IS POLITICAL CONTROL OF THE BUREAUCRACY BENEFICIAL?
When working with bureaucrats, elected offi cials face the prob-
lem of political control: Should they allow bureaucrats to exer-
cise judgment when implementing policies or give them specifi c,
narrow directives? Letting bureaucrats set policy allows them
to base decisions on their expertise or private information,
but it also gives them the freedom to ignore elected offi cials’
policy goals and preferences in favor of their own. While this
exercise of expertise sounds like a good idea—shouldn’t we let
government policy be formulated by the most-knowledgeable
people—in practice it remains a diffi cult decision.
Consider the case of America’s involvement in the Libyan
Civil War in 2011. The United States, along with its allies in NATO,
provided the Libyan rebels with weapons and other supplies, and
conducted manned and drone airstrikes on the government’s mil-
itary bases and infrastructure. After some initial strikes, the U.S.
involvement was limited to drone missions, refueling of NATO
aircraft, and logistics support. However, by the provisions of the
War Powers Act (see Chapter 10), after sixty days the president
was obligated to determine whether U.S. involvement constituted
“hostilities,” and, if it did, to inform members of Congress, who
could vote on whether to continue the mission or end it.
While the fi nal decision about whether an operation consti-
tutes hostilities rests with the president, typically presidents
have relied on the judgment of lawyers in the State Department
to make this determination. In the case of Libya, these lawyers
argued that the Libyan mission constituted hostilities. However,
the president ignored this advice and relied on the judgment of
his advisers in the Executive Offi ce of the President, who came
to the opposite conclusion, meaning that there was no need to
ask Congress to pass judgment on the operation.
Many observers criticized the president’s decision to over-
rule the judgment of his legal experts. As Speaker of the House
Republican John Boehner put in, “The White House says there are
no hostilities taking place. Yet we’ve got drone attacks under way.
We’re spending $10 million a day. We’re part of an effort to drop
bombs on Qaddafi ’s compounds. It just doesn’t pass the straight-
face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities.”
Even leaving politics aside—the Libya operation was opposed by
many Republicans, including Boehner—the episode raises an
important question: If bureaucrats are experts, why shouldn’t
they make policy decisions, rather than leaving them up to politi-
cians, who may know far less about the decisions they face?
The problem with bureaucratic discretion is that it cuts both
ways. Allowing bureaucrats to act as they think best means that
they can disregard the stated goals of legislation or the pref-
erences of elected offi cials and simply implement the policies
they favor. Even bureaucrats’ public statements can have policy
consequences—they may infl uence public opinion and in turn
shape government policy. If experts in the bureaucracy sound
the alarm, people outside government may listen and even take
action in the form of protests, legal action, or other organized
attempts to overturn the decision inside government. Even if
their efforts are unsuccessful, the president and the people
working for him or her may spend considerable time respond-
ing to public pressure.
Another down side that comes with bureaucratic discretion
is that bureaucrats are unelected and most are very diffi cult
to fi re because of their civil service protections. Moreover, if
bureaucrats are given a great deal of leeway to use their judg-
ment in policy making, it becomes very diffi cult to determine the
criteria for judging whether their removal is warranted or not.
How much discretion should elected offi cials allow bureaucrats
to use? You decide.You Decide
CONTROLLING THE BUREAUCRACY| 345Critical Thinking Questions
- It’s easy to see why opponents of the president’s
policies would like to reduce political control of
the bureaucracy. However, there are situations
where even a president might want to reduce his
or her control over bureaucratic actions. Why? - The benefi ts and costs of political control vary
across the diff erent agencies and departments
that make up the bureaucracy. Where do you think
the benefi ts are high, and where do you think they
are low? What about costs?
While legal experts in the State Department said that U.S. involve-
ment in Libya in 2011 constituted “hostilities” and was therefore
subject to a possible vote in Congress, the Obama administration
chose to ignore the experts and follow their own plan.