_This post is written by Dr Russell Ayres, Associate Professor, University of Canberra _

  • The problem: We need to stop worrying about and trying to suppress the power and influence of public servants in the modern state.
  • Why it matters: This approach has failed repeatedly, because it is based on a fundamental misconception of that power and influence.
  • The solution: Instead, we need to reconceptualise the issue as ‘bureaucratic agency’ – an institutional quality that can and must be actively managed, nurtured and directed.

The power and influence of bureaucrats – their ‘agency’ – has long been seen as a problem – something to be suppressed and minimised. Academic literature is replete with references to the ‘principal-agent problem’ and anxiety over ‘budget-maximising bureaucrats’. It is also inherent in many of the prescriptions of New Public Management that have been popular in anglophone countries over the last 40 years or so.

Bureaucratic agency is ‘baked in’ the modern democratic state: it is constitutionally essential and institutionally indispensable.

By re-examining the issue, there is an opportunity to establish a more positive, creative approach to public administration; one that may well avoid many of the pitfalls and failures of recent attempts at ‘reform’.

A critical first step is to recognise that what we are talking about is something more subtle and complex than mere ‘power’. The concept of ‘agency’ can frame the issue so that those who are concerned with improving the way governments make and implement public policy can do so on the basis of a more effective fundamental conception of the institutions involved.

Bureaucratic agency

‘Bureaucratic agency’ is the inherent capacity of public servants—and their organisations—to influence the formulation and implementation of government policies. It lies at the heart of the administrative state, as an important means of promoting and sustaining democratic governance.

Bureaucratic agency is ‘baked in’ the modern democratic state: it is constitutionally essential and institutionally indispensable. It cannot be eliminated or rendered void, notwithstanding the wishes of some to do so. Bureaucratic agency is also fundamentally morally neutral: it may be turned to positive as well as negative ends.

These qualities of bureaucratic agency mean that it must be actively managed, directed and developed. The worst strategy is to seek to ignore, dismiss or arbitrarily constrain it. One reason various administrative reform agendas have failed or had perverse consequences is because bureaucratic agency has been ignored or downplayed. Examples include New Public Management, the ‘hollowing’ of the state through privatisation and outsourcing, increasingly politicised appointments, and attempts to dismantle the policy capability of civil service departments.

Strategies to succeed

‘Agency’ in this conception is related to but differs in important ways from ‘power’. Whereas crude political power is often a ‘zero-sum game’, agency (drawing on sociological concepts of individual or collective agency) is not necessarily or even primarily mutually destructive. True, a bureaucracy that is not accountable and lacks a positive professional operational framework is likely to be destructive of the agency of others in the system – including ministers, parliaments and civil society. This is clearly not desirable; more importantly, it is not inevitable.

To avoid misuse of administrative agency requires a public service that exercises effective and appropriate agency and that has:

  • clear scope for action (an ‘authorising environment’ characterised by legal and regulatory frameworks)
  • a focus on promoting the agency of others (including ministers, parliaments and civil society)
  • the knowledge, skills and resources to act (professional development and adequate budgets)
  • accountability for its actions, and outcomes (transparency and rewards for ‘good’ agency)

How can a more effective use of bureaucratic agency be embedded in the practice of positive public administration? The starting point is to acknowledge it exists and realise that seeking to suppress it risks distorted and negative outcomes. The next step is to build it into the lexicon: the agency exercised by public servants should be recognised, even celebrated, not hidden from view, and positive agency should be recognised and rewarded. The final and ongoing step is to build the notion of agency into the professional ethos of public servants, through formal and informal training and education, and through the day-to-day in the job practices that are the foundation of how most public servants learn their craft.

Making a difference

It is crucial not to be naïve about this. Public servants exercise a great deal of power and influence in the modern state, and that power can be exercised for malign, self-serving reasons or through dogged passivity and blocking the will of citizens and elected representatives. But that is precisely the point: not actively and creatively managing bureaucrats’ agency will almost guarantee negative or at least suboptimal outcomes.

Bureaucracy in the modern state has a long and complicated history, and our contemporary attitudes and paradigms – including an abiding mistrust of public servants’ power and influence – have grown up over a long time. It is possible, however, to reconceptualise that power as a specific form of collective, institutional agency. Doing so can underpin a more productive, empowering and effective approach to public administration. Most importantly, it can help harness bureaucrats’ inherent agency and bring it to bear on the myriad challenges faced by every nation.

👋 You can create a post like this one! Share your thoughts with a community of public servants. Learn more

(Image Credit: Unsplash)