However, understanding the bureaucracy as delaying the administrative functions of government entities are tried by contemporary studies in public administration to rationalizing the procedural-processes of bureaucracy in the government, primarily to reform the administrative functions and authorities by streamlining the bureaucratic set up.
On the contrary Max Weber (1864-1920) has described bureaucracy in governmental organizations as “technically superior” to all other types of organizations and therefore necessary to larger units of enterprises (Suleiman, 2006) In ‘Bureaucracy and Financial Markets’ has examined the development of financial market and the legal system, and found the regulatory function of the state is to guarantee the institutionalization of fundamental securities.
To cite, the performance of bureaucracy is characterized as conventional, quantifiable and systematic; correlating the findings that the development of financial market demonstrates effective bureaucracy, such as in a way (1) the performance plays a vital role in shaping the financial market, and (2) the bureaucratic legal system indirectly affect the financial market (Nee & Opper, 2006). As argued by Nee and Opper (2006), conventional, quantifiable and systematic performances of bureaucracy facilitate capital budget accountancy and assessable risky ventures of government in significant capital investments.
Therefore, the bureaucratic system of the state plays a vital role in providing a guaranteed institutionalized securities in the aspects of financial management and capital investments, wherein the “bureaucratic control system” is in place to secure the shareholding through legal safety nets and cushion the financial markets by regulating the “separation of ownership and control” in stockholding (Fligstein 1990; in Nee & Opper, 2006).
In the case of bureaucratic system in financial securities through stockholding and capital investments, it is evident that Weber’s theory on the importance of bureaucracy applies to the situation. To cite, Weber has probed and proven the significant characteristics of bureaucratic application in the tenets of public administration and transformative procedures in managing the economic resources of the state (Evans & Rauch 1999; in Nee & Opper, 2006).
To acknowledge the analysis of Nee and Opper (2006) in Weber’s works, the functionality of bureaucracy under optimal and worst-case conditions can be exemplified by the regulatory function of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Departments of Treasury and Finance as Federal government agencies that secure the financial well-being of the state for plausible financial transactions.
In which case, these institutions of government bureaucracy can create alternative functions by expanding its legal capabilities through employing legally-competent employees, wherein appointment of bureaucrats must be based on technical expertise or qualification which are measured by strict procedure of examinations (Nee & Opper, 2006).
This explains that reliability on academic qualification and civil service compliance must be the critical alternative in recruiting, hiring and promoting the bureaucrats, establishing the level of competencies, efficiencies and effectiveness of the so-called “civil servants” that can optimize the bureaucratic processes on a case-to-case basis. Identifying major changes in public administration
In 2005, the international organization Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) has finalized its study-research and published the comprehensive report on the global surveyed 776 Local Government Executives (LGEs) from 23 countries which started in early 2004, through extensive phone interviews on major changes in coping with the challenges in public administration.
According to the survey result, the global LGEs can be described as “converging forces” that will propel or encourage reform in the public sector by year 2010, indicating the following strategies of the LGEs in the bulleted list below (EIU, 2005): ? Adaptable in identifying the challenges to accomplish their mandates, expanding and delivering the services through change in “internal working practices” by collaborating with private sector entities, and enhancing the service-delivery channels.
? Constituent-focused processes of service to increase the demand for public service through expedited, precise, and cost-effective service-delivery-processes coupled with developing the constituents’ potential skills in the promotion of good governance. ? Committed transparency by improving public accountability through collaboration of efforts with the constituents in qualifying and monitoring the implementation of nationally or locally funded projects.
? Awareness in establishing feasible business cases to enable objective evaluation on financial and economic viabilities of project investments, and to promote transparent transactions with investors and the constituents. ? Receptiveness to the practices of private-sector by promoting coordinative efforts in streamlining the bureaucracy to resolve issues of service-delivery-bottlenecks. ? Acquirement of technological instruments, facilities and utilities to improve the quality of service and communication channels.