The Bureaucracy And Its Effectiveness

Amanda and Dr. Ryan standing in Dr. Ryan’s office.

Last week we examined the role that the president plays in the decisionmaking process. This week we will look at the bureaucracy and the judiciary, two completely different institutions that are absolutely necessary for our democracy to work.

What do you think about these institutions, Amanda?

POL110_9_1_AI-1.mp3: Well Dr. Ryan, I know some of this from my readings. Unique among other democracies, America’s bureaucracy is distinctive. This is because political authority over it is shared by the executive and legislative branches. This encourages it to play each branch off against the other.

Secondly, in the U.S., federal bureaucrats pay other agencies at the state and local levels, as well as business firms and non-profit agencies, to administer government programs.

POL110_9_1_DR-2.mp3: Good start. Now let’s look at the bureaucracy’s growth. It began small, of course, but exploded first during World War I from 1917 to 1919. This was because of the role the government took in the post-war growing economy.

Then, a little more than a decade later under Roosevelt’s New Deal it became even larger. This was because of the expansion of federal programs like welfare and Social Security. Roosevelt later invoked the income tax policy during World War II and was collecting a huge amount of money by the end of the war.

As you can imagine, this required a substantial increase in federal workers to keep track of these revenues. This money was used to start a great many additional programs which, in turn, required more administrators.

POL110_9_1_AI-2.mp3: That very interesting! I think that the federal bureaucracy, numbering just about two and one-half million people today, is now at the same level it was in 1955. In fact, it’s shrunk since then, relative to the population of over three hundred million Americans whom it now serves.

This will be an interaction that showcases various facts about the distinctiveness of the American bureaucracy.

Button 1: Political authority. Political authority over the bureaucracy is shared between the presidency and Congress. This means that bureaucrats are able to play each branch against the other. In parliamentary governments, like Great Britian, the prime minister and cabinet control the bureaucracy.

Button 2: Shared functions. Most federal agencies share their functions with related agencies in state and local government. This brings a level of control to local governments. In France, these programs are centrally run.

Button 3: Electing legislators. In other representative democracies, voters elect legislators. In the U.S., however, bureaucrats often elect “other people” who do the work, including business firms and nonprofit organizations.

Button 4: Personal rights. Americans have a tendency to defend rights and claims. This leads to government agencies operating under close public scrutiny. Other nations would not have such a high prospect of court challenges.

Button 5: Scope and Style. There are many privately owned enterprises. Western European nations have more publicly operated enterprises, where the government owns and operates large sectors of the economy.

POL110_9_2_DR-2.mp3: Shared functions. Most federal agencies share their functions with related agencies in state and local government. This brings a level of control to local governments. In France, these programs are centrally run.

POL110_9_2_DR-3.mp3: Electing legislators. In other representative democracies, voters elect legislators. In the U.S., however, bureaucrats often elect “other people” who do the work, including business firms and nonprofit organizations.

POL110_9_2_DR-4.mp3: Personal rights. Americans have a tendency to defend rights and claims. This leads to government agencies operating under close public scrutiny. Other nations would not have such a high prospect of court challenges.

POL110_9_2_DR-5.mp3: Scope and Style. There are many privately owned enterprises. Western European nations have more publicly operated enterprises, where the government owns and operates large sectors of the economy.

Amanda and Dr. Ryan do a visual tour of a museum or historical exhibit in Capitol Hill that showcases the material that is covered. This is sort of a visual tour of Washington D.C. as well as a visual component to the conversation.

Nevertheless, Amanda, two and one-half million people is no small gathering, so how does Congress control them?

POL110_9_3_AI-1.mp3: Well…first of all, with the exception of a few presidential offices and commissions, no federal agency would be able to exist without congressional approval. On a related note, no agency, once approved, would be able to function without a congressionally approved budget.

Keep in mind that if you control the money then you control the group.

POL110_9_3_DR-2.mp3: Actually, there’s no such thing as “the bureaucracy in general.” This is because it is divided into so many components at the federal, state and local levels. And all of these components have different objectives and programs.

The five problems that are common with them are red tape, conflict, duplication, waste and imperialism. The first four are self-explanatory, but the last one is worth a moment.

By imperialism we mean agencies seek goals that are so broad and difficult to measure that it’s difficult to tell when, or even if, they have been attained. Unless Congress has clearly defined its role, an agency tends to take the most expansive view of its power that it can. And sympathetic interest groups looking for favors are only too happy to reinforce this view.

POL110_9_3_AI-2.mp3: Is this why people wonder if there is anything that can be done to make a government agency more responsive to its citizens?

POL110_9_3_DR-3.mp3: I would say yes.

After Al Gore undertook his National Performance Review in 1993 in an effort to stream line the government, the conclusions were that red tape had to be cut, customers had to be put first, and employees had to be given more power to make decisions.

Surprisingly, this initial effort was partially successful in improving government performance, and it’s continued under Barak Obama. The only two problems are that first, much of government is composed of private workers and nonprofit agencies who may not necessarily respond to these initiatives. Secondly, it’s not easy to fire unproductive employees.

POL110_9_3_AI-3.mp3: Well, can’t presidents control the bureaucracy in numerous ways? They can appoint the right people to head an agency, issue executive orders, and reorganize agencies to suit their preferences.

And Congress, too. It can control the bureaucracy by influencing the appointment of agency heads, tinkering with an agency’s budget, holding hearings, and rewriting the legislation or making it more detailed.

Either way, the bureaucracy isn’t really out of control. It’s just big and unwieldy.

POL110_9_3_DR-4.mp3: Excellent, analysis, Amanda.

This will be an interactive knowledge check.

What is one of the most effective ways that Congress maintains control over the bureaucracy?

A. through appointments

B. X through appropriations

C. through authorizing legislation

D. through dictating economic policy

E. through imperialism

Answer: B. Money is influence, and the bureaucracy needs appropriations from Congress if it is to function properly. This is because it is unable to generate revenues on its own.

POL110_9_4_AI-1.mp3: Why not?

POL110_9_4_DR-2.mp3: Okay, then, let’s discuss the judicial branch. I suppose the best place to begin is with the principle of judicial review. This refers to the power of the courts to declare acts of the executive and legislative branches unconstitutional, and hence, null and void.

POL110_9_4_AI-2.mp3: I always thought this was a really interesting topic.

If we look at how our federal courts have developed, we can see three distinct time periods. From the end of the Revolutionary War until the end of the Civil War, the most salient issues were consolidating nation-building, achieving government legitimacy, and slavery.

From the end of the Civil War until the mid-1930s, the dominant issue was how the government would address the severe economic collapse of the Depression. We see that from about 1937 until the present, the Supreme Court has been concerned with ensuring personal liberties and social equality.

POL110_9_4_DR-3.mp3: Quite right. Looking at the structure of the federal court system, we see that Congress created constitutional and legislative courts to handle cases that don’t need to go to the highest level. The first gives its judges constitutional protection, in that they serve for life and cannot be fired or suffer a reduction in salary while in office. This includes district courts and courts of appeal, which review the decisions of the former.

In contrast, legislative courts are established by Congress for specialized purposes. They are staffed with people with fixed terms of office, who can be removed or suffer a salary reduction.

POL110_9_4_AI-3.mp3: I’ve always thought that the process of presidential nominees to the Supreme Court was a fascinating study of politics at its best.

POL110_9_4_DR-4.mp3: That’s certainly one way of putting it.

Every president wishes for a chance to put someone into that body because the political leaning of the Court will tend to follow him. Thus, a Republican president will want someone who is a conservative, usually a federal judge with a great deal of experience. Keep in mind that a Democratic president will nominate an activist judge with a liberal voting record.

But, as you said, nominating them and then getting them through the Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate are two hurdles that not all presidents have overcome.

POL110_9_4_AI-4.mp3: What you are referring to is called Senatorial courtesy, isn’t it?

POL110_9_4_DR-5.mp3: Very good, Amanda. That’s exactly what it’s called. It’s a long-standing tradition, whereby a presidential nominee for a judgeship will not be confirmed if a senator from the nominee’s state files a personal objection for political reasons. It’s a very arbitrary process, and it can be extremely unfair. But it happens.

So, Amanda, what do you know about the jurisdiction of federal courts?

POL110_9_4_AI-5.mp3: I suppose I could describe it as a dual court system composed of state and federal components. This leads to some very complicated jurisdiction over who hears what kinds of cases.

POL110_9_4_DR-6.mp3: Right you are.

The Constitution lists all of the cases the Supreme Court can hear, and everything else is left in the hands of state courts. To simplify matters, it’s enough to tell people that if a crime is committed against a federal employee like an FBI agent, or on federal property such as a federally insured bank, then the federal courts retain jurisdiction. Or if any criminal kidnaps someone or crosses a state boundary for any reason while in commission of a felony, it becomes federal.

There are a number of other crimes that fall within the federal government’s jurisdiction, such as securities fraud, counterfeiting and terrorism, but we’ll leave those to the criminal justice majors to discuss. All we need to know is that if someone loses their initial case at the federal court level, then their only recourse is the federal court of appeals. This will take place only if the rights of the accused have been violated. But if convicted, and the Supreme Court decides not to hear their appeal, then they go to a federal penitentiary where there’s no parole, instead of one those cozy little local state prisons.

POL110_9_4_AI-6.mp3: Sounds horrible. I wonder if most of them knew they were committing a federal crime when they did so.

POL110_9_4_DR-7.mp3: My guess is no, not if they had even the vaguest idea of what awaited them if found guilty.

This will be an interaction that showcases facts about the different types of courts.

Button 1: Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the only federal court that must exist. It is required by Article III of the Constitution. The number of justices is not set, and neither is its jurisdiciton as an appeals court.

Button 2: Constitutional Court. A constitutional court is one of the two types of lower courts created by Congress. It exercises judicial powers defined in Article III of the Constitution.

Button 3: District Courts. District Courts are a type of constitutional court. They are the lowest of the federal courts.

Button 4: Court of Appeals. The courts of appeals are constitutional courts. They are authorized to review decisions made by the federal courts.

Button 5: Legislative Court. A legislative court is one of the two types of lower courts created by Congress. It is created for a specialized purpose. Its judges do not have the protection of Article III of the Constitution.

POL110_9_5_DR-2.mp3: Constitutional Court. A constitutional court is one of the two types of lower courts created by Congress. It exercises judicial powers defined in Article three of the Constitution.

POL110_9_5_DR-3.mp3: District Courts. District Courts are a type of constitutional court. They are the lowest of the federal courts.

POL110_9_5_DR-4.mp3: Court of Appeals. The courts of appeals are constitutional courts. They are authorized to review decisions made by the federal courts.

POL110_9_5_DR-5.mp3: Legislative Court. A legislative court is one of the two types of lower courts created by Congress. It is created for a specialized purpose. Its judges do not have the protection of Article three of the Constitution.

But what I didn’t realize until recently is that your appeal to the Supreme Court is not automatically taken up by that body unless the majority of justices vote to hear the case. They only do this if they think it involves a constitutional principle. As it turns out, only five percent of appeals make that cut. Why do you think this is?

POL110_9_6_DR-1.mp3: Theoretically, everyone in the U.S. has the right to appeal a case to the Supreme Court, even the indigent, who often has interest groups take up their cause. We have to pay our own legal costs along the way, but there is such a thing as fee shifting which enables plaintiffs to recover their costs if defendants lose the case.

Bear in mind that there is an important non-financial restriction on getting into federal court. In order to be able to sue a person or institution, the plaintiff must have something called standing . Standing defines who is entitled to bring the case. It is also important to remember that the government has sovereign immunity, meaning that a citizen may not sue it without first receiving its permission.

POL110_9_6_AI-2.mp3: I would love to see the Supreme Court in session.

POL110_9_6_DR-2.mp3: That’s not as hard as you may think. The Supreme Court holds open sessions.

When we get there, the first thing we’ll see is the attorneys on both sides submitting their briefs to the Court and then arguing the merits of their side. Sometimes an amicus curiae or friend of the court may offer an oral argument for one side or the other in the form of polite lobbying of the Court. But this is done by someone who is not directly involved in the suit itself.

Once the Court renders a majority decision from the nine members, majority and minority opinions are read. Some of these are quite brief and unsigned, and others are several pages long and signed by all of the members. This is the opinion that stands as the law of the land and no further appeal is possible.

POL110_9_6_AI-3.mp3: The Supreme Court is a very powerful institution because it can make a policy, and it can do this by declaring existing laws unconstitutional.

This immediately changes the law of the land. The president and legislative bodies all across America must change existing policy if they are to conform to the law. Of course, it can have the same effect if it simply leaves a law unchanged, otherwise known as following the principle of precedent.

These, along with remedy, constitute the three judicial powers in which a judicial order mandates what must be done to correct what a judge believes to be a wrong.

This will be an interactive knowledge check.

Which of the following is true?

A. Constitutional courts are set up for a specific purpose and legislative courts’ members are given judicial protection.

B. Legislatives contain district courts and courts of appeal, and constitutional members can be removed arbitrarily and their salaries reduced.

C. Fee shifting was developed the help wealthy defendants recoup their financial losses if they were unfairly accused.

D. X Sovereign immunity means that the government must grant citizens permission before they can sue it.

E. Without standing, I can still bring a case.

Answer: D. Though it seems counterintuitive that someone would actually give permission to be sued, but the federal government does it all the time.

A. Constitutional courts are set up for a specific purpose and legislative courts’ members are given judicial protection.

B. Legislatives contain district courts and courts of appeal, and constitutional members can be removed arbitrarily and their salaries reduced.

C. Fee shifting was developed to help wealthy defendants recoup their financial losses if they were unfairly accused.

D. X Sovereign immunity means that the government must grant a citizen permission before they can sue.

E. Without standing, I can still bring a case.

POL110_9_7_AI-1.mp3: D. It seems counterintuitive that someone would actually give permission to be sued, but the federal government does it all the time.

Amanda and Dr. Ryan standing in Dr. Ryan’s office.

Continue with your reading and discussions, because next week we’re going to look at our last two chapters on domestic and foreign policy.

I’ll see you again next week.