Bureaucracy Basics: Crash Course Government and Politics #15 - YouTube

Channel: CrashCourse

[2]
Hi, I'm Craig, and this is Crash Course Government & Politics, and today, we're gonna talk about
[7]
bureaucracies, just as soon as I finish filling out these forms. Do I really have to initial
[11]
here, here, and here on all three copies, Stan? Regulations say so? All right. I'm just
[17]
kidding. I don't really have to fill out forms in triplicate in order to make an episode
[20]
of Crash Course, but this kind of stuff is one of the main reasons that people don't like bureaucracies.
[24]
Americans tend to associate them with incomprehensible rules and time-wasting
[27]
procedures and probably most annoying - actual bureaucrats. But bureaucracies are a lot like our
[31]
extended families, in that we largely don't understand, or at least don't appreciate, the important role that
[35]
bureaucracies play in our lives, mainly because of all the forms, and because my cousin who always ate
[40]
all the cookies from the jar at Grandma's house.
[41]
[Theme Music]
[50]
So what exactly IS a bureaucracy? I don't like to do this, because I'm arrogant and
[54]
lazy, but sometimes it's helpful to go to a dictionary when you need to find out what
[57]
a word means. So here's a serviceable, political science-y definition: "A bureaucracy is a
[61]
complex structure of offices, tasks, rules, and principles of organization that are employed
[65]
by all large scale institutions to coordinate the work of their personnel."
[69]
Two points to emphasize here: First, bureaucracies are made up of experts who usually know more
[73]
about the topic at hand than you do and who are able to divide up complex tasks so that
[77]
they can get done. Second, all large scale institutions use bureaucracies, so the distinction
[81]
between big business and big government is, in at least this respect, bogus, or what I
[85]
like to call a false dichotomy. Is that too pretentious to say "false dichotomy," Stan?
[91]
I don't care, I'm saying it. False dichotomy!
[94]
So if people hate bureaucracies so much and compare them unfavorably with Google and Amazon,
[98]
why do we have them? Well, the main reason is that bureaucracies are efficient. They
[101]
make it easier for governments to accomplish tasks quickly and to basically operate at
[105]
all. In the US, federal bureaucrats fulfill a number of specific important functions.
[109]
One, bureaucrats implement the laws that Congress writes. Have you ever read a law? They're
[113]
pretty complicated. It's a good idea to have experts who can interpret them and put them
[116]
into action. Two, bureaucrats also make and enforce their own rules. But this isn't as
[120]
action hero-ish as it sounds. And three, they settle disputes through a process called administrative
[124]
adjudication, which makes them kind of like courts.
[127]
Now, since I know that all of you have been paying extremely close attention to these
[130]
episodes, you know that at least two of those functions are problematic in ways that go
[133]
beyond making rules that seem Byzantine or stupid or both - Byzantupid.
[138]
The big concern here is the separation of powers, which you remember is the idea that
[142]
power is divided between three branches of government. Technically the federal bureaucracy
[146]
is part of the executive branch, but it's so big that it dwarfs the other two branches
[150]
and can easily overpower them, much like I overpower this eagle.
[153]
"That's right eagle. I make my own rules, like a bureaucracy."
[158]
But an even more troubling, to some people, aspect of bureaucracies is what they actually do.
[162]
So let's go to the Thought Bubble. Bureaucracies don't just enforce the rules; they make new
[165]
ones called regulations. In doing this, they're acting like a legislature, especially since
[169]
the rules have the force of law and people can be punished for breaking them. For example,
[173]
if you say "Sh%t Sticks" on TV, the FCC can fine you, just like the local law enforcement
[178]
would if you broke a state law against speeding. And don't say "Sh%t Sticks" to the cop. But
[181]
according to the Constitution, Congress is supposed to make the laws, so if you're a
[185]
constitutional formalist, this is going to give you fits.
[187]
On the other hand, the rule making process allows for a degree of popular participation
[191]
that goes way beyond what happens in Congress. In 2014, Congress called for the mandatory
[195]
notice and comment period on new FCC rules on the issue of net neutrality. Any person
[200]
can read the proposed rules which are not easy to understand and offer a public comment,
[204]
including suggestions for new rules using the internet. The bureaucracy is required to
[207]
read the comments and they could be incorporated into the final rules that are published in the federal register.
[211]
So in a way, federal rule-making is more democratic than congressional law-making, but it's still
[215]
not in the constitution. Administrative adjudication raises similar separation of powers issues,
[220]
but they're less problematic because the constitution gives congress the right to establish courts
[224]
other than the Supreme Court and it doesn't say that these can't be administrative tribunals
[228]
that are part of bureaucratic agencies.
[230]
Many low level bureaucratic positions are filled through competitive exam-based civil
[233]
service procedures which are supposed to ensure a level of expertise and take politics out
[237]
of the staffing process. But many upper level bureaucratic leaders especially cabinet secretaries
[241]
and also ambassadors are very political. For one thing, they're appointed by politicians
[245]
who may be repaying favors or trying to pack the agencies with like-minded favorites.
[249]
For another, bureaucrats engage in bargaining and protect their own interests, the very
[252]
thing that politicians do all the time. Thanks Thought Bubble.
[255]
So the first reason we keep bureaucracies is because bureaucracies are useful. They
[258]
do get things done even though it might not be as quickly as we'd like. And some of these
[262]
things are things we want done, like inspecting our meat so we don't get E. coli or Salmonella
[266]
or Mad Cow Disease. One response to this that we'll talk about later is to get rid of public
[270]
bureaucracies and contract their tasks out to private companies. There's something to
[273]
be said to this. After all, in a lot of ways UPS does a better job of getting packages
[276]
to us than the postal service does. And I also have a lot more fun at the private bowling
[281]
alley than the public one. There's no such thing as a public bowling alley.
[284]
If there is, I'm going. Might be free.
[286]
But the main argument for privatization seems to be cost. And that one might not always
[290]
be true. It seems unlikely that a private corporation would spring up to inspect meat.
[294]
And although we can rely on pricing to signal that our chicken wings are salmonella free,
[298]
I don't think it's a good idea. So in addition to being useful and filling roles that the
[301]
private sector might not fill, one of the reasons we have so many bureaucracies is because
[305]
Congress keeps making them and delegating power to them.
[307]
If we didn't have bureaucracy, Congressmen and their staff would be taking on all the
[311]
oversight and enforcement of their own laws. In addition to creating its own separation
[314]
of powers problem, this might be kind of chaotic, considering that potentially the entire House
[319]
of Representatives could be replaced every two years.
[321]
One advantage of bureaucracies is a certain amount of stability in the built-up expertise
[325]
that comes with it. Probably the main reason why we don't change bureaucracies though is
[328]
that doing so is really difficult. Once Congress makes a bureaucracy it's usually permanent
[332]
for a number of practical and political reasons. We'll get into those reasons next time.
[335]
So I'm going to wrap this up with a little bit of a reminder about Federalism, based
[339]
on a largely unwarranted assertion. I bet that if you ask most Americans to give an
[343]
example of a bureaucracy they will say the DMV. Most people will tell you a DMV horror
[347]
story of the time they had to wait in line for four hours just to renew their license
[350]
and when they got to the counter a clerk told them that they didn't have the right forms
[353]
and they needed to post a money order, and not a credit card or a check or even cash
[356]
and that anyway they had to go on break and I had to come back in fifteen minutes and
[359]
all I wanted was my license-- AAAAAAH the DMV!
[361]
And I sympathize with this predicament but I feel the need to remind anyone who has had
[363]
this experience at the DMV, that it's a state bureaucracy, not the federal bureaucracy.
[367]
Most of the bureaucrats you meet in your daily life: teachers, policeman, tax assessors are
[371]
officials of your state government, not the federal government, like Bureaucrat Jimmy.
[375]
Which is pretty much what the Framers intended.
[377]
So it's a good idea to be thoughtful about which government we're going to transfer our
[380]
anger towards and to rage against the correct machine. That's what federalism's all about.
[384]
Thanks for watching. I'll see you next week.
[386]
Crash Course: Government & Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. Support
[390]
for Crash Course: U.S. Government comes from Voqal. Voqal supports nonprofits that use
[394]
technology and media to advance social equity. Learn more about their mission and initiatives
[398]
at voqual.org. Crash Course was made with the help of these soulless bureaucrats. Thanks for watching.