Is Political Control
of the Bureaucracy
Beneficial?
When working with bureaucrats, elected officials (the
president or members of Congress) face the problem of
political control: Should they allow bureaucrats to exercise
judgment when implementing policies or give them specific,
narrow directives? Compounding this problem is the fact that
most bureaucrats are civil service employees, meaning they
cannot be fired except under very extreme circumstances. As a
result, even when elected officials give very specific directives
to an agency, they may find that bureaucrats essentially
ignore the directives and that very little can be done to force
compliance (after all, regardless of what bureaucrats do or
don’t do, they will still have a job). Civil service protections
also mean that members of Congress or a new presidential
administration cannot clean house in an agency, replacing
untrustworthy bureaucrats with individuals who will do what
they are told. Should civil service protections be abolished?Get rid of civil service protections. The civil service
system began in an era when few government jobs required
specialized knowledge, expertise, or an advanced degree.
The modern federal bureaucracy is exactly the opposite:
most jobs, particularly those that involve real policy-making
power, require expertise to be done effectively. Under these
conditions, civil service protections are to some extent
unnecessary, as bureaucrats have considerable job security
because of their expertise and experience. Getting rid
of recalcitrant bureaucrats involves significant costs: by
removing their knowledge of the policies being decided and
the procedures by which decisions are made, it may become
impossible for an agency to function at all. Moreover, a
bureaucrat’s reluctance to behave as ordered may be a sign
that something is wrong—that the directive makes no sense
or that there are easier ways of accomplishing the task.
Consider the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
There is little doubt that most EPA scientists believe that
climate change is real and that it is the result of human
actions. Both of these views are in opposition to President
Trump’s stated positions. Are civil service protections the
only thing preventing Trump from firing these scientists?
Doing so would decimate the EPA and make it impossible
for the agency to carry out many of its functions, some
of which (like cleaning up Superfund sites) are things
Trump favors. Trump may not like having EPA scientistsTAKE
A S TA N D480Civil service protections help ensure that agency scientists will
continue to do cutting-edge research and report their findings,
even if their conclusions conflict with the views of their political
superiors.that disagree with him, but he would probably like the
consequences of a mass firing even less.Civil service protections are still needed. The fact
that firing bureaucrats costs the government the benefit of
their experience and expertise does not mean that elected
officials will never threaten to do so, or even carry out their
threats. Removing civil service protections—making bureau-
crats vulnerable to threats about their future employment—
could easily lead to bad policy outcomes. Eliminating civil
service protections would also change the kinds of people
who undertake careers in government service. Civil service
protections enable policy experts to work for the government
without fearing that they will be fired for simply voicing their
concerns or because a new administration places a high value
on loyalty. Without the protections afforded by civil service
regulations, these individuals might choose a different career,
depriving the federal government (and the American people)
of the benefits of their knowledge and training.
In the case of the EPA, civil service protections help
ensure that agency scientists will continue to do cutting-edge
research and report their findings, even if their conclusions
conflict with the views of their political superiors—and that
these scientists will work for the agency in the first place.take a stand
- In general, contemporary Democratic politicians tend to
favor civil service protections, while Republicans want to
weaken them. Does this preference make sense in light of
what we know about the differences between the parties
in their beliefs about the size and scope of government? - Not all jobs in the federal bureaucracy require special-
ized knowledge and expertise. Would it make sense to
abandon civil service protections for low-level jobs such
as clerical positions? Why or why not?
Chapter 13 | The BureaucracyFull_14_APT_64431_ch13_454-487.indd 480 16/11/18 1:44 PM