Controlling the bureaucracy 483Finally, agencies can sometimes combat attempts to control their behavior by
appealing to groups that benefit from agency actions.^63 For example, since the 1980s
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has resisted attempts
by Republican presidents and Republican members of Congress to eliminate the
agency or limit its operations.^64 One element of its strategy has been to build strong
ties to labor unions. As a result, OSHA is much more likely to receive complaints
about workplace safety from companies with strong unions. The second prong of
the strategy has involved building cooperative arrangements with large companies
to prevent workplace accidents, an approach that not only protects workers but can
save companies a lot of money over the long term. Moreover, when OSHA levies fines
against companies that violate safety regulations, the fines are generally much less
than the maximum fines that would be allowed by law. As a result, when proposals to
limit or eliminate OSHA are debated in Congress, members hear from unions as well
as many large corporations in support of keeping the agency in place. Over time, this
strategy has generated support for the agency from Democrats and Republicans in the
House and Senate.The Consequences of Control
Elected officials’ competing desires to both control what bureaucrats do and tap their
expertise explain many of the seemingly dysfunctional aspects of the bureaucracy.
Part of the problem is the nature of the tasks given to bureaucrats. Even when members
of Congress and the president agree on which problems deserve attention, bureaucrats
often face the much harder task of translating these officials’ lofty problem-solving
goals into concrete policies. Given the magnitude of this job, it is no surprise that even
the best efforts of government agencies do not always succeed.
Most important, the use of standard operating procedures is rooted partly in the
complexity of bureaucrats’ tasks—but also in the desire of agency heads and elected
officials to control the actions of lower-level staff. In some disaster relief efforts,
government agencies have found that preset plans and procedures worked against
the need to respond quickly to alleviate human suffering. And while the FDA’s
drug-approval process succeeds for the most part at preventing harmful drugs from
coming to market, the delays imposed by the process do prevent some patients from
receiving lifesaving treatments. However, in all these cases the decisions do not reflect
incompetence or malice. Rules and procedures are needed in any organization to
ensure that decisions are made fairly and that they reflect the goals of the organization.
But it is impossible to find procedures that will work well in all cases, particularly for the
kinds of policy decisions made by bureaucrats.“Why
Should
I Care?”
Cases of bureaucratic failure (poorly conceived policies or regulations, inaction,
red tape) are often cited to “prove” that bureaucrats are incompetent, lazy, or dumb.
The real story is that bureaucrats are often given nearly impossible tasks or political
mandates that limit their authority. In this sense, complaints about bureaucrats have
more to do with what we want them to do than with their unwillingness or inability to
execute these missions.Full_14_APT_64431_ch13_454-487.indd 483 16/11/18 1:45 PM