1 of 9

American Government Roots and Reform

Thirteenth Edition

Chapter 8

The Executive Branch and the Federal Bureaucracy

8.4 How the Bureaucracy Works

2 of 9

Learning Objectives

8.1 Outline the development of the federal bureaucracy.

8.2 Describe how the federal bureaucracy is organized.

8.3 Describe how the federal bureaucracy is staffed.

8.4 Identify the roles and responsibilities of the federal bureaucracy.

8.5 Identify the means of controlling the federal bureaucracy.

3 of 9

8.4 How the Bureaucracy Works

Relationships among Policy Actors
Making Policy

4 of 9

8.4 Relationships among Policy Actors

German sociologist Max Weber believed bureaucracies were rational ways for complex societies to organize themselves. Such bureaucracies would ideally include:

a chain of command
division of labor
clear lines of authority
a goal orientation that helped shape the organization's structure
impersonality,in which all employees are treated fairly
productivity

When Congress creates any department, agency, commission, it is actually delegating some of its powers in Article I, section 8 of US Constitution - laws describe purpose and give authority to make policy decisions which have the effect of law and Congress sets general guidelines for action and allows the agency to work out the details….IMPLEMENTATION

German sociologist Max Weber believed bureaucracies were rational ways for complex societies to organize themselves. Such bureaucracies would include a chain of command, division of labor, clear lines of authority, a goal orientation that helped shape the organization's structure, impersonality, in which all employees are treated fairly, and productivity. This is the ideal, of course, but government agencies do try to work this way.

The relationships and interaction among federal agency workers, interest groups, and key congressional committee staffers has been called the iron triangle of implementation.

Many political scientists who examine external influences on the modern bureaucracy

prefer to study issue networks. In general, issue networks, like iron triangles, include agency officials, members of Congress (and committee staffers), and interest group lobbyists. But, they also include lawyers, consultants, academics, public relations specialists, and sometimes even the courts.

As a result of the increasing complexity of many policy domains, a number of alliances have also arisen within the bureaucracy. One such example is interagency councils, working groups established to facilitate the coordination of policy making and implementation across a host of agencies.

In areas marked by extraordinarily complex policy problems, recent presidential administrations have set up policy coordinating committees (PCCs) to facilitate interaction among agencies and departments at the sub-Cabinet level. For example, the Homeland Security Council PCC (the HSC-PCC) is composed of representatives from various executive departments as well as the FBI, CIA, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the vice president’s office, among others.

5 of 9

8.4 Relationships among Policy Actors

Iron Triangles

The relationships and interaction among federal agency workers, interest groups, and key congressional committee staffers has been called the iron triangle of implementation.

Issue Networks

Many political scientists who examine external influences on the modern bureaucracy prefer to study issue networks. In general, issue networks, like iron triangles, include agency officials, members of Congress (and committee staffers), and interest group lobbyists. But, they also include lawyers, consultants, academics, public relations specialists, and sometimes even the courts.

Khan Academy Video Iron Triangles and Issue Networks (3:41)

Interagency Councils

As a result of the increasing complexity of many policy domains, a number of alliances have also arisen within the bureaucracy. One such example is interagency councils, working groups established to facilitate the coordination of policy making and implementation across a host of agencies.

Policy Coordinating Committees

In areas marked by extraordinarily complex policy problems, recent presidential administrations have set up policy coordinating committees (PCCs) to facilitate interaction among agencies and departments at the sub-Cabinet level. For example, the Homeland Security Council PCC (the HSC-PCC) is composed of representatives from various executive departments as well as the FBI, CIA, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the vice president’s office, among others

German sociologist Max Weber believed bureaucracies were rational ways for complex societies to organize themselves. Such bureaucracies would include a chain of command, division of labor, clear lines of authority, a goal orientation that helped shape the organization's structure, impersonality, in which all employees are treated fairly, and productivity. This is the ideal, of course, but government agencies do try to work this way.

The relationships and interaction among federal agency workers, interest groups, and key congressional committee staffers has been called the iron triangle of implementation.

Many political scientists who examine external influences on the modern bureaucracy

prefer to study issue networks. In general, issue networks, like iron triangles, include agency officials, members of Congress (and committee staffers), and interest group lobbyists. But, they also include lawyers, consultants, academics, public relations specialists, and sometimes even the courts.

As a result of the increasing complexity of many policy domains, a number of alliances have also arisen within the bureaucracy. One such example is interagency councils, working groups established to facilitate the coordination of policy making and implementation across a host of agencies.

In areas marked by extraordinarily complex policy problems, recent presidential administrations have set up policy coordinating committees (PCCs) to facilitate interaction among agencies and departments at the sub-Cabinet level. For example, the Homeland Security Council PCC (the HSC-PCC) is composed of representatives from various executive departments as well as the FBI, CIA, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the vice president’s office, among others.

6 of 9

Figure 8.7 What Constitutes an Iron Triangle?

Iron triangles are the relatively stable relationships formed between bureaucratic agencies, congressional committees, and interest groups. Cooperation between these three policy actors may make policymaking in some issue areas, such as veterans' affairs, an insular process confined to a small clientele.

7 of 9

8.4 Making Policy

Main purpose of decision-making bodies is policy making. Informally, many decisions are left up to individual government employees on a day-to-day basis. Government employees have administrative discretion, and can choose how to implement congressional or executive intentions. There are two formal procedures for this: rule making and administrative adjudication.

Khan Academy Video Discretionary and rulemaking authority of the federal bureaucracy (5:22) Title IX example
Rule-Making Authority

Quasi-legislative process ...law makers
Regulations have the force of law...law enforcers
Administrative Procedures Act establishes process... requires that the public be made aware of proposed rules and be given the chance to comment!

Administrative Adjudication-(Discretionary Authority)

If people or businesses are not in compliance with federal laws, rules or regulations
Quasi-judicial process
Method of settling disputes between parties...like in court...can be further challenges and reviewed in court

Many decisions are left up to individual government employees on a day-to-day basis. Government employees have administrative discretion, and can choose how to implement congressional or executive intentions. There are two formal procedures for this: rule making and administrative adjudication.

Rule making is the quasi-judicial process resulting in regulations that have the force of law. Put simply, bureaucratic rule-makers often act both as lawmakers as well as law enforcers when they make rules or write regulations to implement congressional acts.

The Administrative Procedures Act was passed in 1946. Among other things, it requires that the public be made aware of proposed rules and be given the chance to comment.

If people or businesses are not in compliance with federal laws, rules or regulations, the agencies may resort to administrative adjudication. This is a quasi-judicial process that settles disputes between two parties much like the way disputes are handled in court. An administrative law judge presides over the hearings. The judge's rulings can be further reviewed and challenged in court.

8 of 9

Figure 8.8 How Is a Regulation Made?

The 1946 Administrative Procedures Act spells out a specific process for rule making in the federal bureaucracy. Similar to the process of making legislation, a proposed rule has many opportunities to fail to be implemented. Affected citizens also have a number of opportunities to offer their opinions of a proposed rule.

9 of 9

8.4 Journal Prompt

Identify the roles and responsibilities of the federal bureaucracy.

Relationships among Policy Actors
Making Policy