"The developing countries can no longer rely on Weberian model of bureaucracy. Instead, Adhocreacy is the ideal model for them" . Discuss the Tuffler's statement with respect to Indian dynamics.

[PUB AD- Answer writing]

Reference : Synergy Class notes. 

[Taylor]

The over emphasis on adherence to rules, hierarchy, goal displacement, prostitution of personality etc. makes the closed and mechanical model of bureaucracy defunct in developing countries. The development administration in developing countries has a twin task of bolstering socio-economic development and administrative development both. These task are associated with plethora of new challenges and bottlenecks which Weberian bureaucracy in its classical form is incapable to achieve.

The mindless rule orientation of classical bureaucracy develops red tapism, policy paralysis and programme inaction which culminates in inefficiency through wastage of resources. Inter alia, traditional model is more suitable for routinized work which without suitable reforms cannot be applied to developing countries. 

Moreover,  The rise of neo localism & anti developmental thesis has brought forward a renewed approach to administrative functioning where universal approach propounded by classical bureaucracy has been found infructuous . Bureaucracy has  to adapt to contextual dynamics in order to secure an organic link between development and administration. In this regard weberian model is found insufficient. 

To mitigate this, Tuffler has proposed an innovative term of Adhocreacy which is an organic and flexible organization capable of re-engineering itself to the needs of the society. It models itself on the idea of adhocism , to attain temporary goals and realign itself in a different manner as per the needs of further challenges.  

However, a complete rejection of weberian model will be a naive approach. Bureaucracies around the world have re-invented themselves on  spatial and temporal dynamics through values of NPM, NPA and Good governance. Indian and Chinese bureaucracy is a stark example of it. Moreover, Adhocreacy approach may increase organizational anarchy and societal entropy which are antithetical to long term purposes.  

Thus, relevance of bureaucracy exists will depend on political will and timely administrative reforms or improvements to suit the dynamic needs of developing countries on contextual basis. Every country should model its bureaucracy as per its immediate and long term goals.

[PUB AD- Answer writing]

Rahul, 2nd paragraph is inappropriate try to look again the sentence. As no Policy of government of India is bad in its formulation but its implementation which makes any policy win/successful or failure. sometime it lacks in basics of people's understanding as difference of opinion but Indian policies are one of the best policies in the world.e.g. Right to Information, Right to food, Right to work etc. points are well raised but try to keep it in updated form like by using things from today's point of view what i feel, it will help you to improve.

[MUKESH]

Adhocracy is a flexible, adaptable and informal form of organization that is defined by a lack of formal structure. It operates in an opposite fashion to a bureaucracy. It is believed that these characteristics allow adhocracy to respond faster than traditional bureaucratic organizations while being more open to new ideas.

We need Weber’s Bureaucracy , because it gave a rigid structure to organisation like skeleton in body , but under it flexible muscles are required by Adhocracy , which can overcome traditional limitation of being rule bounded , rigid hierarchy , ivory tower approach , personality detachment etc.

In developing countries , matrix type of organisation are required , where rotation between field level officer and secretariat officers  be done on time to time basis , so that reality can be covered in policy formulation along with its execution.

Also focus on more of social and human resource training be provided to have proper interaction between people and bureaucrats and more involvement of multiactors as per the cases , where bureaucrats may have innovative approach with involvement of common people.

More of system-4 and theory X type of approach by bureaucrats , where formal and informal system can maintain harmony , for facing uncertain problems .

However, important examples of adhocracy do exist in government. In its first dozen or so years, ISRO functioned as an adhocracy. It was created in the wake of failures of bureaucratic department of space at the beginning of the space race.

As recommended by Punchhi Commission ‘to relief the officers from routine work and promote them for innovative steps for different problems by giving more autonomy and coordination with field level agency and increase more no. of front line manager type of officers.

[Deepanshu Tiwari]

Weberain model of bureaucracy is “ideal type” and it can exist on paper only. Weber called it the most efficient way of running the administration. A rule bound and merit-based bureaucracy with impersonal order can lead to prosperity of nation. However, practically the administrative machinery can not function only  by referring to well-established rules and principles. Over-emphasis on rules, procedures and focus on codification of laws and written records can lead to inordinate delays or red-tapism.

Especially, in the developing countries of Asia or Africa the environment is highly dynamic and poses challenges of highest order to be tackled.

The developing countries have to be first lifted from the ashes of poverty, hunger and illiteracy. Further, countries like India are involved in intense struggle at border with its neighbours to safeguard its sovereignty. Hence, we can say that first the lower order needs have to be satisfied for them as suggested by Maslow need hierarchy theory:

Physiological needs, safety and security and social needs.

La Palambora advocates the concept of Adhocracy for the Indian Civil Services as it brings more flexibility.  No administrator can be expected to be neutral and impartial under immense pressure of hectic political activity. It is possible in an ideal case only as propounded by Weber’s Bureaucracy. Parson says that administrators are not experts rather they are generalists. Here, a conflict arises between the obedience of orders claimed by the “Body of experts” and those who possess the legal authority.

However, we can not entirely write off the legal-rational model of bureaucracy. Because it ensures that the power holders never turn authoritarian and directive as it is possible in Traditional model and Charismatic model of authority. Arrival of e-governance may have strengthened the rigidity of rules and laws, but it has plugged the gap between government and citizens and promoted better centre-state relations. It has also reduced corruption and ensured better public service delivery.

Hence, we know that it is not possible to completely isolate the administration from the evils, but we can take Weber’s model as a reference and guide bring our country on the track of progress.