BUREAUCRACYSchutz, Alfred 1967 The Phenomenology of the Social
World. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.
Sklair, Leslie 1995 Sociology of the Global System. Balti-
more, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Small, Albion 1895 ‘‘The Era of Sociology.’’ American
Journal of Sociology. 1(1):1–15.
Smith, Anthony 1986 The Ethnic Origins of Nations.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Swingewood, Alan 1998 Cultural Theory and the Problem
of Modernity. London: Macmillan.
Wolf, Martin 1999 ‘‘More Meant Worse.’’ Financial
Times, 21 June, 22.
Woodiwiss, Anthony 1998 Globalization, Human Rights
and Labour Law in Pacific Asia. Cambridge, Eng.:
Cambridge University Press.
PETER THAYER ROBBINS
VANEETA-MARIE D’ANDREABUREAUCRACY
The origin of the term bureaucracy can be traced to
eighteenth-century French literature (Albrow 1970).
The early usage referred to an official workplace
(bureau) in which individual activities were rou-
tinely determined by explicit rules and regula-
tions. As modern systems of management, super-
vision, and control, bureaucracies are designed to
rationally coordinate the duties and responsibili-
ties of officials and employees of organizations.
The delineation of official duties and responsibili-
ties, by means of formal rules and programs of
activity (March and Simon 1958), is intended to
displace and constrain the otherwise private, idio-
syncratic, and uniquely personal interests and ac-
tions of individuals. Bureaucratic systems of ad-
ministration are designed to ensure that the
activities of individuals rationally contribute to the
goals and interests of the organizations within
which they work.
THE CONTRIBUTION OF MAX WEBERThe historical trend toward increasing bureaucra-
tization throughout modern Western Europe, high-
lighted by the changing structure of military or-
ganizations, is documented by the work of Karl
Marx ([1852] 1963) and of Alexis de Tocqueville
(1877). Michels’ (1949) analysis of the dynamics of
power distribution within bureaucratic organiza-
tions and the concomitant development of oligar-
chic tendencies (fundamentally detrimental to
democratic principles) provided an understand-
ing of one of the more important unintended
consequences of bureaucratic processes. Howev-
er, the study of bureaucratic structure and proc-
esses as a prominent sociological topic is based on
the intellectual legacy of Max Weber (1864–1920).
Although Weber conducted his studies at the turn
of the nineteenth century, wide recognition of his
work by English-speaking theorists had to await
later translations of his work (Weber 1946, 1947).Weber’s thorough and richly informative work
included consideration of Chinese, Egyptian, Ro-
man, Prussian, and French administrative systems.
In his comparative analysis of this vast array of
diverse cultural systems of administration, Weber
recognized an inexorable relationship between
power and authority, on the one hand, and differ-
ing systems of administration on the other. In
Weber’s analysis, the bureaucratic form of admin-
istration reflects one of three ways in which power
can be legitimated. To gain a clear appreciation of
the unique features of bureaucratic structure and
processes, it is necessary to briefly address We-
ber’s proclaimed relationship between power, au-
thority, and systems of administration. Power, for
Weber, represents the ability or capacity to have
other people behave in accordance with certain
orders or dictates, irrespective of whether those
affected regard its application as rightful or legiti-
mate. Authority represents the legitimation of this
power by those individuals whose activities are so
ordered such that the application of power and its
impact on them are perceived to be proper and
acceptable. In Weber’s historical analysis, three
different types of authority are identified: tradi-
tional, charismatic, and rational–legal (Weber
1947, p. 328).Three Types of Authority. Traditional authori-
ty represents a system in which the use of power is
regarded as legitimate when it is predicated upon
belief in the sanctity of time-honored traditions
and patterns of behavior. By contrast, charismatic
authority is based on situationally specific acts of
personal devotion. Under these circumstances,
authority is conferred upon a specific individual