What Really Is Public Maladministration?

Author(s): Gerald E. Caiden

Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 51, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1991), pp. 486-493
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/976599 .
Accessed: 28/01/2015 22:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:02:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Maladmnsraton?
California
ofSouthern
Gerald
E.Caiden,
University

means and
Ask people what "publicadministration"
willgivea
eithertheirfaceswillcloudoveror everyone
different
answer.Thisquestionof meaninghas always
Yet ask
bedeviledthesubjectand remainsunresolved.
i.e.,
people whatis wrongwithpublicadministration,
thereis likelyto be an immepublicmaladministration,
of instances
diateand livelyresponseand therecalling
have experienced
thattheypersonally
of mistreatment
or knowhappenedto somebodyelse. So it shouldbe
easier to definepublic maladministration.
Yet, one
in theliterature
treatment
looksin vainforan extensive
ofthisobversesideofpublicadministration.
In theUnitedStates,thisneglectoftheobviousmay

in thepublicsecWhatdo we knowaboutmaladministration
now hum
well be because mostpublicarrangements
tor?Notas muchas weshould,arguesGeraldCaiden. In
alongso wellthattheyare takenforgrantedand most
thecharacteristhissurveyoftheliterature,
Caiden highlights
people do nothave to thinkaboutthemat all, unless
failure,as wellas someexplaticsand typesofadministrative
fail-safeprocetheyfalter.Even so, institutionalized
withspecialemphasison
nationsofmaladministration
Yeteveryso
dureskickin forinstantaneous
correction.
" He concludesbyprovidinga listofvar- often,thingsdo go wrong,sometimeshorrendously.
"bureaucratization.
and a discussionofhowtheycan
ious "bureaupathologies"
fortoo long.The failMalfunctioning
goes undetected

plague a public organization.

howwell-persafedevicesproveinadequate.No matter
somewherein everyadministrative
system,
forming,
are beingmade,and
thingsare goingwrong,mistakes
justifiable
grievances
arebeingignored.

As administrative
life
practicesare partof everyday
in modemsociety,
one wouldexpectthatobviousmalpracticeswould be a popular topic among public
themwouldbe a key
administrators
and thatcorrecting
concernto researchers.
Alas,thishas notbeen thecase.
Despitemajorefforts
thatonce in the1950swentinto
thereare few
identifying
bureaucraticdysfunctions,
studiesof particular
and no typologyof
dysfunctions
appearsin
administrative
pathologiesand morbidities
organization,
and
any majortexton administration,
norevenin booksthatpurport
to explore
management
the phenomenaof counter-productive
organizational
behavior(Brown,1987).

486

PublicA&dnistraton
Review* November/ember1991,Vol.51,No.6

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:02:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Identifying
Self-Destructive
Administrative
Behavior

Whereas
Kharasch
attributed
malfunctioning
toself-justificatoryaxioms,
Drucker
blamed"sixdeadlysinsinpublicadministration:"
Asadministrative
malpractices
occurso often,
cantheybe
without
clear
* givinglofty
(unspecified)
objectives
inherent
in large-scale
administration?
Christopher
Hood
targets,
whichcouldbe measured,
appraised,
and
(1974),seeking
toclassify
andexplain
someofthekeymechjudged;
anismsof suchcounter-intuitive
in British
behavior
public
* doingseveralthings
at oncewithout
establishing
administration,
hasidentified
at leastfivedistinctive
typesof
and
to
sticking
priorities;
administrative
failure:
* believing
that"fatis beautiful,"
i.e.,thatabundance,
* overkillor diseconomy:
resultsare achievedat
notcompetence,
gotthings
done;
unnecessary
highcost;
* beingdogmatic,
notexperimental;
* counter
to those
productivity:
results
arecontrary
and
andfeedback;
* failing
tolearnfrom
experience
desired;
to abanandbeingunwilling
* assuming
immortality
* inertia:
inresponse
nothing
happens
tostimulus;
don
pointless
programs
(p.
103).
* ineffectiveness:
responses
evokedmerely
rearrange
thatpublicorganizations
were
Kharasch
believed
Whereas
ornothing;
and
andoutputs
little
inputs
achieving
forsucandcouldbe programmed
forfailure
programmed
* tail chasing:the moreis supplied,themoreis
thesinswould
was moresanguine.
cess,Drucker
Avoiding
demanded.
andresults,
butat leastitwould
notguarantee
performance
commit
mostof
as "mostadministrators
be a prerequisite
He alsoidentifies:
of
all
them
ofthe
and
most
all
the
these
'sins'
time,
indeed,
* under-and over-organization:
red-tape
(ritualized
andthelackof
ofpractitioners
to
the
cowardice
time"
due
andbribery
procedures)
(corruption);
withperformance
concern
bytheorists.
* wastage:
dooremployees;
revolving
in listing
William
Pierce(1981)wentfurther
comprehen* big-stick
controlsand
syndrome:
self-defeating
failure
besidesmalperformance.
sivetypesof bureaucratic
threats;
ofmaterials,
misuse
oftimeon the
He listed
corruption
(theft
misuse
conflicts
of
misallocaof
job,
bribery,
office,
interest),
* negative
actionstrigger
demonstration:
antagonistic
technical
tion
of
resources,
inefficiency
(waste,
diseconomies,
orperverse
responses;
lackofinnovapoormanagement,
inappropriate
investments,
* time-lags:
delayedresponses
(fighting
yesterday's tion),ineffectiveness
(uselessactivities,
quietineffectuality,
war);
toclients,
lackof
badadvice,
subservience
egregious
errors),
coordination,
conflicting
objectives,
spoilssystem,
displace* reorganization:
structural
changesas symbolic
mentofmandated
arbiobjectives,
favoritism,
foot-dragging,
tokenism
substance
responses,
leaving
untouched;
andinflexibility.
Hisstudy
wasbasedon 11casesof
trariness,
* suboptimization:
unitsdefeatoverall
component
in U.S.federal
administrative
failures
government,
variously
lackofcoordination; attributed
purpose;
conflicting
objectives;
to inadvertent
without
forelegislation
(written
and
thought),
ambiguous
goals,inappropriate
sanctions,
incompetence,incompatible
tasks,interorganizational
conflict,
defec* professional
and
fragmentation:
shuffling
problems
tive
management,
turnover,
excessive
workload,
and
haste
to
costsaround.
eachbeginning
with
spend.He putforward
75 hypotheses,
In a morelight-hearted
vein,ThomasMartin
(1973)con- "Failure
is morelikely...."
He wentbeyondfairly
standard
misbehavior American
solidatedall thethenlawsof administrative
publicorganization
theory
by combining
these
in theworldofbureaucracy
(kludgemanship)
(blunderland).hypotheses
within
majorthemes
relating
to miscommunicaHe citedgemsalreadyassimilated
intoEnglish
managerial tion,immeasurable
outputs,
technical
difficulties
(environsuchas Murphy's
parlance
Laws,Parkinson's
Law, ThePeter mental
andtaskcomplexity),
uncertainty
ineffectual
coordinaandtheir
corollaries
andvariations.
many
Principle,
ofcostsimposed
tion,disregard
onothers,
political
problems,
roleconflicts,
turbulence,
incompetent
personKharasch
Moreseriously,
Robert
the governmental
(1973),investigating
and inappropriate
mandates.
lawsofinstitutional
behavior
ofU.S.federal
(orrather
agency nel, nonaccountability,
all thesefactors
wererecipesforadministrative
andgamesmanship
concluded
that Presumably
misbehaviors),
blunders,
if
disaster
left
uncorrected.
their
wassystematic,
andacceleratmalfunctioning
consistent,
areoutofcontrol"
ingsuchthat"Ourgreatinstitutions
(p.
PublicMnainistraion
conclusions
245). PeterDrucker
(1980)cameto similar
and Defining
statedthat"malperformance
is increasingly
beingtakenfor
The breakdowns
of individual
policies,programs,
and
Allwe really
granted....
expectnow...ismoreexpenditure,
a
do notconstitute
an indictment
organizations
of a whole
anda moreineffectual
bigger
budget,
bureaucracy"
(p. 103). administrative
system.
Theycouldalwaysbe aberrations,

Mtaladniradon?
IsPublic
What
Really

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:02:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

487

althoughnone of thequotedanalyststhought
* perversity-professionalism
so. They
became the enemyof
implied
thatwholeadministrative
theendswhichitshouldserveandresisted
couldself-destruct.
systems
innovaStudies
ofpostcolonial
tions;
administrations
inseveral
newlyindependent
states
hadindicated
thatsystemically
sickadministra- * treason-professionalism
opposedthegreataimsof
tionsdid exist,whichcausedthesocietiestheyservedso
as a wholeinmistaken
humanity
defense
ofitsown
badlyto failto developand evendeteriorate.
Unlessthey
procedures;
wereturned
aroundandturned
aroundquickly,
their
future
* self-seeking-professionalism
soughtto acquire
was bleak.Montgomery
(1966)hadgonesomewayin the
oremoluments
power,
foritself;
privileges
mid-1960s
to catalogue
complaints
against
suchobstructive
administrative
systems:
* cultivation
and jagon-development
ofcomplexity
andretention
ofcomplicated
andlaborious
methods
...resistance
to change,
rigidadherence
to rules,
ofworkand jargon,
thetendency
to creatework
reluctance
to delegateauthority,
sycophancy
andjargonas meansofmaintaining
or expanding
toward
superiors,
"target"
indifference
mentality,
professional
importance;
to thestandards
of efficiency,
ofthe
ignorance
purposes
behind
regulations,
generalist-elitist
ori* fearofdefiniteness-professionalism
opposeddefinientation
combined
withhostility
toward
technoltionandpreciseness
becausethey
wouldallowstanogy...insistence
on statusand prestige
symbols,
dardsbywhich
itcouldbe judged;
"formalism"
or adherence
to traditional
relation* hatredofsupervision-particularly
fromthe uninshipswhiledesiring
toappearmodem;
and...jobformed
general
public;
stocking
andoverstaffing,
corruption,
xenophobia,andnepotism
(p. 262).
* selfpraise-vanity,
claims
exaggerated
madeforpast
professional
achievements;
Butthesewereoften-heard
criticisms
ofpublicbureaucraciestheworldoverandreadremarkably
similar
to thoseof
* secrecy-professionalism
resisted
prying
eyes;
William
Robson
(1964):
* uncreativeness-improvements
mostlycame from
...anexcessivesenseof self-importance
on the
thelaity
andwereopposedbyprofessionals;
partofofficials
or an undueideaoftheimpor* abuseofpower-professionalism
was unchivalrous,
tanceoftheir
offices;
an indifference
towards
the
tyrannical
or
cruel
towards
initscare;and
the
weak
ortheconvenience
feelings
ofindividual
citizens;
*
an obsessionwiththebindingand inflexible
malignity-professionalism
wageda warofslander
andspiteagainst
authority
ofdepartmental
innovators,
decisions,
suggesting
theywere
precedents,
defective,
unpractical,
arrangements
orforms,
weak,unbalanced,
irrespective
ofhowbadly
without
orwithwhatinjustice
judgment,
ignorant,
hasty,
orhardship
andmotivatplagiarizers,
theymaywork
ed byself-seeking,
in individual
cases;a maniaforregulations
self-achievement
or private
gain
and
(Warner,
1947,p. 63-65).
formal
a preoccupation
procedure;
withparticularunits
ofadministration
andan inability
toconIn theserespects,
publicadministrators
werethesameas
siderthegovernment
as a whole;a failure
toreceverybody
else,andthey
weresubject
tothesamefailings.
ognizetherelations
between
thegovernors
and
The studyof publicmaladministration
as suchhad to
thegoverned
as an essential
partofthedemoawaitthespreadof theinstitution
of ombudsman
from
its
cratic
process
(p. 18).
nativeScandinavia
intotheEnglish-speaking
world.
Here,
Robsonquotedfromthe1944Parliamentary
committee
on after
1960,was an organization
established
bygovernments
civilservicetraining:
to receive
andinvestigate
publiccomplaints
against
governmentadministration,
a veritable
goldmineof information
...overdevotion
to precedent;
remoteness
from
aboutpublicmaladministration.
In 1973,Kenneth
therestof thecommunity,
Wheare
inaccessibility
and
(1973)chosemaladministration
forspecialstudy,
faulty
specifically
ofthegeneral
handling
public;lackofinihowremedies
showing
formaladministration
inEuropewere
tiative
and imagination;
ineffective
organization
superior
to
those
in
the
United
Kingdom.He believed
and wasteof manpower;
that
procrastination
and
maladministration
waspresent
inall socialorganization,
that
unwillingness
to takeresponsibility
or to give
themoreadministration
therewas,themoremaladministradecisions
(p. 18).
tionthere
wouldbe. Whilemaladministration
wasdifficult
to
Couldtherebe a theory
of publicmaladministration?
mostpeoplecoulddescribe
define,
itbyexamples
(illegality,
Although
individual
administrative
maladies
havebeenidenti- corruption,
ineptitude,
neglect,
perversity,
turpitude,
arbitrarifiedformanycenturies,
no one has evertriedto combine ness,unduedelay,discourtesy,
unfairness,
bias,ignorance,
themsystematically.
Theclosestattempt
was madebyF. H. incompetence,
unnecessary
secrecy,
misconduct,
and high
Hayward
(1917)whoreferred
to common
criticisms
madeof handedness).
Thebestthatcouldbe donewas to quotean
professionalism
or thedangers
ofprofessionalism
or profes- ombudsman's
definition
ofmaladministration:
"administrative
sionaldepravity.
Sincegovernment
service
wasalsoa profes- action(orinaction)
basedon orinfluenced
byimproper
consion,publicadministration
shared
them:
siderations
orconduct."
488

PublicAdministration
Review* November/December
1991,Vol.51,No.6

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:02:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BernardFrank(1976) elaboratedon thispositionin his

viewoftheombudsman
as an office
to prevent:
...injustice,
failureto carryout legislative
intent,
unreasonabledelay,administrative
error,abuse
of discretion,lack of courtesy,clericalerror,
oppression,oversight,
negligence,inadequate
investigation,
unfairpolicy,partiality,
failureto
communicate,rudeness, maladministration,
unfairness,
unreasonableness,
arbitrariness,
arrogance,inefficiency,
oflaw or regulation,
violation
abuse of authority,
discrimination,
errors,mistakes,carelessness,disagreement
withdiscretionary
decisions,improper
motivation,
irrelevant
consideration,
inadequateor obscureexplanation,and all the otheracts thatare frequently
inflicted
upon the governedby thosewho govern,intentionally
orunintentionally
(p.132).

to society,organizations,
and individuals.
Theyobjectvariouslyto authority,
technocracy,
meritocracy,
conmaterialism,
sumerism,
capitalism,
statepower,complexity,
massculture,
elitism,
largeorganizations,
self-serving
administration,
impersonality,
complexity,
legalism,specialization,
forcareerism,
malism,dependency,and anythingelse theyattribute
to
bureaucratization.
They seek to reversethe process of
thatis,to turnbacktheclockto beforethe
bureaucratization,
organizational
societyor to advancetheclockto a debureaucratized(or postbureaucratic)
to liberatepeoplefrom
society,
and to eliminaterule by officials,
to reduce
organization,
administration
to minimize
by experts,
publicsectoradminisand thisway to makepublicorganizations
less dystration,
functional
and reducemalpractices
by reducingindividual
dependenceon bureaucratic
administration.

has been a wrong

to critics,
Bureaucratization,
according
stepforhumanity.
To reform
to improveit,to
bureaucracy,
it
make
work
would
make
worse.It should
better,
only
things
Based on actualcomplaints
investigated
verbytheBritish
be
with
alternatives
are
that
notso inherreplaced
altogether
sion of theombudsman,
Marshall(1975) concluded
Geoffrey
bad
For
ently
a
(O'Leary,
should
1988).
start,
big
government
thatmaladministration
was botha matter
of instinct
and an
mademorerepresentapublicorganizations
acquiredtechnique. But the ombudsmanofficedeals only be decentralized,
encouraged,demarchy(Burnheim,
withsingular
rather
thaninstitutionalized
instances
of malad- tive,self-management
boosted.
Both
1985)
extremes
wantto getridof the
political
ministration.
Noneofthemincludecrimescommitted
bypeostateand bureaucratic
government
(Peters,
ple in organizations
eitheron theirownbehalfagainstorgani- administrative
to relyalmostexclusively
on
zationalnorms(theft,
violationof trust,fraud,tax evasion, 1981). WhiletheRightprefers
or at thebehestof theirorganization
embezzlement)
(geno- private initiativesand marketforces,the Leftprefers
communities.Less politically
cide,torture,
murder,
robbery,
coercion,terror,
intimidation, autonomousself-governing
of
motivated
opponents
bureaucratization
believe thatthe
crimesagainsthumanity,
etc.)(Smigeland Ross,1970).
processof bureaucratization
can be reversed.
The rigidhierA novel experiment
was triedin the early1970sat the archicalstructure
of bureaucracy
willeventually
be replaced
Institute
of Administration
at the University
of Ife,Nigeria, by more flexible,participatory,
temporary
organizations
where72 Nigeriancivilservants
wrotecase studiesof mal- beyondbureaucracy(Bennis, 1973) as machinesreplace
practices.Factoranalysispointedto six leadingcauses pre- human
labor altogetherin the postindustrial
world.The
venting
initiative-corruption
and lackof integrity,
communiadhocracyof the future(Toffler,
1971) will be smaller,less
ty conflictand aggression,inefficiency,
sectarianconflict,
moreprofessional,
hierarchical,
less routinized,
moreinnovamisconduct
and indiscipline,
and bad authority
relationships.
morecreative,meaningful,
tive,providing
work
stimulating
Specificculturalitems-"rumor,
accusations,denunciations,
and morecollaborative,
personalized,
responsive
managesuspicion,intrigue,
threats,
blackmail,
coercion,maliceand
ment.Computers
spell the deathof bureaucracy.
Theywill
inequitable
treatment
of individuals
without
cause"-suggestreduce
the
number
of
clerical
functionaries
and
blue-collar
ed a paranoidpersonality
in "a social climateof pervasive
of information,
anomie,distrust,
and lawlessness"(Bowden,1976,p. 392). workers,ensurethe accuratedissemination
eliminate
much
job
fragmentation,
place
people
intoelectronAs Yorubaculturewas "dysfunctionally
distorted
towarda
ic networks,
minimize
paperwork,
decentralize
decisionmakformofculture
schizoid-paranoid
therecouldbe
personality,"
ing,
broaden
effective
participation,
and
free
people from
littleroomforinitiative
wheresuspicion,
intrigue,
and insecumuch
bureaucratic
maladministration.
ritywerecombinedwiththestultifying
effect
ofauthoritarianisminwhichdeference
was paidto age and rank.Herewas a
Meanwhile,
has notdeclined,and theprocess
bureaucracy
cultureof maladministration
akinto repressive
authoritarian- of bureaucratization
has notbeen halted.Big has notturned
ism foundthroughout
in Nazism, out to be so ugly.On the contrary,
historyand exemplified
as people wake up to
and LatinAmerican
fascism.
Stalinism,
theirrights
all overtheworldand raisetheirexpectations,
so
theyinsiston constitutionalism,
ruleof law,equal consideraBlamingBureaucratization
tion,due process,equity,
protection,
access,competence,
regquality,fairness,
responsibility,
Elsewhere,institutionalized
accountability,
openmaladministration
is not ularity,
thathavepromoted
so muchto authoritarian
attributed
bureaucracy,
cultures
or psychotic
indi- ness,andthoseotherfactors
vidualsas to increasing
and bureaucraticabuses. Undoubtedly
bureaucratization,
reliancein humanarrangements
on
the bureaucratic
formof administration,
individual
i.e., the processof some cherishedvalues of the past-self-reliance,
initiative,
independence,
bureaucratization.
The criticsof bureaucratization
integrity,
the workethic,altruism,
see it as
suffered
in theprocessofbureaucratidefectiveand a curseon modemsociety. competitiveness-have
beinginherently
Theydislikebureaucratization
has been carriedtoo farin some
altogether
or forwhatit does
zation,and bureaucracy

IsPublic
What
Really
Maadministraoon?

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:02:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

489

areas,but thisdoes not meanthatotherequallycherished

valueshavenotgainedmoreand thatbureaucracy
cannotbe
readjusted(Hummel,1982). Yet, thereis no denyingthat
bureaucratization
carrieswithit a highpropensity
formaladministration.

turned
outtobesougly.
Big
basnot
As

people
wake
allover
the
world
uptotheir
rights
andraise
their
sothey
insist
on
expectations,

Thatbureaucracy
has inherent
has longbeen
dysfunctions
known.Its unanticipated
dysfunctional
consequenceshave
been subjectto muchsociologicalanalysis.KarlMarxidentifiedthemaintenance
of thestatusquo, promotion
of incompetence,alienation,
lackof imagination,
fearofresponsibility,
and rigidcontroloverthemasses.RobertMichelsrecognized
thatdemocratic
participation
was technically
impossiblein
complexorganizations.
MaxWeberperceivedthatbureaucracy threatened
democracy
thesacrifice
of freeby demanding
dom.Butitwas RobertMerton(1936) in the 1930swho first
emphasizeddysfunctions
thatimpededeffectiveness
when
and corruptbureaucrats.
Theydeclineintobureauor displacingorganizational
conflicting
goals, i.e., means fective,
cratic
"the
fluorescenceof (useless)
factionalism,
inertia,
becameendsin themselves.He lateridentified
while
rigidity,
reform
movements"
rationalize
theirappeals for
(that
mostly
Selznick(1949) added bifurcation
of interests
and Gouldner
and
(1954) punitivesupervision.These and otherdysfunctions morepower,money,and personnel),irresponsibility,
rebellion
the
self-directing
fiefdoms,
invoking
by
populace
(mediocrity,
officiousness,
stratification,
sabogamesmanship)
and conquestbynewentrepreneurial
bureaucrats
who repeat
tagedbureaucracy.
thecycle.He comparedthedynamism
of theRooseveltNew
Studiesofover-bureaucratized
suchas multi- Deal socialwelfarebureaucrats
organizations
suchas HarryHopkinswith
nationalcorporations,
armedforces,prisons,legal systems, contemporary
socialwelfareagencies:
mailservices,and welfareagenciesindicatehow the func...someof the bureaucrats
are stilldedicated,at
tionalelementsof bureaucracy-specialization,
hierarchy,
leastwhentheybegin,but theysoon burnout
rules,managerial
direction,
and careerism-if
impersonality,
fromthe immensity
of the rules,the relative
overdoneturndysfunctional
and counterproductive,
alienatof
the
inflexibility
regulations.
and the apparent
ingemployeesand clients.Itsvirtues
becomevices.Whereas
uselessness and unprofitability
of all their
specializationwas supposed to increaseproduction,too
efforts....
Careerism,
alienation,
factionalism,
inefmuch specializationentailed dull, boring,routinesouland displacement
ficiency,
ofgoalsaretheirmost
workthatbroughtabout carelessperformance,
destroying
important
products
(Douglas,1989,pp. 407-408).
and sabotage,whichresultedin low productivity.
soldiering
relianceon written
Similarly,
rulesled to excessivered-tape
He largelyblamedthe informational
pathologies
inherent
and legalismthatactuallyresultedin goal displacement, in bureaucracy,
suchas thedivorceof incomefromexpendigroupnormsubstitution,
and discrimination.
corruption,
The
tureand inputsfromoutputs,
thelackofmarketing
priceand
careerserviceconcept,whichwas supposedto ensurecom- profit
signals,theabsenceofproportioned
feedback,
informapetence,could resultin narrow-minded,
time-serving
medio- tiondistortions
and blockages,theemphasison conformity,
crities.An organization
can startout withall the virtuesof the
propensityforsabotage,hyperinflexibility,
elongated
and soon declinewithall its vices,a process
bureaucracy
chainsof command,
enfeudation,
conspiracy
to
defraud
and
whichJamesBoren(1975,p. 7) describedas mellownization
deceive,disinformation,
and sheersize. Buttheyare notthe
"as dynamic
actionis replacedbydynamic
inaction."
onlybureaupathologies
thatattackpublicadministration.
JackDouglas (1989) believesthatcontemporary
bureaucraciesgo throughcyclessimilarto thoseexperiencedby
ancientdynasties.
Theybegindynamically
and grapplewith
real problemsdirectly,
simply,and successfully.
Theyhave
Thesevices,maladies,and sicknesses
of bureaucracy
convigorousadministration
and entrepreneurial
bureaucrats stitute
bureaupathologies.
Theyare nottheindividual
failings
upliftedwithideas and boundingconfidencebendingthe of individuals
who composeorganizations
butthesystematic
rationalistic,
legalisticformsto achievetheirgoals. Because shortcomings
of organizations
thatcause individuals
within
theyworkor workbetterthanany predecessors,people
themto be guiltyof malpractices.
Theycannotbe corrected
demandmoreand gethookedon entrepreneurial
bureaucra- by separating
the guiltyfromthe organization
forthe malcy.Theygrow,adoptincreasingly
formal-rational
methodsof practices
willcontinueirrespective
oftheorganization's
comrecruitment
and administration
and becomeincreasingly
dis- position.They are not random,isolatedincidentseither.
tantfromthe people, and stifling.
Theirefficiency
declines Although
theymaynotbe regular,
theyarenotso rareeither.
and theysubverttheirresourcesand power,becomingcor- Whentheyoccur,littleactionis takento prevent
theirrecurruptand usurpatory,
succumbing
to machinations
thateven- renceor can be takenas inthecase ofanorexia(debilitation)
tuallygivewayto self-serving,
changeresistant,
devious,inef- and gattopardismo
(superficiality)
(Dunsireand Hood, 1989).

dleoflaw...and
constitutionalism,
other

factors
that
bavepromoted
bureaucracy,
andbureaucratic
abuses.
bureacratization,

Bureaupathologies

490

PublicAdministaton
Review* November/Decmber
1991,Vol.51,No.6

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:02:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Possibly,
thegreatest
obstacle
forpublicadministrators
to
is thatoforganizational
overcome
andinertia.
complacency
Bureaupathologies
oftencreatea comfortable,
serene,and
admits
Nobody relaxed
responsibility.
inwhichworkis performed
a style
after
atmosphere
and everything
on thesurfacelooks fine(Levin,1970;
confesses
error.
Itis
Nobody
ends
wrongdoing.
Warwick,
as ombudsman
1975).Butdigbelowthesurface,
aboundandpersist.
andwhistleblowers
andmaladies
reveal,
asifthe
basa mind
Thepeoplein thediseasedorganization
organization
ofitsown,
agreethatwhatis
and capableof considerable
beingdoneis unsatisfactory
As individuals,
improvement.
theyall welcomechangeand
a mind
closed
toanyother
way
ofdoing
things. reform.
Theymayevenbe agreedon thespecific
changes
theywouldliketo see made.Plansmayhavebeenmade,
Theyare notjustphysical
either;
organizations
also suffer guidelines
buttheyarestillwaiting
staff
readied,
prepared,
definite
mental
orneuroses
illnesses
too-paranoid,
compul- fora moreopportune
thatneverseemstoarrive.
Or
moment
sive,dramatic,
depressive,
andschizoid
(deVries
andMiller, theyhavekeptabreast
ofdiscoveries
in theirfieldandare
1985).
keentotrysomenewideas.Butnobody
is prepared
totake
Altogether,
some175or so common
stepand thesameideasare discussed
bureaupathologiesthefirst
repeatedly
arelistedinalphabetical
anyactionbeingtaken.Or somepeopledo take
orderforconvenience
(seeTable1). without
forinitiating
Theyare themostfrequently
theresponsibility
foundand identifiable.
Any uponthemselves
changeand
doableproposals,
whichtheyknow
publicorganization
feasible,
thatclaimstobe freeofthemis remark- designsuitable,
areacceptable.
Buttheyneverhearagainwhat
ableandprobably
Allmarperformance
itself.
but beforehand
deceiving
totheir
knowswhy.Theyhave
proposals.
Nobody
noneprevent
a publicorganization
if happened
performing,
although
beenlostintheworks.
leftuncorrected
foranylength
oftimeandinstitutionalized,
theywilleventually
theorganization
cripple
andgiveriseto
In suchinert
thepeoplearenotlazy.On
organizations,
serious
publiccomplaint.
Eachis fairly
easilydefined
andcan thecontrary,
theyworkhardand keepbusycopingwith
be readily
identified.
Eachhasitsownpeculiarities.
Eachhas dailydemands.
carEverybody
appearstobe fully
occupied,
different
takesdifferent
origins,
has different
effects rying
forms,
outtheir
settasksandobserving
thedirections
issuedto
and consequences,
and eachhas to be tackleddifferently.them.
Eachis loyaltotheorganization,
eachapproves
ofits
Takentogether,
a checklist
fororganizationalmission,
theyconstitute
eachis keento do a goodjob.Allareawareofits
a checklist
thatis byno meansexhaustive
diagnosticians,
but shortcomings
anddeficiencies.
and
Theyknowofitsmistakes
shouldcovermostadministrative
malpractices.
errorsand can recounthorror
storiestheyknowabout.
them,
theyhavea pretty
goodideahowitcanbe
These commonbureaupathologies
can be variously Between
and
arewilling
improved,
they
to trysomething
personally
grouped
andclassified
as to administrative
external
activity,
itsperformance.
to improve
Yet,somehow
nothing
or internal
oforganizational
cause,extent
collusion,
symp- different
Thesameold patterns
androutines
arepreserved;
andcouldbe mappedorarranged
toms,andso forth
similar changes.
anddeficiencies
areperpetuated;
mistakes
to a Gray'sanatomy
ofpublicorganizations
ifsucha com- theshortcomings
and
errors
are
When
the
doeschange,
repeated.
organization
pendium
couldbe devised
anduniversally
Likedisaccepted.
predictably,
and thennot
easesofthebody,somearequitesimilar
buteachis distinct it movesslowly,incrementally,
intheright
direction.
andtakesslightly
different
forms.
Somearesimple
butothers always
arequitecomplicated.
Contrast
"account
withcorpadding"
Suchinert
failtoadjust
intimetochanges
organizations
in
ruption.
Account
paddingis claiming
moreexpensesthan their
environment.
Theybecomeinsensitive
tocriticism.
They
Itcanorcannot
incurred.
be fairly
actually
common
practice appearnottoknoworwanttoknowwhatis really
goingon.
in an organization
towhicha blindeyeis turned
becauseit Everything
stayspretty
muchthesame.Nobody
knowswhy.
coststoomuchto control,
or accuracy
is impossible,
or the Nobodyadmitsresponsibility.
Nobodyconfesseserror.
needsto builda hiddenreserve
organization
tocoverunex- Nobodyendswrongdoing.
It is as iftheorganization
has a
pectedcontingencies
thatareboundto occur,or itis crimi- mindofitsown,a mindclosedto anyotherwayofdoing
and*theorganization
nallymotivated
is beingdeliberately things.
In fact,
byfailing
toanticipate,
recognize,
avoid,neuatpublicexpense.
exploited
Itcouldbe cor- tralize,
byitsmembers
oradapttopressures
thatthreaten
their
long-term
surrupt;however,
corruption
takeson so manyforms
ofwhich vival,inertorganizations
are in a seriousstateof decline,
account
is onlya symptom
ofsomething
padding
muchmore threatening
enormous
socialrepercussions
to theeconomy
andimmoral
sinister,
ifnotillegaland andsociety
hidden,
conspiratorial,
and to theindividuals
dependent
on themfor
The way one would tackle products
certainlydysfunctional.
andservices
andjobs(Weitzel
andJonnson,
1989).
paperasserie(too muchpaperwork)is quite different
from A good shake-upmaysuffice
to reinvigorate
them,but
tunnel
ortokenism,
orineptitude,
vision,
orempire-building,
already
theymaybe tooblindtorecognize
threats,
tooinert
orsabotage.
Theonlything
theyall haveincommon
is that todecideon a remedial
courseofaction,
tooincompetent
to
theyruncounter
to correct
administrative
norms,
or what makeand implement
theright
actions,
too crisisridden
to
publicadministrators
believe
theyought
topractice.
accepttheneedformajorreform,
andperhaps
eventoofar

NltJbJUdY

IsPublic
What
Really
Maladministaion?

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:02:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

491

on
serves
England,
ofLondon,
inextrem- GeraldE. Caiden,a native
gonetosave.Thistruly
is publicmaladministration
He has
is.Although
byno meansconfined
California.
tothepublicsector,
itis thefaculty
ofSouthern
ofTheUniversity
andmore
thekindofpublicmaladministration
morethan25 booksandmonographs
thatlowersthereputa- published
He hasactedas contionofpublicadministration
articles.
sixty
journal
andleavesa bad tastein peo- thanonehundred
ple'smouths.Thefirst
ofpubsteptoreform
andimprovement
andadministrator
toa widevariety
is to sultant,
researcher
admit
He is knownbestforhis researchin
bureaupathologies
andtakethem
seriously.
Otherwise, lic organizations.
publicmaladministration
willpersist
andcontinue
diagnosis.
todamage. administrative
reform
andorganizational

Table 1
Common Bureaupathologies
Abuseofauthority/
power/position
Accountpadding
Alienation
Anorexia
Arbitrariness
Arrogance
Bias
Blurring
issues
Boondoggles
Bribery
Bureaucratese
(unintelligibility)
Busywork
Carelessness
Chiseling
Coercion
Complacency
Compulsiveness
Conflicts
ofinterest/objectives
Confusion
Conspiracy
Corruption
Counter-productiveness
Cowardice
Criminality
Deadwood
Deceitand deception
Dedicationto statusquo
Defective
goods
Delay
Deterioration
Discourtesy
Discrimination
Diseconomies
ofsize
Displacement
ofgoals/
objectives
Dogmatism
Dramaturgy
Empire-building
Excessivesocialcosts/
complexity
Exploitation
Extortion
Extravagance
Failureto acknowledge/act/
answer/respond
Favoritism

492

Fearofchange,innovation,
risk
Finagling
Footdragging
Framing
Fraud
Fudging/fuzzing
(issues)
Gamesmanship
Gattopardismo
(superficiality)
Ghostemployees
Gobbledygook/jargon
Highhandedness
Ignorance
Illegality
Impervious
to criticism/
suggestion
Improper
motivation
Inability
to learn
Inaccessibility
Inaction
Inadequaterewardsand
incentives
Inadequateworking
conditions
Inappropriateness
Incompatible
tasks
Incompetence
Inconvenience
Indecision
(decidophobia)
Indifference
Indiscipline
Ineffectiveness
Ineptitude
Inertia
Inferior
quality
Inflexibility
Inhumanity
Injustice
Insensitivity
Insolence
Intimidation
Irregularity
Irrelevance
Irresolution
Irresponsibility
Kleptocracy
Lackofcommitment
Lackofcoordination

Lackofcreativity/
experimentation
Lackofcredibility
Lackofimagination
Lackofinitiative
Lackofperformance
indicators
Lackofvision
Lawlessness
Laxity
vacuums
Leadership
Malfeasance
Malice
Malignity
work
Meaningless/make
Mediocrity
Mellownization
Mindless
job performance
Miscommunication
Misconduct
Misfeasance
Misinformation
Misplacedzeal
Negativism
Negligence/neglect
Nepotism
Neuroticism
Nonaccountability
Noncommunication
Nonfeasance
Nonproductivity
Obscurity
Obstruction
Officiousness

Oppression
Overkill
Oversight
Overspread

Overstaffing

Paperasserie
Paranoia
Patronage
Payoffs
andkickbacks
Perversity
Phonycontracts
Pointless
activity
Procrastination
Punitive
supervision
Red-tape

to delegate
Reluctance
to takedecisions
Reluctance
Reluctance
to take
responsibility
Remoteness
Rigidity/brittleness
Rip-offs
Ritualism
Rudeness
Sabotage
Scams
Secrecy
Self-perpetuation
Self-serving
Slickbookkeeping
Sloppiness
Socialastigmatism
(failure
to see problems)
work
Soul-destroying
Spendthrift
Spoils
Stagnation
Stalling
Stonewalling
Suboptimization
Sycophancy
Tail-chasing
Tampering
Territorial
imperative
Theft
Tokenism
Tunnelvision
Unclearobjectives
Unfairness
Unnecessary
work
Unprofessional
conduct
Unreasonableness
Unsafeconditions
Unsuitable
premises
and
equipment
Usurpatory
Vanity
Vestedinterest
Vindictiveness
Waste
Whim
Xenophobia

PublicAdministration
Review* November/Decenber
1991,Vol.51,No.6

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:02:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

References
Bennis,W., 1973.Be;ondBureaucracyNewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Boren,J.,1975.Have YourWayWithBureaucrats.
Radnor,
PA:ChiltonBook
Co.
Bowden,E., 1976. "Maladministration:
A Thematic
Analysis
ofNigerian
Case
StudiesintheContext
ofAdministrative
Initiative."
HumanOrganization,
vol.35 (Winter),
p. 392.
Brown,D., 1987. Management's
HiddenEnemyand WhatCan Be Done
AboutIt. Mt.Airy,
MD: Lomond.
Bumheim,
J.,1985. Is Democracy
Possible?
Cambridge:
PolityPress.
deVries,F. R. Kets,and D. Miller,1985. TheNeuroticOrganization.San
Fransisco:
JosseyBass Publishers.
Douglas, J., 1989. TheMythof the WelfareState.New Brunswick,NJ:
Transaction
Publishers.
Drucker,P., 1980. "The Deadly Sins in Public Administration."
Public
Administration
Review,
vol.40 (March/April),
p. 103.
Dunsire, A., and C. Hood, 1989. Cutback Management in Public
Bureaucracies.
Cambridge:
ofCambridge
University
Press.
Frank,B., 1976. "The Ombudsmanand HumanRightsRevisited."
Israel
Yearbook
onHumanRights,
vol.6,p. 132.
A. W., 1954.Patterns
Gouldner,
ofIndustrial
Bureaucracy.
Glencoe,IL: Free
Press.
Hayward,F. H., 1917. Professionalism
and Originality
London: Allen&
Unwin.
Hood,C., 1974. "Administrative
Diseases: SomeTypesofDysfunctionality
in
Administration."
PublicAdministration,
vol.52,(Autumn),
pp. 439454.
Hummel,R., 1982. Tbe BureaucraticExperience.New York:St. Martin's
Press.
R. N., 1973. TheInstitutional
Kharasch,
NewYork:Charterhouse
Imperative.
Books.
Levin,A., 1970.TheSatisficers.
NewYork:McCallPublishing
Company.
NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Martin,
T., 1973. MaliceinBlunderland.

PoliticalStudies,vol.
Marshall,
G., 1975. 'Techniqueof Maladministration."
23,pp. 305-310.
Merton,R., 1936. "The Unanticipated
Consequencesof PurposiveSocial
vol. 1,pp. 894-904.
Action."
American
Sociological
Review,
Social Forces,
, 1940."Bureaucratic
Structure
and Personality."
vol. 18,pp. 560-568.
to Development:
Montgomery,
J. and W. J. Siffin,
eds., 1966. Approaches
Politics,
Administration
and Change.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
of Three
Analysis
O'Leary,B., 1988. "TheLimitsto Bureaucide:A Critical
to theRoundTableon
VisionsofDebureaucratization."
Paperpresented
AdministrationWithoutBureaucracy. InternationalInstituteof
Administrative
Sciences,Budapest.
Government."
Journalof
Peters,B. G., 1981. "TheProblems
of Bureaucratic
vol.43 (February),
Politics,
pp. 56-82.
New
Pierce,W. S., 1981. BureaucraticFailureand PublicExpenditure.
York: AcademicPress,Harcourt
BraceJovanovich.
Robson,W.,1964. TheGotemnors
and theGotemedLondon:Allen& Unwin.
of
Selznick,P., 1949. T.V.A.and the GrassRoots.Berkeley:University
California
Press.
Against
Bureaucracy.New
Smigel,E. 0. and H. L. Ross,eds., 1970. Crimes
York:VanNostrand
Reinhold
Co.
Toffler,
A., 1971.FutureSbockNewYork:BantamBooks.
London:Pitman,
Warner,
R., 1947. ThePrinciples
ofPublicAdministration.
pp. 63-65.
Warwick,D., 1975.A TbeoryofPublicBureaucracyCambridge:Harvard
Press.
University
A Literature
Weitzel,W. and E. Jonnson,1989. "Declinein Organizations:
vol.34, pp.
Integration
and Extension."
Administrative
ScienceQuarterly,
91-109.
and ItsRemedies.London: Stevens&
Wheare,K., 1973.Maladministration
Sons.

WhatReallyIs PubhcMladminisrfion?

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:02:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

493