula rasa approach include G. Tullock's The Politics ofBureaucracy , 1965, and A, Downs' "Theory of Bureaucracy", AmericanEconomic RefJim, Vol. 55, 1965,

Notes and Referenas/I37

2 They will also be discussed in the concluding chapter.3 N . Mouzelis, op. elt., pp. 4, 54; J. P. Nettl, op, clr., p. 337.4 Mouzelis uses 'bureaucracy as Weber did, that is only as an extreme type'

(p. 54). Nett! defines bureaucracy 'in a Weberian sense-as a phenomenonof modernity but not necessarily as the product of, or synonymous with,organizational and even social rationality' (p. 337).

5 It should, of course, be borne in mind in the following discussion that theseven concepts which are distinguished are not always held in pure fonn.Almost any combination of them is possible, but for the sake of clarity weshall concentrate on the pure typeS.

6 P. Blau, The Dynamics of Bureaucracy, rev. edn, 1963, p. 251.7 p.60.8 p.8.9 R. G. Francis and R. C. Stone, Service and Procedure in Bureaucracy, 1596,

P.3·10 P. Leonard, Sociology in SocialWork, 1966, p. 81.rr Both Leonard and Francis and Stone use this terminology.12 Thus Rosemary Stewart in The Realityof Management, 1963, p. 8, says that

the characteristics of bureaucracy have developed 'because they are the mostefficient method yet discovered of running a large organization'.

13 For examples of attempts to define non~Westem forms of organizationalrationality see C. K. Yang, "Some Characteristics of Chinese BureaucraticBehaviour", in Confucianism in Action, edited by D. S. Nivison and A. F.Wright, 1959, and B. S. Silberman, "Bureaucracy and Economic Develop­ment in Japan", Vol. 5, 1965.

14 P. M. Blau, op. cit., lSt edn, p. 201.15 For an attempt to show the differences of approach between the sociology

of organizations and the normative perspective of organization theory, seeMartin Albrow, "The Study of Organizations-objectivity or Bias?",Penguin SocialSciences Suroey 1968.

16 D. E. Apter and R. A. Lystad speak of bureaucracies where there is 'heavyemphasis on administrative efficiency', "Bureaucracy, Party and Constitu­tional Democracy: An Examination of Political Role Systems in Ghana', inG. M. Carter and W. O. Brown, Transitive in Africa: Studies in PoliticalAdaptation,1958, p. 20. This is some indication of the desire to preserve thedistinction between the observer's view and the participant's logic.

17 M. E. Dimock, "Bureaucracy Self-examined", Public Administration Re­vim, Vol. 4, 1944, p. 198. However in Administration Vitality, 1960, p. 4,he offers a different concept of bureaucracy: "the ordering of institutionalmanagement to secure the advantages of system'.

18 E. Strauss, op. cit., p. 41.19 M. Crozier, op. cit ., p. 187.20 Both Blau and Crozier are committed to the language of function and dys­

function. It has often been remarked how easily this turns into a language ofsocial criticism.

21 See Carl A. Emge, "BUrokratisierung unter Philosophischer und Soziologi­scher Sicht", Kslner Zeitschrift /ilr Soziologie, Vol. 3, 1950-1, and OttoStammer, "BUrokratie", in Handbuch der Soziologie, edited by W. Ziegen­fuss, 1956.

22 P.70.23 See, in particular, his articles "Le 'Service Civil' en Angleterre", Revuedes

Sciences Politiques, Vol. 50, 1927; "Critics of 'bureaucracy' " , Politie4lSciena Quarterly, Vol. 60, 1945.

138/Notet and References

24 "La DCvcloppement de la Bureaucratie aux Etats-Unis", RftJIU des SciencesPolitiquu, Vol. So, 1927, p. 394.

:Z5 "Bureaucratie et Fonctionnairisme", Rewe de PInstitu: de SociologieUniTJersiu libre de Bruxelles, Vol 17, 1937.

26 In Annalsof theAmerican Academyof PoliticalandSocialScience, Vol. 292,1954­

27 P.209.28 p.62.29 F. Montein Marx discusses Italian Fascism in "Bureaucracy and Dictator­

ship", Reciewof Politics, Vol. 3, 1941.30 P·3·31 This distinction is also made by Onofre D. Corpuz in TheBureaueraey in the

Philippines, 1957, p. 22. He adds that those who see bureaucracy as anapparatus tend also to see it as a juggernaut, while those who view it as acollection ofindividuals see it as more fragile. 'Particular analytical conceptsof bureaucracy unavoidably affect conclusions' (p. 24).

32 These propositions are in "Levels of Economic Performance and Bureau­cratic Structure" by B. F. Hoselltz in J. La Palombara, op, cir., pp. 171,Ig8.

33 In Ch. 4, "Types of Bureaucracy".34 P·157·35 "The Bureaucracy and Political Development in Vietnam", La Palombara,

op, cit., p . 322.36 p. 7. In the same volume M . Fainsod, "Bureaucracy and Modernization:

The Russian and Soviet Case", suggests a five-fold typology of bureau­cracies: representative, party-state, military dominated, ruler dominated,ruling.

37 In Towardthe ComparalifJe Study of Public Administration, edited by W. J.Siffin, 1957.

38 Ibid., p. 26.39 Ibid., p, 87.40 Riggs, op. cit ., p. S4-4I "Bureaucracy and Political Development: A Paradoxical View", La

Palombara, op. clt., p. 122.42 A SystemsAnalysisof PoliticalLife, 1964, pp. 212-20.43 P·4S· .44 An early use of this concept is by O. H. Gablentz, "Industriebtirokratie",

SchmollmJahrbueh,Vol. So, 1926.45 In H. Sultan and W. Abendroth, Barokratische Verwaltungsstaat undSoziale

Demokratie.46 See above, p. 87. It is also the concept used by H . Cohen in The Demonics

of Bureaucraey, 1965, a replication of part of Blau's The Dynamics ofBureaucraey.

47 P·459·48 "Bureaucracies: Some Contrasts in Systems", Indian Journal of Public

Administration, Vol. 10, Ig64.49 See above, p. 58. Stinchcombe's suggestion is taken up in S. W. Becker's

and G. Gordon's "An Entrepreneurial Theory of Formal Organizations,AdministratifJe Science Quarterly, Vol. II, 1966-67.

So See above, p, 60.SI H. Stroup, Bureaucraey in Higher Education, 1966,Preface.S" p.2.

Notes and Referenas/139

53 C. S. Hyneman, Bureaueracy in a Democracy, 1950, p, 3; H. Simon, "Staffand Management Controls", TheAnnalsof theAmerican AcademyofPoliticalandSocialScienu, Vol. 292, 1954, p. 95; R. V. Presthus, The OrganizationalSociety,1965, p. 4; A. Btzioni, Modern Organizations, 1964, p. 3.

54 Ferrel Heady, Public Administration: a Comparative Perspective, 1966,P·19·

55 Pres thus, op. cit ., p. 58; W. Bennis, "The Corning Death of Bureaucracy",in Behaviour in Organizations: A Multidimensional View, 1968, p. 257;Heady, op , cit ., p. 20. For another such list see R. A. Dahl and C. E.Lindblom, Politics, Economics and Welfare, 1953, pp. 235-6.

56 See R. H . Hall, "The Concept of Bureaucracy: An Empirical Assessment",AmericanJournalof Sociology, 1963.

57 Thus one group of researchers has reduced the idea of bureaucracy totheoretical insignificance and advocates the measurement of organizationaldimensions without any prejudgement as to their shape. See C. R. Hiniugset al, "An Approach to the Study of Bureaucracy", Sociology, VoL I, 1967.

58 P.147.59 See C. T . Schmidt, The Corporate State in Action: Italy under Fascism,

1939, especially pp. 69, 134.60 Freedom, Power and Dllmocratic Planning, 1951, p. 43.61 Ibid., p, 44-62 The idea of a bureaucratic culture is developed by Max Handman, "The

Bureaucratic Culture Pattern and Political Revolutions", American Journaloj Sociology, 1933. But he uses it for societies which are the lessee developedin the Western world.

63 PP.4,94.64 See Gablentz, note 44 above, and E. Landauer, "Kapitalistischer Geist und

VerwaltungsbUrokratie in 6ffentlichen Unternehmungen", SchmollersJahr­buch, 54, 1930. R. Bendix regards it this way too in Work and Authority inIndustry,1956, especially in chapter 4.

65 "BUrokratisierung", KolnerZeitschriJtJar Soziologie, Vol. 3, p . 196.66 "Bureaucracy and Bureaucratization", Current Sociology, Vol. 7, 1958, p.

III.-67 Gehlen, op, cit., offers, p. 196, as a definition of bureaucratization, 'the

process of for ever incorporating new elements into the administrativemachine'.

6/Bureaucracy and the Theorists of Democracy1 "Critics of 'Bureaucracy' ", Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 60, 1945,

P·l0 5·2 The whole of the preceding discussion owes much to MaxWeber's exposi­

tion of the relation between facts and values in social science, which is to befound in his essays published as The Methodology oj the Social Sciences,translated and edited by E. A. Shils and H .A. Finch, 1949.

3 See J. Djordeyic, "Local Self-Government in Yugoslavia", American SlavicandEast European Review,Vol. 12, 1953.

4 Thus Lasswell and Kaplan's typology of types of rule is formulated in neu­tral terms and excludes the category of democracy, preferring 'demoso­cracy' . See Power and Society,p. 207.

5 A useful account of delegated legislation in Britain is contained in G. A.Campbell's, The Civil Servicein Britain, 1955,pp . 102-24.

6 J. M. Beck, op. clt., p. 23.

140/Notes and References

7 See C. K. Allen, Bureaucracy Triumpharlt, 1931; G. W. Keeton, ThePassing of Parliament, 1952; L. Sullivan, The Dead Hand ofBureaucracy,1940, and Bureaucracy Runs Amuck, 1944, in which the author finds theBritish Fabian socialists influencing the American Office of Price Adminis­tration, p. 176.

8 See Herman Finer, "Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Govern­ment", PublicAdministrationReoiet», Vol. I, 1941.

9 C. J. Friedrich, "Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsi­bility", in PublicPolicy, edited by C. J. Friedrich and B. S. Mason, 1940.Both this essay and the one by Herman Finer are reprinted in BureaucraticPowerin Nat ionalPolitics,edited by F. B. Rourke, 1965.

10 As does W. W. Boyer, Bureaucracy on Trial: PolicyMaking by GovernmentAgencies, 1964, p. 169.

II A useful analysis of the Friedrich-Finer dispute is R. F. Bunn's "Notes onthe Control and Responsibility of the Bureaucrat", South Western SocialScience Quarterly,Vol. 41, 1961.

I:z For an example ofemphasis being placed on professionalism in civil servicessee P. Monypenny, "Professional Organizations and Bureaucratic Govern­ment", South WesternSocial Science Quarterly,Vol. 32, 1952. For stress onpublic contact sec F. Morstein Marx, "Bureaucracy and Consultation",Reuieu: of Politics,Vol. I , 1939.

13 J. D . Kingsley, op. cit ., p. 269.14 See Lord AttIee, "Civil Servants, Ministers, Parliament and the Public",

in W. A. Robson, ed., The Civil Servicein Britain and France,1956.15 G. Sjoberg, R. A. Brymer and B. Farris, "Bureaucracyand the Lower Class",

Sociology and SocialResearch, Vol. 50, 1966.16 For a general account of the activities of administrators designed to influ­

ence the political process see P. Woll, American Bureaucracy, 1963. For ajournalist's account of a British case see S. Brittan, The Treasury under theTories, 1951-64, 1964. Howcver, it should be noted that C. Wright Millsdoes not regard the American professional administrator as part of thepower elite, and believes that party patronage has prevcnted the rise of anindependent federal administration. See The PowerElite, 1956, Galaxy edn,1959, pp. 237-41•

17 F. B. Rourke, "Secrecy in American Bureaucracy", Political Science Quar­terly, Vol. 72, 1957; " Bureaucracy and Public Opinion" in BureaucraticPotuer in National Politics,edited by F. B. Rourke, 1965.

18 See C. K. Allen, Bureaucracy Triumphant, 1931; A. Diamant, " FrenchCouncil of State", Journal of Politics, Vol. 13, 1951.

19 Both Harold Laski, ParliamentaryGovernment in England,1938, p. 151, andSir Ivor Jennings, The British Constitution, 1941, pp . 131-4 regard theparliamentary quest ion as effective in securing control throughout the civilservice hierarchy. For a defence of congressional control of the Americanfederal service see C. E. Gilbert and M. M. Kampelman, "LegislativeControl of the Bureaucracy", Annals of the American Academy of Politicaland Social Science, Vol. 292, 1954.

20 W. W. Boyer, op. cit., chapter 7, "Assuring Public Responsibility".21 Herman Finer, in F. E. Rourke, op, cit., p. 176.22 PublicAdministrationand the PublicInterest, 1936, p. 22.23 "Staff and Management Controls", Annals of the American Academy of

Politicalalld Social Science,Vol. 292, 1954.24 R. Bendix, HigherCivil Servants in AmericanSoci6ty,1949, sets out to show

that there can be no such thing as neutral executors of legislative enactments.

Notes and Refer~es/I4I

:05 C. J Friedrich and T. Cole, op. cit., p. 88.26 C. J. Friedrich, "Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsi­

bility", op, cit.27 See N. E. Long, "Bureaucracy and Constitutionalism", AmericanPolitical

Science Review,Vol. 46, 1952, and "Public Policy and Administration: theGoals of Rationality and Responsibility", Public Administration Review,Vol. 14, 1954.

28 Decentralization of Authority in a Bureaucracy, 1961, p. 161.29 For an examination of the possibility of professional isolation from the com­

munity see L. Urwick , " Bureaucracy and Democracy", Public Administra­tion,Vol. 14, 1936.

30 For instance by N. E. Long, op. cir., and by C. E. Jacob in Policy andBureaucracy, 1966.

31 The Federal Government Service,edited by W. S. Sayre, 1965,pp. 1-6.32 P. Woll, op. cit., p. 174.33 "Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsibility", in F. E.

Rourke, op, cit., p. 175.34 P.380.35 See above, Ch, 4, pp . 68-71 .36 Principles of Political Economy, Vol. 2, chapter XI, "Limits of the Province

of Government", p. 528.37 G. SjOberg, et al., op, cit ., mention several examples of attempts to devise

non-bureaucratic systems oforganization. B. Coughlin, "Private Welfare ina Public Welfare Bureaucracy', Social Service Review, Vol. 35, 1961,examines how private associations may retain their independence frompublic welfare agencies.

Conclusion: The Concept of Bureaucracy inSocial and Political Science

lOne of the best is still E. Barker's The Development of Public Services inWestern Europe 1660-1930, 1944.

2. See A. Sauvy, La Bureaucratie, 1956, pp. 23 If.3 See R. Bendix, Work and Authority in Industry, 1956, pp . 198-253.4 R. von Mohl, op , cit., p. 103.5 In the work of R. H. Hall, F. Heady, C. R. Hinings et al,

Bibliography

SelectThis list comprises only easily accessible books in English which can

provide a useful introduction to the themes of the respective chapters of thisvolume.

GeneralMERTON, R. K. et a1. (eds), Readerin Bureaucracy, The Free Press, Glencoe, Ill.

1952. Contains many of the most influential contributions to the literatureabout bureaucracy, including selections from Weber, Michels, Friedrich,Merton and Gouldner, and also a good general bibliography.

1jThe Emergence of the ConceptMILL, J. S., Considerations onRepresentative Gooernment, Parker, London 1861.

The brief references to bureaucracy in this classic work summarize much ofnineteenth-century theory OIl this subject.

2jThe Classical FormulationsMOSCA, GAETANO, The RuliNg Class, McGraw-Hill, New York 1939 (first Italian

edition, 1896). The idea of bureaucracy becomes, for the first time, a keyconcept in a general theory of politics.

WEBER, MAx,"Bureaucracy", being Chapter vm of PromMax Weber: Essays inSociology, edited by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, Oxford UniversityPress, London and New York 1946. The most important source for modemtheory.

3jThe Debate with WeberGoULDNER, ALVIN W., Patternsof IndustrialBureaucracy, The Free Press, Glen­

coe, IlI. 1954. A critical discussion of Weber in the light of a case study of anAmerican factory.

BLAu, PETER M., The Dynamics of Bureaucracy, University of Chicago Press,Chicago 1955, rev. eOO 1963. Similar in intent to Gouldner's study, butstudies two public administration agencies.

4jBureaucracy and the IdeologistsDJILAS, MILOVAN, The New Class, Thames and Hudson, London 1957. The

culminating expression of Marxist dilemmas concerning bureaucracy.NIlUMANN, SIGMUND, Permanent Revolution, Pall Mall, London, znd edn 1965;

Praeger, New York, znd eOO 1965 (rst eOO Harper, New York 1942). ContainJa good, brief account of totalitarian reactions to the problem of bureaucracy.

VON MIsBs, LUDWIG, Bureaucraey, Yale University Press, New Haven 1944. Anexample of the conservative indictment of the state.

143

144/Bibliography

S/Seven Modern Concepts of BureaucracyCROZIllR, MICHEL, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, Tavistock, London 1964.

Examines disabling features of two French organizations as examples ofFrench culture patterns.

MARx, F. MORSTl!lN, The Administrative State, Chicago University Press,Chicago 1957. A classification and analysis of public administration systems.

LA PALOMBARA, J . (ed.), Bureaucracy and Political Deoelopment, Princeton Uni­versity Press, Princeton 1963. Includes papers by F. Morstein Marx, S. N.Eisenstadt, F. W. Riggs, M . Fainsod, W. R. Sharp and others.

6/Bureaucracy and the Theorists of DemocracyHYNEMAN. C. S., Bureaucracy in a Democracy, Harper, New York 1950. A

broad and thorough consideration of the problems involved in the control ofmodern civil services.

ROURKE, F. E. (ed.), Bureaucratic Powerin National Politics, Little, Brown & Co.,Boston 1965. Includes important articles by Herman Finer and C. J. Friedrichon bureaucratic responsibility.

Works CitedAll works mentioned in the text are listed here with the exception of those

already included in the Select Bibliography, above, and some early literary andlexicographical items for which full details have been given in the Notes andReferences. Books are cited according to the editions which were used for pagereferences.

ALBROW, MARTIN, "The Study of Organizations-0bjectivity or Bias?", in Pen­gu;n Social ScienceS Survey 1968, edited by Julius Gould, Penguin Books,Harmondsworth, Middlesex 1968, pp. 146-67.

Au.I!N, C. K., Bureaua'acy Triumphant , Oxford University Press, London 1931.ALMOND, G. A. and COLEMAN, J. S., The Politics of Developing Areas, Princeton

University Press, Princeton 1960.ANDERSON, T., Masters of Russian Marxism, Appleton Century Crofts, New

York 1963.Anonymous, "Der bureaukratische Staat nach seinem Ausgangspun.l<;t und

Ziel", Deutsche Vierteljahreschrift, Stuttgart 1857, pp . 107-47.Anonymous, "The Encroaching Bureaucracy", TM Quarterly Review, John

Murray, London 1914, Vol. 221, PP. 51-15.A.'<ON,RAYMOND, Main Currents ill Sociological Thought, Vol. 2, Weidenfe1d and

Nicolson, London 1968.AVINERI' SHLOMO, The Social andPolitl'cal Thought of Karl Marx, Cambridge

University Press, London 1968.AYLMIlR, G. Eo,The K ing's Servants, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 1961.BAGEIlOT, WALTlIR, The English Constitution, Fontana, London 1963.BAHRDT, H. P., lndustriebarokratie, Ferdinand Enke, Stuttgart 1958.BARKER, E., The Development of Public Services in Western Europe 1660-1930,

Oxford University Press, London 1944.BAUM, B. H., The Decentralization of Authority in a Bureaucracy, Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1961.BAUMGARTEN, EDUARD, Max Weber-Werk und Person,J. C. B. Mohr, Ttibingen

J964·

Bibliography/I45

BIlCK, Co, "Bureaucracy and Political Development in Eastern Europe", in Bur­eaucracy and Political DllfJelopment, edited by J. La Palombara, 1963, pp.268-300.

BECK, J. M ., Our Wonderland of Bureaucracy, Macmillan, New York 1932.BI!CKIlR, S. W. and GoRDON, G., "An Entrepreneurial Theory of Formal Orga­

nizations. Part 1: Patterns of Formal Organization", Administrative ScienceQuarterly, Vol. II, 196)-67, pp . 315-44.

BENDIX, R., "Bureaucracy; the problem and its setting", American SociologicalReview,Vol. 12, 1947, J:p. 493-507.

--- HIgher Civil Servants in American Society, University of ColoradoStudies, Boulder, Colomdo 1949.

--- "Socialism and the theory of Bureaucracy", Canadian Journalof Econo-micsand Political Science, Vol. 16, 1950, pp. 501-14.--Work and Authority in Industry,John Wilcy, New York 1956.---Max Weber-An Intellectual Portrait,Heinemann, London 1960.BIlNNIS, WARREN G., "The Coming Death of Bureaucracy", in Behaviour in

Organizations-a Multidimensional View, edited by Anthony G. Athos andRobert E. Coffey, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1968, pp . 256-66.

BERGER, MORROIl, Bureaucracy and Societyin Modem Egypt, Princeton Univer­sity Press, Princeton 1957.

BBllNSTEIN, EDUARD, Evolutionary Socialism, I.L.P., London 1909.BU.CKlE,J. SO, "Prussia and the Prussian System", Westminster Review,Vol. 37,

1842, pp. 135-'71•Buu, P. Mo, Bureaucracy in Modern Society, Random House, New York

1956.Bu.u, P. M. and SCOTT, W. RICHARD, Formal Organizations, Routledge and

Kegan Paul, London 1963.BoYER, W. W., Bureaucracy On Trial-Policy Making by Government Agencies,

Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis and New York 1964.BRECHT, A., "How Bureaucracies Develop and Function", Annalsof theAmerican

Academyof Political and SocialScience, Vol. 292, 1954, pp. 1-10.BRITTAN, SAMUEL, The Treasury under the Tories 19S1-64, Penguin Books,

Harmondsworth, Middlesex 1964.BaUMBERG, A., "Soviet Campaign against Survivals of Capitalism", Russian

Review,Vol. 12, 1953, pp. 65-'78.DuNN, R. F., ''Notes on the control and responsibility of the bureaucrat", South

Western SocialScience Quarterly, VoL 41, 1961, pp. 407-14.BuRIN, F. So, "Bureaucracy and National Socialism: A Reconsideration of

Weberian Theory", in Readerin Bureaucracy, edited by R. K. Menon et al.,1952, pp . 33-47·

Bt!llNlJMt, JAMES, The Managerial Reoolution, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth,Middlesex 1962.

CAMPBELL, G. A., The Civil Service in Britain,Penguin Books, Harmondsworth,Middlesex 1955.

CARLYLIl, THoMAS, "The New Downing Street", Latter Day Pamphlets: Col­lected Works,VoL 19, Chapman and Hall, London 1870.

CARTER, GWENDOLEN M. and BROWN, WILLIAM 0., Transition in Africa-­Studiesin Political Adaptation,Boston University Press, Boston 1958.

CHIlN PO-TA, Mao Tst-tung onthe Chinese Reoolutlon, Foreign Languages Press,Peking 1953.

CoHllN, H., The Dernonics ofBureaucracy, Iowa State University Press, Ames,Iowa 1965.

COLE, Go D. H., Historyof Socialist Thought, Macmillan, London 1963.

146/Bibliography

CoLE, R. TAYLOR, "Italy's Fascist Bureaucracy", Amn*an Politkal SciencesReview,Vol. 32, 1938, ·PP. 1143-S7.

--- The Canadian Bureauaacy,Duke University Press, Durham, N.C. 1949.CoNSTAS, Hm.HN, "Max Weber's Two Conceptions of Bureaucracy", American

Journalof Sociology, VoL 63, 1957-58, pp. 400-9.CoRPUZ, ONOl'Rll D., The Bureaucracy in the Philippinu, Institute of Public

Administration, University of the Philippines, Manila 1957.--- "Theoretical Limitations of Max Weber's Systematic AnalYSIS of

Bureaucracy", Philippine Journal of Public Administration, Vol. I, 1957, pp.342-9·

COUGHUN, B., "Private Welfare in a Public Welfare Bureaucracy", SocialServiceReoies», Vol. 35, 1961, pp. 184-93.

CRmu., H . G., "The Beginnings of Bureaucracy in China: The Origin of theHsien",Journal ofAsian Studies,Vol. 23,1964, pp. 155-84.

CRIDER, J. H ., The Bureaucrat, J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia and New York1944·

CROSLAND, C. A. R., The Future of Socialism, Jonathan Cape, London 1956.CROSSMAN, R. H. S., Planning for Freedom, Hamish Hamilton, London 1965.DAHL,R. A. and LtNDBLOM, C. E., Politics, Economies andWelfare,Harper, New

York 1953.DANIELS, R. V., The Conscience of the RefJolution-Communist Opposition in

Soviet Russia,Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1960.DELANEY, W., "The Development and Decline of Patrimonial and Bureaucratic

Administrations", Administrative Science Quarterbl, Vol. 7, 1962-63, pp.458-501.

DIAMANT, A., "French Council of State: comparative observations on the prob­lem of controlling the bureaucracy of the modem state", Journal of Politics,Vol. 13, 1951, pp. 562-88.

DIMOCK, MA!lsHALL E., "Bureaucracy Self-Bllamined", Public AdministrationRefiiew, Vol. 4, 1944>pp. 197-207.

--- Administrativll Vitality, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 1960.DJORDEVIC, J., "Local Self-Government in YugoslaYia", American Slavic and

East European Review,Vol. 12, 1953, pp. 188-zoo.DoRSEY, J. T ., "The Bureaucracy and Political Development in Vietnam", in

Bureaucracy and Political Defielopment, edited by J. La Palombara, 1963, pp.318- 59.

DOWNS, A., "Theory of Bureaucracy", American Economic Review, Vol. 55,1965, pp. 439""46.

DRAPER, THEODORE, Castroism: Theory and Practice, PaIl Mall Press, London1965.

DUMONT, R., Cuba,Socialisme et Difleloppement, Editions du Seuil, Paris 1964.--- Lands Alive, The Merlin Press, London 1965.EASToN, DAVID, A SystemsAnalysisof PoliticalLife, John Wiley, New York 1965.EISENSTADT, S. N., "Bureaucracy and Bureaucratization", Current Sociology,

Vol. 7, 1958, pp. 97-164---- The Political Systemsof Empires, The Free Press, Glencoe, III. 1963.EMGE, CARL A., "Biirokratisierung unter philosophischer und soziologischer

Sicht", KolnerZeitschriftfRr SOll1ologie, Vol. 3, 1950-51,pp. 179-95.Brzroxr, AMITAI, Modern Organizations, Prentice-HaIl, Englewood Cli1fs, N.J.

1964.FAJNSOD, M., "Buxeaucracy and Modernization: The Russian and Soviet Case",

in Bureaucracy and Political DefJelopment, edited by J. La Palombara, 1963,PP.233-267·

Bibliography/I47

FINER, HmlMAN, "Le 'Service Civil' en Angleterre", Reuue des S ciencesPolitiques,Vol. So, 1927, PP. 11-.40,219-41.

--- "Critics of 'Bureaucracy' ", Political S cience Quarterly, Vol. 60, 1945,pp .lOO-12.

---"Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Government", in Bureau­cratic Power in National Politics, edited by F. E. Rourke , 1965, pp. 176-87.

FISCHEL, EDUARD, Die Verfassung Englands, Schneider, Berlin 1862.FRANCIS, R. G . and STONB, R. C., Service and Procedure in Bureaucracy, Univer­

sity of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis 1956.FRmoMAN, GBORGES, Industrial Society, The Free Press, Glencoe, Ill . 1955.FRIl!DRICH, CARL J., "Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsi~

bility", in Bureaucratic Power in National Politics, edited by F. E. Rourke,1965, pp. 165-75.

---"Some Observations on Weber's Analysis of Bureaucracy", in Reader inBureaucracy, edited by R. K. Merton et al., 1952, pp. 27-33.

FRIl!DRICH, CARL J. and CoLB,R. TAYLOR, Responsible Bureaucracy: A Study ofthe Swiss Civil Service, Harvard Unive rsity Press, Cambridge, Mass . 1932.

GABLBNTZ, O. H. , "Industrieburokrarie" , Schmollers J ahrbuch, Vol. So, 1926,PP·539-72•

GBHLI!N, A., "BUrokratisierung", K ainer Zeitschrift far Soziologie, Vol. 3,195O-SI,pp.195-208.

GILBERT, C. E. and KAMPI!LMAN, M. M., " Legislative Control of the Bureau­cracy", Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol.292, 1954, pp. 76-87.

G<lRRl!S, J. J ., Deutschland und die Revolution, Metzler, Stuttgart 1821.--- Europa und die Revolution, Metzler, Stuttgart 1819.GoULD, JULIUS and KOLB, W. L. (eds), A Dictionary of the Social Sciences,

Tavistock Publications, London 1964.GoULDNBR, A., "Metaphysical Pathos and the Theory of Bureaucracy", American

Political Science Review, Vol. 49, 1955, pp. 496-507.GREEN, A. S., "Growing Bureaucracy and Parliamentary Decline", Nineteenth

Century, Vol. 47, 1900, pp . 839-46.GRIMOND, J., " Bureaucrats in the Saddle", The Guardian, Manchester, Jan . 8,

1968.HALL, R. H .; " Concept of Bureaucracy-an Empirical Assessment", American

Journal of Sociology, Vol. 69, 1963, pp. 32-40.HANDMAN, MAx, " T he Bureaucratic Culture Pattern and Political Revolutions",

American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 39, 1933, pp. 301-13·HsADV, FERREL, Public Administration: a Comparative Perspective, Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1966.HEGEL, G . W. F., Hegel's Philosophy of Right, translated by T. M. Knox, Oxford

University Press, London 1942.HEINZI!N, K ., Die PreussischeBareauhratie, Leske, Darmstadt 1845.Hl!RIuNG, E. Pl!NDELTON, Public Administration and the Public Interest, McGraw­

Hill, New York 1936.HEwART, LORD, The NefIJ Despotism, Ernest Bean, London 1929.HININGs, C. R., PuGH, D . S., HICKSON, D . J., TuRNER, C., "An Approach to

the Study of Bureaucracy", Sociology, Vol. I, 1967, pp. 61-'72.HITLER, ADOLF, My Struggle (Mein Kampf), Hurst and Blackett, London

1938.HOSI!LITZ, B. F., "Levels ofEconoInicPerformance and Bureaucratic Structure",

in Bureaucracy and Political Development, edited by J. La Palombara, 1963,pp.168-98.

148/ Bibliography

HUMBOLDT, W. VON, Idee" su einem Versuch die Grdnzen der Wirksamkeit duStaats zu bestimmen, Trewendt, Breslau 1851.

JACOB, C. E., Policy and Bureaucracy, van Nostrand, New York 1966.JACOBS, P. and LANDAu, S. (eds), The New Radicals, Penguin Books, Harmonds­

worth, Middlesex 1966.JARVIB, I. C. and AGASSI, JOSEPH, "The problem of the rat ionality of magic",

British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 18,1967, pp. 55-74.JENNINGS, W. I., The British Constitution, Cambridge Univers ity Press, London

1941•JOHNSON, H. C., "Concept of Bureaucracy in Cameralism", Political Science

Quarterly, Vol. 79, 1964, pp. 378-402•KAuTSKY, KARL, Th e Labour Revolution, Allen and Unwin, London 1925.KEETON, G. W., The Pa ssing of Parliament, Ernest Benn, London 1952.KINGSLEY, J. D., R epresentative Bureaucracy, Antioch Press, Yellow Springs,

Ohio 1944.LANDAUER, E., " Kapitalistischer Geist und VerwaltungsbUrokratie in Otfent­

lichen Unternehmungen", SchmollersJahrbuch, Vol. 54, 1930, pp. 505-2r.LAPENNA, I., State and La w: Soviet and Yugoslav Theory, The Athlone Press,

London 1964.LASKI, HAROLD, "Bureaucracy", Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 3,

Macmillan, New York 1930, pp . 70-4.--- Parliamentary Government in England, Allen and Unwin, London 1938.LASSWELL, H. D. and KAPLAN, ABRAHAM, Power and Society: A Frametsorkfor

Political Enquiry, Yale University Press, New Haven 1950.LE PLAY, F., La Riforme Socials en France , Pion, Paris 1864.LENIN, V. I., "The State and the Revolution", in Collected Works, Vol. 25,

Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1964.LEoNARD, PETER, Sociology in Social Work, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London

1966.LEROy-BEAULIEU, P., L'Btat Moderne et ses Ponctlons,Guillaurnin, Paris 1890.LICHTIIEIM, G., Marxism, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 1961.--- .M arxism in Modern Franc e, Columbia University Press, New York 1966.LITWAK, E. and MEYER, H. J ., "A Balance Theory of Co-ordination between

Bureaucratic Organizations and Community Primary Groups", AdministrativeScience Quarterly, Vol. II, 1966-67, pp. 31-58.

LONG, N. E., "Bureaucracy and Constitutionalism", American Political ScienceReoie», Vol. 46, 1952, pp, 808-18.-- "Public Policy and Administration: The Goals of Rationality and

Responsibility", Public Administration Review, Vol. 14, 1954, pp, 22-31.LUXEMBURG, ROSA, The Russian Revolution and Leninism or Marxism, edited by

B. D. Wolfe, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1961.MALcHus, C. A. VON, Politik der inneren Staatsuenaaltung, Mohr, Heidelberg

1823.MANGOLD, K. P., "Lenin's Cardinal Rules of Poverty and Recall: Neglected

Ideological Weapons for the West", Orbis, Vol. 8, 1964-65, pp. 955-'71.MANNHEIM, KARL, Freedom, Power and Democratic Planning, Routledge and

Kegan Paul, London 1951.MAO TSE-TUNG, The Thoughts of Chairman Mao Tse-tung, Anthony Gibbs,

London 1967.MARCH, J. G . and SIMON, HERBERT A., Organizations, John Wiley, New York

1958.MAnx, F. MORSTEIN, "German Bureaucracy in Transition", American Political

Science RevieflJ, Vol. ~8, 1934, PP. 467-80.

Bibliography/149

--- "Bureaucracy and Consultation", Review of Politics, Vol. 1, 1939, pp .84-100•

--- "Bureaucracy and Dictatorship", Review of Politics, Vol. 3, 1941, pp .100-17·

MARx, KARL and ENGELS, FRIEDRICH, .Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe, Marx­Engels Institute, Moscow 1927 onwards.

---BasicWritings onPoliticsandPhilosophy, edited by L. S. Feuer, Double­day, New York 1959.

--- The German Ideology, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow1965.

MAxIMOFF, G. P. (ed.), The Political Philosophy ofBakunin: Scientific Anarchism,The Free Press, Glencoe, Ill. 1953.

MAYNTZ, R., "Max Weber's Idea! typus der Biirokratie und die Organisations­Soziologie", Kslner Zeitschnyt far Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Vol. 17,1965, pp. 493-5 02.

MEISEL, J. H., The Myth of the RulingClass, University ofMichigan, Ann Arbor1958•

MIlRToN, R. K ., "Bureaucratic Structure and Personality", in Readerin Bureau­cracy, edited by R. K. Merton et at, The Free Press, Glencoe, Ill. 1952, pp.361-7 1•

MEYER, A. G., Leninism, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1957.Ml!YNAUD, JEAN, Technocracy, Faber and Faber, London 1968.MICHELS, ROBERT, PoliticalParties, Collier Books, New York 1962.MIu., J. S., On'Liberty, Longmans Green, London 1892.---Principles of PoliticalEconomy, Parker, London 1848.MILLS, C. WRIGHT, The Power Elite, Galaxy Books, New York 1959.MOHL, ROBERT VON, Staatsrecht, Volkerrecht und Politik, Laupp, Tlibingen

1862.MONTAGUIl, F. C., The Limitsof Individual Liberty,Rivingtons, London 1385.MoNYPBNNY, P., "Professional Organizations and Bureaucratic Government",

South Western SocialScience Quarterly, Vol. 32, 1952, pp. 257-63.MOSCA, GAETANO, Sulla Teorica dciGooerniesuiGooerno Parlamentare, Loescher,

Rome 1884.MOUZBLIS, N. P., Organization andBureaucracy: An Analysisof Modern Theories,

Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 1967.MUIR,RAMsAY, Peers and Bureaucrats, Constable, London 1910.MUSSOLINl, BENITO, The Corporate State, Vallachi, Florence 1938.--- The Doctrine of Fascism, Ardita, Rome 1935.---My Autobiography, Hutchinson, London n.d,NAVILLI!, P., Le Nouoeau Leviathan1: De I'Alienation ala Jouissance, Riviere,

Paris 1957.NETTL, J. P., Political Mobilization, Faber and Faber, London 1967.NEUMANN, FRANZ, Behemoth. The Structure and Practice of National Socialism,

GolJancz, London 1942.OBI!RSCHALL, A., Empirical Social Research in Germany, 1848-1914, Mouton,

The Hague 1965.O'DONNBL, ARNOUT, "State Education in France", Blackwood's EdirJmrgh

Magazine, Vol. 40, 1836, pp. 579-94.OLSZEWSKI, J ., Bureaukratie, Stuber, Wlit2burg 1904.PAllSONS, TALCOTT, Structure and Process in Modern Societies, The Free Press,

Glencoe, 111. 1960.PtPI!S, RICHARD, "Max Weber et Ia Russie", Le Contrat Social, Vol. 4, Paris

J960, pp. 71-6.

150/Bibliography

1'REsTHUS, R. V., "Weberian v, Welfare Bureaucracy in Traditional Society" •. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 6, 1961-62, pp. 1~24.

--- Th8 Organizational Society, Knopf, New York 1962.RllNNER, KARL, Demokratie und Bureaukratie, Europa Verlag, Vienna 1947.RIGGS, F. W., "Agraria and Industria: Toward a Typology of Public Administra-

tion", in Toward the Comparative Study of Public Administration. edited byW. J. Siffin, 1957, pp. 23-u 6.

--- Administration in Developing Countries: The Theory of Prismatic Society,Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1964.

--- "Bureaucracy and Political Development: A Paradoxical View", inBureaucracy and Poltical Development, edited by J. La Palombara, 1963, pp.120-67.

RIZZI, B. ("Bruno R."), La Bureaucratisation du Monde,Hachette, Paris 1939.ROBSON, W. A. (ed.), The Civil Service in Britain and France, The Hogarth

Press, London 1956.ROHMER. FRIEDRICH, Deutschlands alte und neue Bureaukratie, Kaiser, Munich

1848.ROSENBERG, ALFRED, Der Mythus des 20 Jahrhunderts, Hoheneichen Verlag,

Munich 1943.---Blut und Bhre, N .S.D.A.P., Munich 1936.ROURRIl, F. E ., "Secrecy in American Bureaucracy". Political Science Quarterly.

Vol. 72, 1957. pp. 540-64 .--- "Bureaucracy and Public Opinion", in Bureaucratic Power in National

Politics, edited by F. E. Rourke, Little, Brown& Co., Boston 1965,pp . 188-99.SANTANGELO SPOTO, I ., "La Burocrazia e il Govemo Parlamentare", in Biblio­

teca di Sdenze Politiche e Amministrative, edited by A. Brunialti, Turin 1902,PP·I-5Il.

SAUVAGEOT, J. et al., The Student Revolt,Panther Books, London 1968.SAUVY, A., La Bureaucratie,P.U.F., Paris 1956.SAYRE, WALLACE S., "Bureaucracies: Some Contrasts in Systems", Indian

Journalof Public Administration, Vol. rc, 1964, pp. 219-29.SAYRE, WALLACE S. (ed.), The Federal Government Service, Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1965.SCHACHTMAN, M., The Bureaucratic Revolution, Donald Press, New York 1962.SCHMITT, CARL, VerfassungsrechtlicheAuJsatze1924-54, Duncker und Humbler,

Berlin 1958.SCHMIDT, CARL T., The Corporate State in Action: Italy underFascism, Oxford

University Press, New York 1939.SCHMOLLER, G., "Die Behiirdenorganisation und die allgemeine Staatsverwalt­

ung Preussens im 18 Jahrhundert", in Acta Borussica, edited by G. Schmoller,Vol. I, Parey, Berlin 1894, pp, 1-141.

--- "Der deutsche Beamtenstaat vom 16 bis 18 Jahrundert", Umrisse undUntersuchungen zur Verjassungs-, Verwaltungs- und Wirtschafrsgeschichte.Duncker und Humbler, Berlin 1898, pp. 289-313.

SCHULTE, F. VON, "Bureaucracy and its Operation in Germany and Austria­Hungary". Contemporary Review,Vol. 37, 1880, pp . 432-58.

SCHUMPBTER, J. A., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Allen and Unwin,Lendon 1950.

SELZNICK, P., "An Approach to a Theory of Bureaucracy", American SociologicalReview,Vol. 8, 1943, pp . 47-54.

--- TVA and the GrassRoots,Harper Torchbooks, New York 1966.SERENO, R., "The Anti-Aristotelianism of Gaetano Mosca and its Fate", Ethics,

Vol. 48, 1937-38,PP. 509- 18•

BibliographY/I5I

SHARP, W. R., "Le D.!veloppement de la Bureaucratie aux Btats-Unis", Revuedes Sciences Politiques; Vol. 50, 1927, pp , 393-415, 539-54.

SIFFIN, W. J. (ed .), Toward the ComparatifJe S tudy of Public Administration,Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana 1957.

SILBERMAN, B. S., " Bureaucracy and Economic Development in Japan", AsianSureey, Vol. 5, 1965, pp , 529-37.

SIMON, HERBERT A., Administrative B ehaolor, Macmillan, New York 1957.--- "Staff and Management Controls", Annals of the A merican A cademy of

Political and S ocial S cience, Vol. 292, 1954, pp, 95-103.SJODI!RG, G., BRYMER, R. A. and FARRIS, B., "Bureaucracy and the Lower

Class" , So ciology and S ocial R esearch, Vol. 50, 1966, pp. 325-37.SW.HND, Rudo lf, Staatsrechtliche A bhandlungen lind andere Aufsatze, Duncker

un d Humbler, Berlin 1955.SPENCER, H ERBERT, "Specialized Administration", in Essays Scientific, Political

and Sp eculat ive by Herbert Spencer, Williams and Norgate, London 1891,PP·401-44·

--- The }dan fJersus the State, Williams and Norgate, London 1885.--- Th e Study of Sociology.. Ann Arbor Paperbacks, 1961.SPITZER, A. B., " Bureaucrat as Pro-consul: The Restoration Prefect and the

Police Generale", Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 7, 1965,PP·371-92 •

ST}.LIN,J ., Leninism, Allen and Unwin, London 1928.STAMMER, Orro, "Btirokratie", in Handbuch del' SOZl'ologie, edited by W.

Ziegenfuss, F . Enke, Stuttgart 1956, pp. 601-3.STAWAR, ANDRE, Libres Essais Marxism, Editions du Seuil, Paris 1963.STEIN, LORENZVON, Die Veruialtungslehre, Cotta, Stuttgart 1869.STEWART, R., The R eality of Management, Heinemann, London 1963.STINCHCOMBE, A. L ., " Bureaucratic and Craft Administration of Production: A

Comparative Study", Administrative Science Qllarter{y, Vol. 4, 195!)-60, pp.168-87·

STr,AUSS, E., The Ruling Servants, Allen and Unwin, London 1961.STROUP, H., Bureaucracy in Higher Education, Free Press, Ncw York 1966.SULUVAN, L., B ureaucracy Runs Amuck, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis and Ncw

York 1944.--- The Dead H and of Bureaucracy, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis and Ncw

York 1940.SULTAN, H. and ABEIWROTH, W., Barohratische V errvaltungsstaat und Sozial«

Demokratie, O. GoedeI , Hannover and Frankfurt a.M, 1955.TOCQUEVILLE, A. DB, L'Ancien Regime et la R ioolution, C. Levy, Paris 1877.TROTSKY, L. , The New Course, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1965.--- The R evolut ion Betrayed, Doubleday, New York 1937.TuLLOCK, G. , The Politics of Bureaucracy, Public Affairs Press, Washington,

D.C. 1965.UDY, S. R., " Bur eaucracy and Rationality in Weber's Organization Theory",

A merican S ociological Reoiet», Vol. 24, 1959, pp. 791-5.URWICK, L. , "Burcaucracy and Democracy", Public Administration, Vol. 14,

1936, pp. 134-49.VIVIEN, L., Etudes Administratiues, Guillaumin, Paris 1845.W.'.RNOTTI!, D., "Bureaucratie et Fonctionnairismc", Revue de l'Tnstitut de

Sociologic, UnifJersiteLibre de Bruxelles, Vol. 17, 1937, Pl!. 218-60.WEBER, ALFRBD, "Dcr Beamte", in Idem zur Staats- und Kultursoziologie, G.

Braun, Karlsruhe 1927, pp. 81-101.

152/Bibliography

WIlBER. MAx. Gesamme1tePolitische Schriften, J. C. B. Mohr. Tiibingen 1958.--- Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society. edited by Max Rheinsteln,

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass . 1954---- The Methodology of the Social Sciences. translated and edited by E. A.

Shils and H. A. Finch. The Free Press, Glencoe. TIL 1949.--- The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, translated by A. M.

Henderson and Talcott Parsons. The Free Press. Glencoe. Ill. 1947.--- Wirtschafl und Gesellschaft. J. C. B. Mohr. TUbingen 1956.WILLIAMS. RAYMOND (ed.), May Day Manifesto 1968. P.enguin Books. Har­

mondsworth, Middlesex 1968.WITTFOGBL, KARL A., Oriental Despotism, Yale University Press, New Haven

1957·--- "Ruling Bureaucracy of Oriental Despotism: A Phenomenon that Para­

lyzed Marx", Review of Politics, Vol. 15, 1953, pp. 35Q-9.WOLL,P., American Bureaucracy. W. W. Norton, New York 1963.YANG, C. K., "Some Characteristics of Chinese Bureaucratic Behaviour". in

Confucianum in Action, edited by D. S. Nivison and A. F. Wright, StanfordUniversity Press, Stanford, California 1959, pp . 134-64-

Index

Acta Borussica, 52.Administrative systems, comparison

of,60Almond and Coleman : The Politics of

Dtvelqping Arta.r, 97Amateur admini stration, 48Anarchism, anarchists, 36, 72.Aristocracy, concept of, 17,2.0,31,91,

103Aristotle, 2.0, 33Austria-Hungary, 2.4Authority: Weber on, 39-45, 62.-3,

100; his eight principles of legal,43-4

Aylmer, G. E., The Kitzg's Servants, 99

Bagehot, 23-4, 30; The English Con-stitution, 23

Bahrdt, H . P., Industriebarokratl'e, 98Bakunin, Mikhail, 72Balzac, Honore de, 18, 30; Les Em-

ployls,18Baum, B. H., II7Beck, C., 60Beck, J. M., Our Wonderland of

Bureaucracy; IIo-IIBendix, Reinhard, 57-8; Higher Civil

Servants in American Society, 57;Work and Authority in Industry,99

Bennis, 102.Berger, M., 60Berlin, insurrection (1848), 71Bernstein, Eduard, 73Bismarck, Prince Otto von, 47Blame, J. S., 21Blackwood's 2.1Blau, Peter, 58, 61, 90, 99; Bureaucracy

in Modern Society, 87; Dynamics ofBureauCTaey,58, 88; Formal Organi­iZatiom (with Scott), 61, 87

Bolsheviks, 73, 78Boyer, W. W., II4

Brecht, Arnold, 'H ow BureaucraciesDevelop and Function', 93

Britain: budget, compromise over, 48;cabinet , 47; civil service, g.!>.;pollti­cal parties, 81-2. (See also England)

Brockhaus encyclopaedia, 28-9Building industry, 59, 99Buralist, 19Bureaucracy: as administration by

officials, 44-6, 98-100; as modernsociety, 102-5; as the organization,100-2; as public administration,94-8; as rule by officials, 91-4, 108,122; concepts and meaning of, 13,IS, 18-21, 30-2, S0, 84-1°5, 1%0,122-5; conservative attitude to, 81;continental theory of, 24, 26-32;democracy's relation to, 51, 103,106-19; diagnosis of, IIo-14; earlydefinitions of, 17-18, 21; Englishtheory of, 21-6; first academicanalysis of, 29; four types of (M.Marx) , 95; functions of, 24; ideo­logical concepts of, 67!J.; limits im­posed on, 47-9; Mosca 's andMichels's concept of, 36-7; non­Western societies and, 60, 72-9;origin of term, 16-18; patrimonialtype of, 96; rational bureaucracy,43-5, 54-66, 87; remedies of, 114­19; term ofabuse, 29; term in every­day speech , 124-5; two major types(Gouldner), 56; Weber's theorieson, see Weber

Bureaucratic absolutism (Mosca), 34Bureaucratic collectivism (Rim), 76Bureaucratism, 29-30, 45-6Bureaucratization, 104-5; Bendix on,

99; under Lenin, 74; Weber on,45-6,49

Bureaumania; 16Bureau-s-or Einheitssysttm, 27Bureau system and bureaucracy, 2.7-9

153

I 54/lndex

Burnham, James, 103; The ManagerialRewlution, 103

Barokratimtus and Barokratier, 91Business efficiency, contrast with

bureaucracy, 24Byzantine Empire, 41

CaMdianBureauaacy, The, 94Carlyle, Thomas, 21Caste bureaucracy, 96Castro, Fidel, 78Centralization, 100; de Tocqueville

on, 30; Mosca on, 35China: administration in, 16, 59, 96-'7;

bureaucracy, 23, 60; bureaucrat­capitalists attacked, 77; class struc­ture,93

Charles I, King, 99Civil service: Britlsb, 25, 82, 95, 99,

IIO, II2-13, II5; German, 112,II6; Swiss, 99, II6

Cleveland, President, 23Cole, Taylor, The Canadian Bureau­

cracy, 94; Responsible Bureaucracy• • • the Swiss Civil Seroice (withFriedrich), 99

Collegium, system of, 27-8, 44, 48, S0,68-9

Collegiality, concept of (Weber), 47Conservatilm, 8 IConstas, H., 59Contemporary Reoie», 25CotIfIBrsationsUxicon, 21Corpuz, O. D., 57Creel, H. G., 60Crichel Down, 13Crossman, Richard, Planningfor Free­

dom,82Crozier, Michel, 90, 104; The Bureau­

craticPhenomenon, 90Cuba, 77-8

De Gournay, Mo, 16-17, 29, 31, 46de Grimm, Baron, 16Delaney,W., 59Delegated legislation, IIo-IIDemocn.cy, 106-19; concept of, 17,

20, 31, 91, 103; conflict with publicadministration, U3; direct, 48;xelatiOll to bureaucracy, 51, 103,106-19i xepretentative, 48-9, 81-3,uS; Weber on, 46-7, 107

de TocquevDle, 30

Developing countries, administrationand politics, 97

Dimock, Marshall, 89-90Djilas, Milovan, 77-8, 92, 103; The

NerD Class, 77Dorsey, J. T., 96Dumonty-Rene, 78

Eastern Europe, 60Easton, David, 98Efficiency: J. S. Mills' attitude to, 24;

Weber's ideas on, 61-6, 88Egypt, 41, 60Eisenstadt, S. N., 15, 105; Political

Systemsof Empires, 96Encyclopaedia of the.SocialSciences, 92FJl.gland: comparisons of administra­

tion, 23-4, 60; honorary public ser-vants, 35; local government, 24;parliamentary system, 49; patronagebureaucracy in, 96; political parties,II3; theory of democracy, 21-6 (SeealsoBritain)

Etzioni, 101

Fascism, Fascists, 34, 67, 76, 79-81,94, 103

Feudal state, 34, 53Finer, Herman,92, 106, 109, III-I2,

u5Fischel, Eduard, 33, 35; DieVer/assung

Englands, 24France: bureaucracy in, 16-18,30, 64,

71, 104; central administration, 60;educational system, 21; laws onrelations of officials and citizens,u4; prefects' functions, 60; studentmovement, 78

Francis, R. G., 62, 87; Service andProcedure in Bureaucracy (withStone),56

Friedrich, Carl, 57, 50, 99-101, 108-9,UI, II5-16, II8; ResponsibleBureaucracy • • • the Swiss CivilSeroice (with Cole), 99; "SomeObservations on Weber's Analysisof Bureaucracy", 60

Germany: bureaucracy in, 17-21, 24­32,64,66,71,79-80; Barokratisrmuand Barokratie, 91; influence onWeber, 50-4; Marx on Germanstate, 68---70

(;Orres, Johan, 20-1; EUTope and tMRetJolution, 20; Germany and theRetJOlution, 2 I

Gouldner, Alvin, S9;Patternsof Indus­trial Bureaucracy, S6

Goumay, see de GoumayGIeek concepts ofgovernment, 17, S3,

91Grimm, Baron de, 16Grimond, Jo, 82Guardian bureaucracy, 96Guetskow, H ., Organisations (with

March and Simon), 61Guevara, Che, 78

Heady, Ferrel, 102Hegel, G. W. F., 31, II8; on powers of

the state, 68-70; The Philosophy ofRight, 68

Heidelberg, 29Hein:zen, Karl, 19, 28-9, 31, 70Herring, E. Pendelton, 81, lIS; Public

Administration and the Public In­terest, II8

Hewart, Lord Chief Justice Gordon,II4-IS; TheNew Despotism, IIo-II

Hitlex, Adolf, 79-80, U2Hoovex Commission Reporr, USHungary, rising (19S6), 78Hyneman, C. S., 101, III; Bureau­

cracyin a Democracy, lIS

International Workingmen's Associa-tion,72

Italy, seeFascists

Jacob, c. E., 118Johnson, Dr Samuel, 21

Kant, Immanuel, 18Kaplan, Abraham, Pouer and Society

(with Lasswell), 93Kautsky, Karl, 73, 78Kingsley, J.D., RepresentatioeBUTeau-

cracy,II2Kollontai, Alexandra, 74Kraus, Christian, 18-19Kronstadt, sailors' revolt, 74

La Palombara, J., Bureaucracy andPolitical DetJeWpmmt, S9, 96-]

LapenDa,I., 77Laski, Harold, 92

Index/ISS

Lasswell, Harold, 124; POfDet' andSociety (with Kaplan), 93

Legitimacy: belief in, 40, 43-4; con­ceptions of, 43

Lenin, 72-S; TM State andtM RetJolu-tion, 73, 7S

Leonard, Peter, 88Le Play, Frederic, 18, 30-1Leroy-Beaulieu, Pierre, 30Lichtheim, 78Littre's dictionary, 18Long, N. E., 118Louis Bonaparte, 71Luxemburg, Rosa, 73

Macchiavelli, Nicco1o, 16Managers and administrators, InMannheim, Karl, 104Mao Tse-tung, 77March, J. G., Organisations (with

Guetskow and Simon), 61Maa, Karl, 34, 41, 67-79, 93, 113;

attitude to bureaucracy, 31-2, S2,68-72, 7S-6, t03; critieism ofHegel, 68-9; influence on Webex,So, S2; problems for successors of,72-9; theory of the state, 70-1;works quoted: Cioil War in France,71;Critique of tM GothaProgramme,70; Eighteenth Brumair« of LouisBonaparte, 71; German Ideology,70-1; Kritik des HegelscMn Staat­sredu, 68-9, 71; Manifesto of tMCommunist Party, 70-1

Maa, MorsteiD, The AdministratifJ,State, 96

May Day Manifesto 1968, 78Mayntz, Renate, 62Medicare, 13Mensheviks, 73, 78Mexit bureaucracy, 96Merton, Robert, IS, 55-6, 58, 90;

"Bureaucratic Structure and Per­sonality",55

Meynaud, Jean, Tec1mocracy,93Michels, Robert, 31-2, 36-8, 42, 46,

So, 85, 94; 'iron law of ollguchy',92;PoliticalPartiu, 36, 51

Mill, John Stuart, 22-4, 29, 31, 33, 35,46, 66, 118, 124; QmsiduatiDru onRepresentativ, Guoernment, 22; OnLiberty, 22; Prindpks uf PoliticalEconomy, 22

IS6/Index

Modern society, bureauaacy as, 102-5Monarchy, concept of, 17, 31, 9t,

103Monocratic o,collegial administration,

50Montague, F. C., The Limits of Indi­

vidual Liberty, 25Mosca, Gaetano, 31-9, 51, 85, 103;

classification of governments, 33-6;concept of bureaucracy, 35-8, 42;plea for representative government,35, 49; The Ruling Class, 33-4

Mouzelis, N., 62; Organization andBureaucracy, 87

Muir, Ramsay, 55; "Bureaucracy inEngland", 26

Mussolini, Benito, 79-80, 94

Napoleon I, Emperor, 18-19, 27Nazis, 79-80Nettl, Political Mobilization, 87New Deal, 13New International, The, 76New Left, 78, 82Non-Western societies, 59Northcote, Sir Stafford, 25

Office of Administrative Procedureproposed, II4

Officials: bureaucracy as administra­tion by, 98-100, 106-8; bureaucracyas rule by, 91-4, 108, 122; controlof, II4-15; functions of, in demo­cratic state, IIo-I3; paradoxicalposition of, 32; recruitment of, 112­13, II7; Russian, 76; salaried, 32,34-7, 53; social characteristics of,55-7; Weber on, 41-5, 47, 58

Oligarchy, Michels on, 36-7Olszewski, Josef, 30-1, 37, 45, 66Ombudsman, lISOrganization: bureaucracy as the ,

100-2; division of functions in, 55;modem, features of, 82, 121; prin­ciples of, 43-5; rational, bureau­cracy as,87-91; Webel's analysis of,37-40, 100-1, 104

Organizational efficiency, bureaucracyas, 89-91

Paris: Commune (1871), 74; studentrevolt (1968), 78

Parsons, Talcott, 56; Structure andProcessin Modem Societies, 101

Patrimonial bureaucracy, 41, S9Patronage bureaucracy, 96Pipes, R., S9Popular Encyclopaedia (1837), 21Power: framework for study of, 91-4;

of public officials, 32, no, II4;separation of powers, 47-8 ; Weberon, 39, 46-8

Pres thus, R. V., 59, 101-2; TheOrganizational Society, 104

Private enterprise, 81Prussia, 19-20, 23, 27-8, 70-1, 96;

administrative system, 52, 54, 60Public administration, bureaucracy as,

94-8

Rational bureaucracy, concept of, 43-5,54-66,87

Rationality: and efficiency, 62-5, 88,90; formal, 63-6

Referenda (Michels's), 36Renner, Karl, Demokratie und Bur-

eaukratie, 98Representative gevernment, 48-9, II8Rheinische Merkur, 20 .Riggs, Fred W., 96-7; Administration

in DevelopingCountries, 97; "Agrariaand Industria • • .", 97

Rizzi, Bruno, 76-'7, 92, 103; LaBureaucratisation du Monde, 76

Rohmer, Friedrich, 28Roman Empire, 41, 53Rosenberg, Alfred, 80Rourke, F. E., II3Rules: attitudes to, 56-8, II6; Lenin's

use of, 73; Weber's, 63Russia: bureaucracy in, 23; methods of

administration, 59; revolutions, 59­60, 72-3; under Stalin and Trotsky,75-7

Sayre, W. S., 99, II8Schachtman, Max, 76Schmitt, Carl, 80Schmoller, Gustav, So, 52-4Schumpeter, 82Scott, W. Richard, Formal Organiza-

tions (with Blau), 61, 87Selznick,Philip,S5-6Separation of powers, 47-8Sharp, W. R.,92

Shen Pu-hai, 16Simon, Herbert, 61, 6S, 88, 101, US;

Administrative Behaoior, 61; Organi­sations (with Guetskow and March) ,61

Smend, Rudolf, S7Socialism: and Western democracy,

81; definition of (Paris 1968),78Social scientists , working, 123-4Social welfare services, 60Spencer, Herbert, 21, 25, 33, 35, 52Spitzer, A. B. 60Stalin, 74-5, 77-8Stansted, 13Stinchcombe, A. L., 59, 99Stone, R. C., 62, 87; Service and Pro­

cedure in Bureaucracy (with Francis),S6

Strauss, E., 89-90; The Ruling Ser­fJants,89

Student movement, 78, u8Sultan, H ., "Blirokratie und Politi-

sche Machtbildung", 98-9Switzerland, 99Syndicalism (Michels), 36

Tiro, Marshall, 77-8Trotsky, Leon, 75, 78; The Reuolution

Betrayed, 75-6Turkey, coal industry in, S9

Unemployment procedures, 58United States: building industry, 59;

bureaucracy and administration, 23,64, 96-'7, 99, lIo-I3; central ad­ministration and control, 60, lIS,u7-I8; civil servants, S7-8; con­servatism in, 81; Rizzi's opinion on,76; student movement, 78

IndeX/IS1

Verband, Weber's concept of, 38Vienna, 51, 64Vietnam, 96Von Humboldt, Wilhelm, An Attempt

to Determ ine the Limits of EffectifJe­ness of the State, 19

von Mises, Ludwig, 81von Mohl, Robert, 29-31,124von Schulte, Friedrich, 24-5; "Bureau­

cracy and its Operation in Germanyand Austria-Hungary", 24

von Stein, Lorenz, 19, 27, 29, S3

Warnotte, Daniel, 92Weber, Alfred, 66Weber, Max,14, 27, 31-2, 37-67, 80,

84-7, go, 99, 107, U), u6; conceptof bureaucracy, 40-S4, 86-7, 98,124; critics of, 54-66; his idealrational type of bureaucracy, 43-S,54-66, 87, 100; identifies bureau­cracy with modem officialdom, S4;limits on bureaucracy, 4S-9; majorinfluences upon, S0-4; on adminis­strative staff, 44-6; on authority andpower, 39-49; on free parliaments,48-9; "Parliament and Governmentin the Newly Organized Germany",37,47; theory oforganization, 37-40,100, 104; Wirtschaft und Gesell­schoft, 37-8, S6

Weimar Republic, 80Westml'nster Reoiet», 21Wittfogel, Karl, 72, 103; Oriental

Despotism, 93Woll, P., uBWomen's suffrage, 26

Yugoslavia, 77, 82