I would also like to briefly touch on some of the inefficiencies
of bureaucracies. The reason
I bring bureaus into this equation is because it gives us more
of a complete picture of democracies. William Niskanen put a slightly
different slant on the idea of democracies and bureaucracies.
He proposed a model that saw the government bureaus as the suppliers
and that elected politicians are the demanders of some good or
service. The goal of the bureau chief, as manager of the supply,
is to maximize the size of his or her budget. This can easily
be done because politicians have little incentive to promote efficiency
and little ability to determine an efficient level of the bureau
chief's budget. This being said it is quite easy to see how inefficiencies
are present.
The bureau chief is similar to a manager of a company. What
is the goal? To make the bureau as big as possible-to maximize
his or her budget. In doing this they can better satisfy their
wants-such as prestige, being elected to political office, getting
good jobs later on, etc… The bureau chief's goals can be
helped by those with whom they interact on a daily basis (politicians,
consumers, resource suppliers…). If the bureau chief helps
them they will probably offer help in return too .
The real key to it all is that politicians usually want to
be reelected, and a bureau chief can help them by having a budget
that is large enough to supply special services and campaign contributions.
Plus the bigger budget allows them to increase their work force.
This also helps them with opportunities of promotion in rank,
and allows them to work with more resources (machines, etc…).
Because they seem more impressive, then they gain more respect
from those below them. However, like other people they may not
work hard, which of course leads to inefficiencies and not meeting
the desires of the public. The main idea that has been discovered
is that generally speaking, politicians care about efficiency
only to the extent that it wins them votes.