Why bureaucracy matters, part 6: Bureaucracy then, now… next

The APS has shifted from rigid hierarchies to agile, data-driven reform. Understanding bureaucracy’s evolution helps to navigate today’s challenges.

First published in the Mandarin.

As David Graeber notes in The Utopia of Rules, the term bureaucrat has become a synonym for a ‘civil servant’. During a press conference in 1986, Ronald Reagan expressed a common concern about government bureaucracy: “I think you all know that I’ve always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

The television series Yes, Minister brilliantly cemented this view in the minds of a generation. Later, the Australian comedies The Hollowmen and Utopia did much the same. 

The image of the bureaucratic civil servant has become ingrained; however, our understanding of bureaucracy and bureaucrats is constantly evolving. For example, in his well-known 1956 book The Organisation Man, William Whyte described the bureaucracy within corporate life. At that time, there was little difference between the business bureaucrat and the public service bureaucrat. 

If we accept that our bureaucracies reflect our conflicting demands for compassion, fairness, and protection, it is hardly surprising that they evolve alongside us as we adapt to changing circumstances. 

The question is: what will the future path of bureaucracy look like, and what aspects will remain the same?

Then: gradual evolution

From 1815 to 1914, Britain’s Board of Trade shifted from a small, trade-oriented office into the principal regulator for microeconomics, playing a vital role in shaping the modern regulatory state. This change marked a move away from the scattered court-based and self-regulatory practices satirised by Charles Dickens towards a more centralised and professional system led by Harriet Martineau. The gradual, internally diverse journey towards regulatory statehood over a century demonstrates that bureaucracies have continually evolved alongside government and society.

The 1976 Coombs Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration (RCAGA) opened with a simple statement about the challenge of reform that is often overlooked: 

The capacity of any system to accept change is limited, especially when it is essential that the system should continue to operate while the change occurs. It is not possible for major parts of the Australian government administration to stop work while they are being rebuilt, nor is it practicable to build a parallel organisation wholly to replace the original when its construction is complete.

The Commission report also noted that the public service was constantly evolving its operations, ‘mirroring the evolving standards, experience, and values of those involved and the influences they face’. 

The Coombs review was carried out when the APS was paper-based, hierarchical, and centralised. The core issues were inefficiency, duplication, inflexible staffing arrangements, and coordination challenges. Bureaucracy was a machine for producing order, designed to deliver fairness, reliability and stability. Productivity was viewed as doing the right things effectively.

n response to evolving circumstances, the RCAGA reforms emphasised decentralisation and delegation to tackle immediate challenges. They clarified the agency’s purpose and updated staffing systems to build long-term capability.  

Strengthening internal management autonomy responded to advances in technology. The Commission observed that ‘…the work of government has come to depend on sophisticated technology and specialist skills’, which focused attention on decentralisation. Interestingly, later reforms also highlighted decentralisation but also stressed unity through a stronger shared APS identity.

Now: rapid evolution

Three reforms in rapid succession highlight the evolving pressures on the APS: Ahead of the Game: Blueprint for the Reform of Australian Government Administration (2010); Independent Review of the Australian Public Service (2019); and the APS Reform (2022 onwards). 

The advisory group that developed the Blueprint was working early in the rise of digitalisation, during a period when New Public Management was at its peak influence. Their challenge was fostering collaboration across silos, overcoming perceptions of fragmented service delivery, meeting rising citizen-centred expectations, and ensuring flexible and integrated service delivery.

There was a strong belief that the bureaucracy needed to move towards a broader, networked service delivery model focused on citizens and customers. The emphasis for all agencies was on outcomes and APS-wide collaboration. The Blueprint shifted the focus on productivity to outcomes rather than outputs. The measures of productivity concentrated on outcomes and service excellence. 

The proposed reforms highlighted cross-portfolio outcomes, workforce mobility, integrated service design, and performance measurement. The establishment of the Secretaries’ Board symbolises the Blueprint’s focus. A strategic approach towards outcomes, cross-APS collaboration, and a strong emphasis on leadership.

The 2019 Independent Review (better known as the Thodey Review) found that the APS, operating in a globalised, data-rich, digitally transformed society, faced capability gaps, fragmentation, diminished public trust, and was undergoing rapid change. The challenge was making the APS future-ready and unified in purpose.

The strategic vision was for the bureaucracy to become an adaptable institution, capable of ongoing change, digital competence, shared values, and high public trust. Productivity shifted towards capability, agility, and purpose. Proposed reforms focused on a unified APS purpose, professional streams, digital and data skills, and a renewed emphasis on leadership.

The 2022 APS Reform was crafted and executed in a post-COVID, complex setting, with rising public expectations, integrity requirements, First Nations partnerships, climate commitments, and digital disruption. The reform agenda needed to address both legacy concerns and new pressures.

The focus on the APS as a trusted institution involves placing people and business at its centre, being a model employer, demonstrating integrity, and having the capability to do its job well. Productivity in the APS Reform includes responsiveness, service excellence, and institutional trust. The effort concentrates on implementation through a comprehensive portfolio of initiatives with central oversight, a multi-year, phased plan, a clear emphasis on measurement, and regular, transparent reporting on progress. 

Each of these reviews highlights the importance of coordination, leadership, and capability development. They also emphasise public service outcomes, fairness, trust, and accountability as core principles. 

Next: algorithms and anticipation

In Philip K. Dick’s ‘The Minority Report‘ (1956), widely known for its film adaptation starring Tom Cruise, the most effective public institution ever conceived is the arrest of criminals before they commit crimes. The PreCrime Bureau reduces errors by removing doubt, with officers relying on precognitive visions to examine the future.

Dick’s story concerns the moral choices behind bureaucracy rather than technology itself. We do not inherit bureaucracies; we create them based on what we value — safety over freedom and certainty over doubt. 

Productivity has always been a key focus in public service performance, but unlike in business, its meaning changes with each compromise we make. As the APS’s public service reform reports consistently show, the concept of productivity is renegotiated during every reform cycle.

In The Minority Report, productivity becomes anticipation: the PreCrime Bureau measures success by what does not happen. 

Modern public service reforms echo this aim through the increasing emphasis on risk analytics, predictive models, and early-intervention strategies. Governance by data subtly echoes the approach of the PreCrime Bureau. 

The Blueprint for Reform (2010) emphasised the need to make the public service more agile and citizen-focused, shifting away from traditional input/output models towards outcomes and capabilities. The subsequent Thodey review (2019) highlighted the importance of preparing the APS for the future by improving workforce skills, driving digital transformation, and implementing comprehensive service reforms. The APS Reform agenda directly relates to these earlier reviews, stressing ongoing transformation, enhancing capabilities, and encouraging continuous improvement. 

With each iteration, the APS shifts its performance focus from ‘How much we delivered?’ to ‘How well we can adapt?’ Is the next step in this progression towards what we can prevent?.

If Dick’s future-focused control is one axis, George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) shifts bureaucracy towards the past: the Ministry of Truth doesn’t forecast the future; it rewrites history. Its success lies in consistency, not foresight. Today, the increase in misinformation and disinformation through social media and politics is clear. The truth is sacrificed, leaving public service bureaucracies in a tough spot.

Contemporary reform reports emphasise metrics, dashboards, and digital reporting. The APS Reform agenda emphasises outcomes and capability, yet one risk is that productivity becomes equated with digital adoption or reporting volume rather than meaningful service. Public-service productivity is redefined from ‘delivering more for less’ to ‘delivering differently’. 

The question is: are we losing the element of human judgment and the openness of the unknown?

Public-service productivity remains important; however, its meaning continues to evolve. Each reform report highlights the trade-offs involved: faster services require more automation; improved data depends on greater standardisation; integrity demands increased oversight. In each instance, prioritisation results in compromise—urgency over reflection, automation over human judgment, certainty over trust.

The bureaucracy we deserve

The futures shown in fiction reflect systems shaped by our values and compromises. The future bureaucrat, according to Dick’s vision, is not just a rule-keeper but a data-enabled probability manager. 

The future trajectory of the APS can be seen through its reforms. There is a version that operates as a foresight organisation: anticipating change, refining services, and building capability. However, it is also possible that reliability, agility, and productivity may come at the cost of judgment, doubt, and hope.

Bureaucracies evolve through continuous negotiations between rules and relationships. Every reform plan, performance framework, or predictive model indicates a choice about what matters most. 

The challenge isn’t to eliminate bureaucracy but to humanise it: to develop systems that can envision the future without constraining it. Productivity involves more than just speed or volume; it is also about whether the service improves lives and builds trust.

Every reform report reflects the priorities of its era. The question is: what will future reviews reveal? Will they emphasise strict control based on data certainty, or will they embrace uncertainty and encourage imagination? The indicators of public service productivity will mirror these choices.