Why bureaucracy matters, part 1: Public service craft has a bureaucratic future

Reforms, digitalisation, crises: bureaucracy evolves with politics and society, and so must those who work within it.

First published in the Mandarin.

Whenever we hear the word bureaucracy, our thoughts are rarely positive. We picture red tape, inefficiency, and bloated systems. It’s a common shorthand for everything that’s wrong with big institutions, especially in government.

However, like all stereotypes, it’s an oversimplification that promotes opinion over evidence. Research and public servants’ experience provide a more nuanced view. Still, it’s hard to hear a different opinion when the noise of ‘the Canberra bubble’ and ‘drain the swamp’ rhetoric is so loud and tempting.

In 1967, political scientist James Q. Wilson argued that there is no single ‘bureaucracy problem’. Instead, there are several, and they are fundamentally in conflict with one another. 

Wilson argued that we expect our public agencies to embody a set of competing values simultaneously, an expectation that puts them at risk of perceived failure. We insist that our bureaucracies be:

• Accountable: They must follow the rules and directives set by politicians.

• Equitable: They must treat every person and case equally, using clear and consistent rules without favouritism.

• Efficient: They need to maximise their output for any given cost, getting the most with the least.

• Responsive: They must meet the unique needs of the individual with speed and compassion, with limited discretion to accommodate commonsense demands.

• Financially transparent: They must use public funds appropriately and provide accountability for every dollar spent.

But these goals often oppose each other. An agency can’t be entirely fair by treating every case the same way under strict rules while also giving full attention to each person’s individual circumstances. Pushing for greater efficiency in public services may result in the elimination of procedures essential to accountability and financial responsibility.

The stereotypical flaws of bureaucracy—slowness, rigidity, and inefficiency—are not necessarily signs of failure. Instead, they naturally and inevitably arise from the conflicting goals public service institutions are tasked with through our political and governance systems.

As Wilson discovered, there isn’t just one bureaucracy problem; there are several, and the solutions for each are, to some extent, incompatible with one another. 

Bureaucracy as trust

Over the past 20 years, economists and political scientists have seen bureaucracy more as an engine of development than a drag on it. However, measuring that impact remains difficult.

In a review of research on bureaucracy and development, Timothy Besley and his colleagues examined how the quality of public services relates to a nation’s prosperity. They found that when bureaucracies recruit based on merit, act fairly, and operate legally, societies become wealthier and more equitable.

In weaker states, the opposite is true. When bureaucracy is politicised, underfunded, or demoralised, rules become flexible, and discretion becomes an opportunity. The state no longer functions as an impartial arbiter but instead acts as a marketplace for favours. The main point is that prosperity depends on the quality of administration that can turn policy and rules into justice and compassion.

Political scientists Stefan Dahlberg and Sören Holmberg have shown the effect. Fair and capable bureaucracies build trust because they make the promise of equality tangible. 

When renewing a licence, appealing a decision, or applying for support, that experience becomes a small test of democracy’s promise. If the process feels fair, legitimacy increases, even if the outcome is disappointing.

If implemented well, the outcomes of the Economic Reform Roundtable, such as cutting red tape for the construction of new homes, abolishing nuisance tariffs, and implementing the ‘tell us once’ legislation, will likely improve productivity. However, not every reform that claims to free us from bureaucracy actually reduces bureaucracy.

What does bureaucracy contribute?

New Public Management in the 1980s was introduced to make the bureaucracy more ‘business-like’. It was accompanied by outcome-focused measures, market-style incentives for innovation, a strong emphasis on customer satisfaction, performance metrics, and decentralisation. The architecture of NPM remains with us, but so do the concerns about the loss of accountability and governance. 

However, some parts of NPM’s architecture have been questioned and revised over the years. Most recently, ATO stopped calling Australians ‘clients’ and reverted to calling them taxpayers, reflecting its main aim of collecting revenue.

Overall, it is unlikely that NPM reduced bureaucracy.

The early 21st century was expected to be a time of an agile, data-driven, and nearly frictionless networked society. Digitalisation promised speed, data-led decision-making, and effective governance. While much has been achieved, it has been overshadowed by robodebt and, more recently, robodole.

Again, bureaucracy has not necessarily been reduced because every productivity or efficiency initiative redistributes power. 

Reforms are fundamentally political; they mirror our trust and values. When we say we want less bureaucracy, we often mean a different kind — one that realigns its roles and responsibilities with our current preferences.

The crises shaping the early 21st century have shifted focus back to bureaucracy. Pandemics, climate change, and disinformation are not problems markets can easily resolve. They demand experienced administrative leadership and a clear understanding of what bureaucracy can deliver and its inherent limits.

This article introduces a series on bureaucracy, based on G.K. Chesterton’s idea that a person should not remove a ‘fence’ (symbolising rules, traditions, or systems) until they understand why it was put there in the first place. 

The next instalment questions whether our view of non-market productivity is too limited and argues that bureaucratic reform is sometimes economic but mainly political and social. 

The third part briefly examines the divided views on bureaucracy as the modern administrative state was forming. It contrasts the perspectives of Harriet Martineau and Charles Dickens, whose views remain relevant today. 

The fourth part looks at what it’s like to work in the bureaucracy. 

The fifth part considers the role bureaucracy plays in sensemaking and the importance of public service craft. 

The final part traces the evolution of bureaucracy from 50 years ago to 50 years in the future. It shows how the ideas of a productive bureaucracy have changed and will continue to change.

Seeing bureaucracy clearly requires imagination and a willingness to engage with its history. It involves recognising that bureaucracy constantly changes to reflect community values. To do this, we must resist the urge to rush into our comfortable stereotypes. It will never be perfect, but it will always be ours.