Weber's phrase (at least in translation) for the 'good' kind of bureaucracy is "Rational-Legal Authority." Sounds good, don't it?

We have a rule of thumb in Computer Science: the simpler and more intuitive you want to make a program seem to the end-user, the more complex the program will become "under the hood". Perhaps the same could be said of bureaucracy. (Here I'm thinking more of the health care plan than the DOJ flowchart.)

and either the system breaks (further weakening trust in government) or corruption reigns

So, corruption reigning doesn't count as a broken system? ;)

Bureaucracy as a dirty word was a hallmark of Reaganite ideology.

Mark; excellent observation, after watching Alberto Gonzales absolutely wear out the word "consensus" during his mendacious and contemptable appearance, under oath, before the Senate Judiciary Comm., the word is gaining new meaning. The unfolding picture of the gross politicization, reaching to unheard of and unknown crevices everywhere Conyers and Waxman look within our government, is staggering. The hubris being uncovered is betraying new depths of greed, hateful deceit and narcissism within the Republican party. And it was all going perfectly until Americans finally woke up in November. We must all continue to press this fight.

Meh. The post seems a rather long semantic argument imo. Just accept popular connotations and meanings of words, and move on to more descriptive language.

For example, discussing European and Asian consortium to develop technology standards like wireless technology or universal healthcare, one speaks of increased efficiency due to standardization, scale, developing infrastructure and safety nets for prosperity and future competitiveness, etc.

Discussing markets like biotech or software one speaks of entrepreneurs, startups, efficiency of market competition and capitalism, etc.

Those are all bureaucracies. Every private business or government agency is managed by a bureaucracy. Every CEO is a bureaucrat. Law enforcement is a bureaucracy. Defense is a bureaucracy.

In meaningful conversations the word never need be raised, because the specifics are being discussed, not so obvious a fact.

Seems to me you're talking about the difference between a system with "limits" versus "anything goes."

Now what's interesting here is that bushco believes in "anything goes" as far as almost everything. Corporations? Anything goes! They have simply ignored or dismantled "limits" which protect workers or consumers. Same thing with oversight: "anything goes." And for war: "anything goes." Torture: "anything goes." You name it. They're not for limits unless it relates to abortion or homosexuality, things which rev up the base.

It's like a rule of thumb for this whole administration. Just let the whole country be taken over by criminal cronies. Because "anything goes" if you're a loyal bushie.

And the Dems are trying to restore limits and protections and oversight and benchmarks and so forth. Limits are really what the rule of law is all about. Versus the "law of the jungle" kind of "anything goes" bush regime.

While the subject is on the table. . .

let me give a public thank you to the folks who operate Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  My mother will turn 100 in December.  Her checks have come in regularly since my father's death 30 years ago, and since she entered a nursing home six years ago her the home is paid promptly, as are her medical needs.  I get an accounting monthly, and provide a simple report to certify her continued eligibility once a year.  No doubt there are occasional slip-ups in a system which cares for millions, but from the county in which she lives to the central agency in Washington, DC, I think the performance is laudatory.  And I suspect this is one reason why so many people defend social security--especially those who have had the experience of being hassled by a private insurance company.

aMike

If the goal is to debunk Reagan era privatization voodoo, then simply calling all bureaucracies by name makes it easy.

Problem solved. Should have been done decades ago.

Republicans certainly haven't been honest about terribly inefficient private bureaucracies such as for-profit healthcare which is an easy example of utterly failed Republican privatization ideology, perhaps best represented by that knuckle-head Frist of Schiavo telediagnosis fame. Wonder if he billed her, or just passed the charges onto his other patients.

Some bureaucracy is impossible to avoid. The soner we stop playing pin the word on the donkey, the sooner the conversation and voter can move on to more meaningful comparisons between various schemes in various context.

I do not actually support the Weberian notion of bureaucracy (and the closely linked American version associated with Luther Gulick and the Brownlow Commission). 

These notions of bureaucracy too rigidly limit administrative discretion in precise contradiction to the point of administrative reforms initiated at the beginning of the 20th century under the intellectual guidance of Frank Goodnow (the dominant source of American administrative thought). 

Bureaucrats need to be treated as meaningfully contributing members of the decision process.  It is the constrain and make interchangeable effort that creates the morass of undesirable effects that are Kafkaesque. Kafka and Weber are in agreement, except that Weber likes the results.

When I objected to bureaucracy language (in the Anrig posting), I was objecting to the mistreatment of government employees, not to a distaste for certain effects from poorly formed organizations (government and private) built on the Gulick-Brownlow/Weber model. 

Confusing people trapped in a broken process with the process only locks us further and further into the process.  Most big private sector organizations are every bit as much Weberian as are public sector ones.

Where in this would you put the Japanese (think MITI), British (think SIS), French (think alternatively magistrates and the screw-you police at CDG), and the nomenklatura?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

The French are noted to have the most rigid bureaucratic structure in the world.  As the Belgians inherited some of their governmental practices from the French and the EU from the Belgians, we begin to see why the EU constitution is as thick as a phone book...

In the early 20th century the Japanese emulated the US, so their governmental practices (when not tied to Samurai traditions or other traditional practices), are similar to American ones.  The Brits, have a tradition of more administrative discretion than the US has.

As to your specific police agencies, I have no idea.  They are likely to follow the general governmental culture, but there is always the possibility of exception. 

You are talking policies.  I am discussing how their government entities operate.  These are different things.  Whether Japan has ever emulated European governmental practices is unknown to me, but it's emulation of US governmental practices is historically documented.

MITI is not a police agency, but the post-WWII Ministry of International Trade and Industry, which, with the Foreign Ministry and the Treasury, probably were the most desired jobs in the nation. MITI, especially, is considered the source of the Japanese technology industry.

In Japan, being a civil servant is to be in the elite. The Vice-Minister of an agency is the senior civil servant, usually with more real power than the Minister. As senior executives fall off the pyramid of power and go into much more highly compensated jobs in industry, that event is called the "descent from heaven", in that they will never enjoy the same power -- or the ability to shape their nation's destiny.

I suspect it depends when in the early 20th century you had in mind. By the twenties and thirties, that which was not military was part of what inadequately translates as "home ministry". That ministry contained a group quite openly called the Thought Police. Interestingly, however, the Thought Police, as opposed to Orwell's would carefully report on radical new ideas, examining them for the possibility that they were useful for the national polity.

The nomenklatura was not particularly police. Rather, it was the part of the Soviet bureaucracy, typically of Party members and even there with levels, that qualified for all manner of special privileges: shopping in special stores, private medical care, hard currency "certificate rubles", jumping to the head of lines, etc. At the highest levels, there was even a special traffic lane reserved for the leadership. But don't worry, they got rid of the House of Romanov, those nasty aristocrats.

I did like the idea that the British objected to joining the EU currency system, as they were not willing to give up their euphemistic "spend a penny" to replace it with Euronation.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

The French call it Fayolism (I am sure that would not be the French term), which is essentially the same as Gulick/Brownlow top down bureaucracy.

It is not the bureaucracy that provides the benefits you describe.  It is the policy environment that does so.  Even well acculturated American bureaucrats can become frustrated with French bureaucrats.  It is not the bureaucrats who are at fault, it is the rigid top-down organizational design that is defective.

Privatization is not a solution to these problems.  Private and mixed organizations can be just as rigid as pure public organizations.  The problem rests with Fayolism, Gulick/Brownlowism, or Weberianism. 

Democratic pols need to make some populist remarks in praise of bureaucracy. Few people complain about having to take a number at the deli in their local grocery. It helps you plan their trip to the store. If the line is short, you can wait. If the line is long, you can do your other shopping in the store and come back with your number in a few minutes. That minimal level of 'regulation' - taking a number - is welcome by nearly all regular shoppers. Taking a number isn't about lack of personal service, it's about ensuring fairness and efficiency.

That's what a government of the people and by the people is supposed to represent. Some level of functioning bureaucracy is essential to good governing. The GOP hates this fact. People LOVE Social Security because it's fair and efficient - something a functioning ethical bureacracy helps, not hinders. People used to like FEMA under Clinton for the same reasons.

Howard,

Usually I can follow where you are going. This time I cannot. 

I am sorry I got the police thing wrong.  My answers were still factually correct. 

As I responded to another individual, it is factually correct that Japanese governmental organizations (Tokyo city government, for example) emulated American government during the (to be more specific) 1920s and earlier.  I don't know the full extent as this is not my precise area of expertise (although it is close).  The rest of my comment regarding Japan was pretty clearly speculative from the beginning.

My main point is that the Weberian model of bureaucracy is defective.  That is not the fault of public employees.

I think that's getting a bit abstract and drawing false distinctions.

Dividing the bureaucracy from the positive role government plays in advancing national development and managing the economy in Western Europe or Japan or SKorea is rather impossible.

Not to say all bureaucracy is good of course. And not to say all privatization is bad either. Nor the opposite.

The bottom line is their bureaucracies are efficient on the net economic and quality of life level for a number of specific reasons having mostly to do with a mature evolution of pragmatism and balancing sometimes conflicting goals. I'd say as small nations they also have a more vigorous sense of local politics and exchange of ideas than our much more highly centralized and insulated nation.

Our bureaucracies, whether they be private or governmental, have been much more ideologically driven, especially in reaction to the cold war and the artificial reality it created for American supremacy, economic and militarily. National consensus on issues, economic or social, are far more difficult in America as well, which tends to slow the rate of mutation and evolution to use Darwinian speak.

You should read the writings of Frank Goodnow (and that is a disgracefully brief entry in Wikipedia), and not just his Politics and Administration.  Goodnow was the FIRST president of the American Political Science Association (which I note that Wikipedia does not note) and he essentially founded the academic study of public administration in the US.  Until the somewhat misguided drowning out of American political thought by European political thought during the 30s-60s as a result of European intellectual migration away from Nazi Germany, Goodnow was the principal source of understanding of how government organizations should work.

The Gulick/Weber model is a substitute, not an extension of the Goodnow model.  Goodnow recommended far more administrative discretion that Gulick does.  We live in Gulick times.  It is too bad. 

I link you to a citation.  Why I was interested in this, I won't say, as anonymity is of significance to me.  I will mention that Beard was there as a consultant.

You are talking past me.  The fact is, what several hundred odd people do in one governmental building in the capital is NOT the government.

This is a discussion of bureaucracy, is it not?  The legislature can constrain or enable the bureaucracy.  It can fuck up the bureaucracy.  It even has its own special bureaucracy.  But it is NOT the bureaucracy, either good or bad bureaucracy.

Have you not read Schmidt's post and this whole thread?

The fact is I made a limited claim that Japan emulated American bureaucracy (not claiming it to the exclusion of other governments) during the early 20th century.

You have said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that is contrary to this claim, but you continue to protest.  Perhaps you need to go back and read the whole thread. 

Thanks for the recommendations, I appreciate them. I'll keep it in mind. Esp Gulick.

But I prefer to look at contemporary, real world, functioning models across Western Europe, Japan and S Korea, and of course present day America, rather than abstract hypothetical models from the early 2oth century.

There is plenty we can learn that is already tried and true, without having to reinvent the wheel. We need real world change, now. Not academic pondering to arrive at an unknown destination at an unspecified date.

Especially with all the serious problems we currently face.

some other recommendations:

The Developmental State (Cornell Studies in Political Economy) by Meredith Woo-Cumings

Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization by Robert Wade

And when the Republicans took charge of the bureaucracy in my state, they increased the percentage of the agencies' time and money spent purely on internal churn by a factor of at least three.

They were happy to make political hay claiming (truthfully) that they had appropriated X millions of dollars on (for instance) environmental regulation, but when it came to actually regulating, nothing happened without multiple layers of management meddling, which resulted in the decision being made by rank careerists who owed their position to the lobbyists or the people in the Governor's mansion, and who typically knew, or cared, little about the nitty-gritty issues in any particular case.

Sure, the Democrats did some of this, but I was there during the transition, and the Republicans made them look like Ralph Nader in comparison. It's why I retired when I did.

Bureaucracy is one thing. A facsict totalitarian dictatorship is quite another. The same GOP partisans who decry bureaucracy when it involves social issues and entitlements benefiting the people, - are dead silent on the Bush governments monsterous bureaucracy exclusively and singularly benefitinig oil, energy, private military, and defense oligachs.

The hypocrisy would be laughable, were it not so alarming.

"In the counsels of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Eisenhowers farewell address.

Kozmik,

I trust that you THINK you know what you are saying.  You don't.  I have very good reasons for wanting to be anonymous, which have NOTHING to do with posting in this thread.  But I *do* know what I am saying.  I have read original academic material from the 1880s, 1890s, 1900s, 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, in quantities that are challenging. 

I am not a Japan scholar, but I do know a thing or two about the exportation of American governmental practices to other countries.  As far as I can tell, you are discussing a very limited set of governmental practices at the level of constitutional institutions.  I am essentially uninterested in constitutional institutions.  So, you are talking PAST me.  When I say they have emulated American practices, I am talking strictly about the bureaucracy and OPERATION of government.  This IS something I know about.

Again, my ORIGINAL claim involved periods BEFORE WWII.  When I brought up (in response to your mistaken response) the Marshall plan (after WWII) I was STILL talking operation of government and the bureaucracy. 

The exportation of American bureaucratic processes through the Marshall Plan and the United Nations (in its early days) is well documented.  You can visit JSTOR and start reading contemporaneous articles about it and you will not run out of articles to read for a very very very long time.

The US practice was to give foreign aid by way of giving vendor grants which had to be spent on US companies.  Governmental operations grants were spent on the Big 12 (I think it was at the time) accounting firms who came and showed them how to run their government JUST LIKE AMERICAN jurisdictions.  I am not talking setting up their parliament.  I think the last time we tried that was in Cuba in 1898 (but I could be wrong).  I am talking about setting up their budget system or their accounting system or their personnel system, etc.  WE ARE STILL DOING IT TODAY, the same way.

We teach every government we give a governmental grant to how to be a good American bureaucracy.  It is well documented.  So please, stop contradicting me out of lack of knowledge.

Their police systems really would work only in a society very much like theirs.

Again, that's just not factually right. The FBI has historically done the same thing here. HUAC is another historical egregious example of American thought policing society. There are plenty more. Today's Homeland Security surveillance and the TIA program "carnivore" run by Poindexter is the most recent example of US surveillance and thought policing. Various censorship and politically correct agendas also qualify.

Perhaps it is the Japanese belief in a national polity ... I believe they both honestly feel in service, yet are greatly respected.

It's true Japanese do have an especially high sense of community and civil service, but it's along the lines of British sense of service, mixed with French cultural pride, and German kind of social engineering, though that's kind of redundant with the British again. For that matter almost any developed country has more respect for civil servants than America.

Again, their idea of meritocracy is very different than ours, but if one can get through the examinations and into Tokyo University, especially the Law Faculty ... a great future is assured -- likely spending much time in government.

And this is different from Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Beijing, or other top universities how?

I've only spent about 10 days there

This is a common tenancy with travel. Really, the Japanese are like the British in most regards, like mainland Europeans in some others, and like Americans in the remaining. Or course it's all through a Chinese/Asian lens but that's not nearly as different as many imagine. The evolutionary convergence of developed nations has occurred already to a large extent.

Japanese are basically a highly polite people like the British, who ride trains, build infrastructure and enjoy a lifestyle like Europeans generally, love their culture and regional variances like the French, love technology, gadgetry and designs, like the Germans, love Baseball and Jazz like Americans, and love their families like the Chinese. A sense of individualism is balanced between Asian Confucianism and Western individualism and materialism. But of course those are all generalizations, and in fact all those people are much more alike in reality.

Not as romantically alien as they would be otherwise I know. But most times, if you want to know what the Japanese would do, just ask what the British would do and sprinkle in a little mainland Europe and Asia.

One thing for sure, Howard, he doesn't know the difference between constitutional institutions and bureaucracies.....

Kozmik, are you dense, or what? I have provided a citation among these threads that constitutes an entire book by a well known American governmental scholar from the 1920s who was the President of the American Political Science Association in the 1920s and one of the founders of the American Society for Public Administration some years later. The book describes in detail the restoration of Tokyo after the 1920s earthquake and intermingles a description of American influence in Tokyo governmental process. At all times throughout this discussion I have qualified my assertion of American influence saying it was in the early 20th century and not that the emulation was exclusive.

As to what the US did with the Marshall plan, I pointed out to you where you can find as many articles as your heart desires to read up on the matter.  Your comments above are genuinely naive.

At this point you are arguing because you like to argue and you want to win. Leave off.

have you read the book yet?

Just accept popular connotations and meanings of words, and move on to more descriptive language. Discussing markets like biotech or software one speaks of entrepreneurs, startups, efficiency of market competition and capitalism, etc. Those are all bureaucracies. Every private business or government agency is managed by a bureaucracy... Republicans certainly haven't been honest about terribly inefficient private bureaucracies such as for-profit healthcare ... The soner we stop playing pin the word on the donkey, the sooner the conversation and voter can move on to more meaningful comparisons between various schemes in various context.

No. The word as conceived & denoted by its suffix -cracy, like -archy, refers to "rule." We apply the term to the systems you describe, but the sooner we pin the right tail on the right elephant, the sooner the conversation can move on to more meaningful neologisms in more precise context.

Bureaucracy. Etymology -> [ French bureaucratie : bureau, office. ] + [ -cratie, rule (from Old French)-> from Late Latin -cratia, from Greek -kratia, from kratos, strength, power.] -archy, rule -> from Greek archon, ruler.

Autocracy. Government by despotism. | Chrysocracy, plutocracy. Government by the wealthy. | Cryptocracy. Government by total secrecy. | Hypocracy. Government by hypocrites. | Mendacracy. Government by lies, liars. | Kakistocracy. Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled. | Kleptocracy. Government by corruption. | Timocracy (Aristotelian). Government where political power is proportional to the property one owns.

Also: Cretinocracy. Government by Messrs. Cheney-Bush. | Demonocracy. Government by Messrs. Cheney-Bush. | Foolocracy. Government by Messrs. Cheney-Bush. | Rapocracy. Government by rapaciousness, plunder; or Karl Rove.

I'm glad to see such an extensive discussion of bureaucracy. This doesn't happen much outside of scholarly circles, which I think is a shame. We practitioners -- and policy wonks in particular -- spend too much time debating politics and policies and not enough time thinking hard about how they will be actually implemented. Even the Clinton administration, which was a paragon of wisdom regarding administrative matters compared to Bush II, viewed administrative reform through deeply flawed lenses such as the highly problematic "reinventing government" meme.

If I might add a few thoughts to the discussion at hand. One of the leading public administration thinkers of the 20th Century, Dwight Waldo, argued that the distinguishing feature of American government of the progressive era forward was the development of an "administrative state."

Why should anyone but scholars care about such a term? Because Waldo insisted that the administrative state has significant philosophical differences from what had come before in the U.S. Overly simplistic but perhaps useful summary: The rise of an administrative state represented a significant shifting of political power from elected officials (particularly in the legislative branch) to an elite cadre of unelected functionaries operating in a vast network of bureaucracies.

Scholars devote entire books to individual points made in this thread, such as the strengths and weaknesses of the argument that public adminstrators should function with "neutral competence." Most of the nuances of those debates are not reflected here except in decidedly caricatured terms.

Perhaps TPMcafe might consider inviting some scholars to participate in a roundtable discussion that could flesh out the debate. Some names to consider: Camilla Stivers, Guy Adams and John Rohr.

That hardly makes Japanese parliament "meaningless" and such hyperbole is rather silly. That's like saying British parliament was "meaningless" until America invented democracy, which would be another gross misstatement and rather jingoistic. Obviously there is a continuity between British parliament and democracy generally going back to the Magna Carta, and no phase of it was "meaningless."

The important points relevant here to the topic, which is governmental bureaucracy, are:

1) Japan's "big push" overseen by the US was more accurately towards European models rather than American. It was specifically an acceleration, not a change of direction. The evolution towards European influences and direction had been gradual but steady throughout the 1800's.

2) Japan obviously had functioning modern bureaucracies, prior to WWII and even prior to the turn of the 20th century. That includes government, private industry, education, infrastructure and utilities, the military, and everything else. The mechanisms were based primarily on European models from European universities and intellectuals, not so much the American model. To a large extent the American model was still based on the European model in the 1800s! That includes everything from significant organizational structure and accounting methods, to military doctrine, to universities, to business culture and attire, to arts and culture ranging from painting to fashion.

but there wasn't a real groundswell for democracy.

That is again simply false. Japan had an elected parliament which shared power and which was the direct result of a populist democratic movement, the Freedom and Rights Movement, which operated from the mid to late 1800s and was fomented by European inspired social democracy intellectuals. That paradigm of social democracy fundamentally took hold in Japan during the late 19th century.

Of course we know Japan had a strongly militaristic leaning government in the late 1800s to early 1900's with imperial aspirations. Similar to Napoleonic France or Prussia.

But just as France was under way towards democracy even during Napoleon's militaristic reign, so too was Japanese culture during the late Meiji and Taisho periods ranging from the late 1800s to early 1900s. Just as American fledgling democracy was initially more oligarchy than what we'd now call liberal democracy, none the less it was on its way.

Economic troubles and warfare in the early 20th century prompted a reemergence of militarism and slowed democratic reforms, but again this was part of the natural ebb and flow of developing democracies which require a century or more to really flourish. Militarism and fascism was also on the rise in Europe of course.

By the late 1800s and early 1900's Japan was already a highly educated, industrial nation with centuries of rule of law and mostly centralized government. Imperialism was generally declining and the Emperor hadn't really held power for centuries, contrary to common American misconceptions.

The culture was clearly headed towards democracy by the turn of the 20th century. Post WWII, Japan has become essentially a social democratic nation on the European model.

Bleat, yawn, bleat.

Bush has thus far been allowed to grab power due to a series of cultural events and which don't have a damn thing to do with unitary executive theories except as window dressing in a few ivory towers.

The reaction to 9/11 for example wasn't to launch a debate on the theoretical merits of the unitary executive, but a basic human instinct to huddle closer and trust authoritarian figures when afraid.

Clinton and other Presidents exercised it to a greater or lesser degree, also due to larger political circumstance, not theoretical debates.

Such ideological movements wax and wane with the times. They have no inherent value and are merely the products of larger cultural events.

You're attempting to rationalize sophistic theories and debate them on merits. A complete waste of time.

Bush clearly has no interest in actually managing the government. His only concerns are personal--how powerful he feels and whether he can triumph politically over those he considers his enemies. For Bush, governing really comes down to making himself feel more adequate. I suspect Bush is one of those mediocre souls who resents the greater abilities of others and takes great pleasure in petty victories that make him feel superior to the more talented people who surrounded him in his formative years. Bush is sticking it in the face of his father and the smarter kids of Yale, Harvard, and the other elite organizations with which he's been associated thanks not to any merit, but only to that most-successful of affirmative action programs--the one for below-average children of the rich and well-connected. Sadly, under Bush, the government of the United States has been reduced to an exercise in boosting the ego of a dull, untalented, and vindictive ne'er do well.

I take that as a yes to the "are you dense" and a "no" to have you read the book.

It is nice to know that you think cultural history is irrelevant.  It isn't.

I must apologize for the ungraciousness of my fellow poster, who appears to be confusing the situation with verifiable facts. As far as I can tell, your arguments are based on appeal to yourself, where you get what is, perhaps, a biased hearing.

There is some oversimplification here, in that the civilian and military bureaucracies had different external advisors. The Army's key advisors and traditions were Prussian, while the Navy's were British. Including an Inspector-General in the top three officers is definitely a German tradition.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

As a political matter it would seem that most people dislike local governmental bureaucracies rather than Federal ones. Most people rarely deal with the Federal government on anything like a regular basis.

Bureaucracies are necessary and work when when they impersonally carry out the policy rules created by the political arms of the goverment. The impersonal enforcement of rules is partially why self-insuring large corporations hire insurance companies to enforce and carryout their insurnace program.

Bureaucracies tend to go astray for two reasons. The first is the laziness of legislators. If they leave it to bureacracies to in effect to make policy this strips the bureacracy of its impersonal nature. They are just not designed for this function.

The other problem is that bureaucracies have their own interests. They benefit from expansion and continued existence. They form alliances with groups, often clients, that also benefit. The result is a growing cost and rules created by the bureaucracy for the benefit of the bureaucracy. Unfortunately, legislators can themselves benefit from helping constituents wend their way through the bureacracy rather than fixing the bureaucracy and the relavent law itself.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

You've just made my point: Japan's various bureaucratic influences, including their modern military by the turn of the 20th century, were primarily of European origins. Not only the military influences but also civilian influences, which were of British, French, and German origins. Obviously, a modern military can only come after the creation of a modern industrial state. During the period of Japanese industrialization, Europe was the dominant power.

All of which has meaning only because it's part and parcel of a cultural transmission between Europe and Japan including social democratic values which Japan has to this day.

Cultural history is important.

Your rationalizations and your tenancy to infer your specialty onto the world, as well as your fascination with myopic trivia and false distinctions, aren't.

The power grab wasn't invented under the unitary executive principle. Quite the opposite. Are you really fooled by such sophistic rationalizations?

And you consider yourself an expert on bureaucracy? Lol. I'll bet! But i'll take European or Japanese bureaucracy any day, thanks. They actually get things done.

They're building internet infrastructure and cellular towers 10x to 100x faster than ours leading to an economic boom. They've built efficient universal healthcare. They have better environmental protections. Etc, etc. They have many tangible achievements we could learn from.

At our best we built NASA, invented the internet, produced the industrial goods for the world, built many of the best universities.

However, you seem only concerned with building ever higher ivory towers and spelunking the depths of obscurity.

I see you still have nothing beyond name calling.

muttering to myself this has to end because I don't consider kozmik a particularly serious poster.

Regarding Carnivore, I'm aware of it's technical capabilities, more than well enough. I don't follow the geek trivia of it on a daily basis, nor do I feel any need to. That is not the larger and more meaningful discussion.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

The Devil he blew an outward breath, for his heart was free from care:—
"Ye have scarce the soul of a louse," he said, "but the roots of sin are there,
"And for that sin should ye come in were I the lord alone,
"But sinful pride has rule inside—ay, mightier than my own.
"Honour and Wit, fore-damned they sit, to each his Priest and Whore;
"Nay, scarce I dare myself go there, and you they'd torture sore.
"Ye are neither spirit nor spirk," he said; "ye are neither book nor brute—
"Go, get ye back to the flesh again for the sake of Man's repute.
"I'm all o'er-sib to Adam's breed that I should mock your pain,
"But look that ye win to a worthier sin ere ye come back again.
"Get hence, the hearse is at your door—the grim black stallions wait—
"They bear your clay to place to-day. Speed, lest ye come too late!
"Go back to Earth with lip unsealed—go back with open eye,
"And carry my word to the Sons of Men or ever ye come to die:
"That the sin they do by two and two they must pay for one by one,
"And . . . the God you took from a printed book be with you, Tomlinson!" [Rudyard Kipling]

True enough. Mailing lists, especially without anonymity so peoples' reputations and credentials are involved, are where much of my work is done. Nevertheless, TPMcafe, more than most blogs, does sometimes manage serious discussion, more in the stimulation of ideas rather than getting detailed.

...still muttering about how any serious discussion of actual steps toward Darfur always sputters out...

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

You're being silly again.

Is there an important point about Carnivore or domestic surveillance and the implications for our democracy you think people don't know and need to know? By all means, if there is an important new point you have, feel free to summarize it.

Bloviating on technical obscurities and hand waving doesn't impress me, and I've noticed it's a habit of the least capable engineers, not the best.

And really, bolting endless garbage onto your posts, is that supposed to be impressive? Did you make your start when code was paid for by line count? Look up sometime, times have changed.

Hierarchical is bad? All bureaucracy is hierarchical.

Maybe you meant to say excessively vertical hierarchy is bad, but "excessive" is highly subjective.

The Japanese bureaucracy is more vertical than USA, more like the French, German, and other Europeans. But it works very well for them, and has certain advantages in context of their larger system which is also more social democratic like Europe.

The more vertical nature works in what they call "keiretsu" or zaibatsu i.e. horizontally interlocking business partnerships vertically integrated with government policy and finance.
"Keiretsu" are the driving force behind the Japanese "economic miracle" post WWII.

That is much like the European notion of consortium with governmental participation, again stemming from principles of social democracy.

Perhaps it would be useful for Caustix Kozmick to not get lost in demanding that this discussion focus on a minor side point of the original discussion as if his, Kosmik's, navel were the only thing anyone cared about.  If you want a battle, go to a different set website.  We try to be reasonably civil here.

I studied under Stivers. One of the things I most appreciate about her is that she possesses a remarkable level of unpretentiousness for a public administration scholar.

She really knows how to listen – not just faux listening, where one is primarily focused on finding opportunities for one-upmanship – but to earnestly engage what others have to say. This attitude creates a very different kind of dialogue than one grounded in games of intellectual king of the hill.

I wish that scholars with Stivers’ attitude (and communication skills) could moderate at least some TPMcafe discussions. The Alpha males and snarkists wouldn’t disappear, but I suspect that there would be more room for less aggressive personalities to feel comfortable participating. That would allow the discussion to go at least a wee bit deeper.

Now Berkowitz resorts to rating abuse.

He apparently can't demonstrate any of the expertise he claims, in the form of new and relevant information on the topic, though I've offered for him to do so. Such a surprise.

Apparently he gets very angry when someone starts poking holes in his strange assertions and challenges his bloviating.

Feel free to continue your spree of rating abuse. It demonstrates your character rather well.

I could zero your comments, but I prefer substance and would like you to answer questions about the glaring holes in your assertions.

The moral high ground and all...

So, you make bogus claims about events you clearly have little perspective on, you make appeals to authority you can't verify or personally argue, you call names, you avoid addressing gaping holes in your theory, then you resort to rating abuse. Yes, why didn't I recognize your great intellect earlier?

The higher moral ground and all...

... and more rating abuse revealing character!

Upthread Berkowitz claims there was no "groundswell" for democracy in Japan.

I cited the Freedom and People's Rights Movement which led to a constitution in 1889 and democratically elected parliament in 1890. That's a fact.

Has he admitted he was wrong and was speaking without knowledge? No. This is typical.

Then he uses rating abuse to lash out and accuses others of being "bullies" for simply pointing out the flaws in his assertions.

Very revealing of character.

btw,

He also confuses me with one who cares about the opinion of one who chooses anonymity. ~Berkowitz to G4A

G4A is anonymous, a fact which is not only obvious but which he's even mentioned a few times in this thread.