Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 783

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Maybe It Is Time to Rediscover Bureaucracy

Olsen, Johan P.·2006·Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
DOI 10.1093/jopart/mui027
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article questions the fashionable ideas that bureaucratic organization is an obsolescent, undesirable, and non-viable form of administration and that there is an inevitable and irreversible paradigmatic shift towards market- or network-organization. In contrast, the paper argues that contemporary democracies are involved in another round in a perennial debate and ideological struggle over what are desirable forms of administration and government: that is, a struggle over institutional identities and institutional balances. The argument is not that bureaucratic organization is a panacea and the answer to all challenges of public administration. Rather, bureaucratic organization is part of a repertoire of overlapping, supplementary, and competing forms coexisting in contemporary democracies, and so are market-organization and network-organization. Rediscovering Weber's analysis of bureaucratic organization, then, enriches our understanding of public administration. This is in particular true when we (a) include bureaucracy as an institution, not only an instrument; (b) look at the empirical studies in their time and context, not only at Weber's ideal-types and predictions; and (c) take into account the political and normative order bureaucracy is part of, not only the internal characteristics of “the bureau.”

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jopart/mui027

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 94

  1. Albrow, M. 1970. Bureaucracy. London: Macmillan. · doi:10.1007/978-1-349-00916-9
  2. Andersen, S. A., and T. R. Burns. 1996. The European Union and the erosion of parliamentary democracy: A study of post-parliamentary governance. Contemporary Developmental Analysis1 (2): 33–66. Reprinted in The European Union: How democratic is it? ed. S. A. Andersen and K. A. Eliassen, 227–51. London: Sage. · doi:10.4135/9781446279434.n13
  3. Arellano, D., and A. del Castillo. 2004. Maturation of public administration in a multicultural environment: Lessons from the Anglo-Saxon, Latin and Scandinavian political traditions. International Journal of Public Administration27 (7): 519–28. · doi:10.1081/pad-120034077
  4. Aucoin, P. 1997. The design of public organizations for the 21st century: Why bureaucracy will survive in public management. Canadian Public Administration40 (2): 290–306. · DOI
  5. Berman, H. J. 1983. Law and revolution: The formation of the Western legal tradition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  6. Bouckaert, G. 2004. Die Dynamik von Verwaltungsreformen: Zusammenhänge und Kontexte von Reform und Wandel. In Status-Report Verwaltungsreform: Eine Zwischenbilanz nach zehn Jahren. Modernisierung des öffentlichen Sektors, ed. W. Jann et al., 24:22–35. Berlin: Edition Sigma.
  7. Brecht, A. 1937. Bureaucratic sabotage. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science189 (January): 48–57. · doi:10.1177/000271623718900109
  8. Brereton, M., and M. Temple. 1999. The new public service ethos: An ethical environment for governance. Public Administration77 (3): 455–74. · DOI
  9. Brunsson, N., and J. P. Olsen. 1993. Organizational forms: Can we choose them? In The reforming organization, ed. N. Brunsson and J. P. Olsen, 1–14. London: Routledge. · doi:10.4324/9781351252188-1
  10. Camdessus, M. 1999. Second generation reforms: Reflection and new challenges. Opening remarks at the International Monetary Fund Conference on Second Generation Reforms, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/1999/110899.htm (accessed June 16, 2004).
  11. Christensen, T., and P. Lægreid. 2004. Governmental autonomisation and control: The Norwegian way. Public Administration and Development24:129–35. · doi:10.1002/pad.318
  12. Dahl, R. A. 1947. The science of public administration: Three problems. Public Administration Review7 (Winter): 1–11. · DOI
  13. Davis, G., and R. A. W. Rhodes. 2000. From hierarchy to contracts and back again: Reforming the Australian public service. In Institutions on the edge: Capacity for governance, ed. M. Keeting, J. Wanna, and P. Weller, 74–98. St. Leonards, Australia: Allen and Unwin. · DOI
  14. deLeon, L. 2003. On acting responsibly in a disorderly world: Individual ethics and administrative loyalty. In Handbook of public administration, ed. B. G. Peters and J. Pierre, 569–80. London: Sage. · doi:10.4135/9781848608214.n46
  15. du Gay, P. 2000. In praise of bureaucracy: Weber—organization—ethics. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Dunleavy, P., and C. Hood. 1994. From old public administration to New Public Management. Public Money and Management14:9–16. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Egeberg, M. 1995. Bureaucrats as public policy-makers and their self-interest. Journal of Theoretical Politics7:157–67. · doi:10.1177/0951692895007002003
  18. ———. 2003. How bureaucratic structure matters: An organizational perspective. In Handbook of public administration, ed. B. G. Peters and J. Pierre, 116–26. London: Sage. · DOI
  19. Eisenstadt, S. N. 1958. Bureaucracy and bureaucratization. Current Sociology7:97–164. · DOI
  20. ———. 1965. Bureaucracy, bureaucratization, markets, and power structure. In Essays in comparative institutions, S. N. Eisenstadt, 175–215. New York: Wiley.
  21. Elias, N. 1982 [1939]. The civilizing process: State formation and civilization. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  22. Evans, P., and J. Rauch. 1999. Bureaucracy and growth: A cross-national analysis of the effects of “Weberian” state structures on economic growth. American Sociological Review64 (4): 748–65. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Exworthy, M., M. Powell, and J. Mohan. 1999. The NHS: Quasi-market, quasi-hierarchy and quasi-network? Public Money and Management, October–December:15–22. · DOI
  24. Frederickson, H. G. 1999. The repositioning of American public administration. Political Science and Politics32 (4): 701–11. · doi:10.1017/s1049096500056547 · Paper page
  25. Friedrich, C. J. 1952. Some observations on Weber's analysis of bureaucracy. In Reader in bureaucracy, ed. R. K. Merton, A. P. Gray, B. Hockey, and H. C. Selvin, 27–33. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
  26. Gerth, H. H., C. Wright Mills, eds. 1970. From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  27. Goldstein, J. L., M. Kahler, R. O. Keohane, A.-M. Slaughter, eds. 2000. Legalization and world politics. International Organization (special issue). · DOI · Paper page
  28. Goodin, R. E. 1996. The theory of institutional design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  29. ———. 2003. Democratic accountability: The distinctiveness of the third sector. Archives Européenes de Sociologie44 (3): 359–96. · DOI
  30. Goodsell, C. T. 1983. The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic. 2d ed. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Hall, R. H. 1963. The concept of bureaucracy: An empirical assessment. American Journal of Sociology, July:32–41. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Hood, C. 1996. Exploring variations in public management reform of the 1980s. In Civil service systems in comparative perspective, ed. H. A. G. M. Bekke, J. P. Perry, and T. A. J. Toonen, 268–87. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  33. Jos, P. H., and M. E. Thompkins. 2004. The accountability paradox in an age of reinvention: The perennial problem of preserving character and judgement. Administration and Society36 (3): 255–81. · DOI
  34. Kassim, H., A. Menon, B. G. Peters, V. Wright, eds. 2001. The national co-ordination of EU policy: The European level. Oxford: Oxford University Press. · doi:10.1093/0199248052.001.0001
  35. Kassim, H., B. G. Peters, V. Wright, eds. 2000. The national co-ordination of EU policy: The domestic level. Oxford: Oxford University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Kaufman, H. 1956. Emerging conflicts in the doctrine of American public administration. American Political Science Review50:1057–73. · DOI
  37. ———. 1981. Fear of bureaucracy: A raging pandemic. Public Administration Review41 (1): 1–9. · doi:10.2307/975718
  38. Kickert, W. J. M., and R. J. Stillman II. 1999. The modern state and its study: New administrative sciences in a changing Europe and United States. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. · doi:10.4337/9781035303960
  39. Kickert, W. J. M., F. A. van Vught, eds. 1995. Public policy and administration sciences in the Netherlands. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf.
  40. Knill, C. 1999. Explaining cross-national variance in administrative reform: Autonomous versus instrumental bureaucracies. Journal of Public Policy19 (2): 13–39. · DOI · Paper page
  41. Koppenjan, J. F. M., and E.-H. Klijn. 2004. Managing uncertainties in networks: A network approach to problem solving and decision making. London: Routledge. · DOI · Paper page
  42. Lynn, L. E., Jr. 2001. The myth of the bureaucratic paradigm: What traditional public administration really stood for. Public Administration Review61 (2): 144–60. · DOI · Paper page
  43. March, J. G. 1997. Administrative practice, organization theory, and political philosophy: Ruminations on the reflections of John M. Gaus. Political Science and Politics30 (4): 689–98. · doi:10.1017/s1049096500047284
  44. March, J. G., and J. P. Olsen. 1983. Organizing political life: What administrative reorganization tells us about government. American Political Science Review77:281–97. · DOI
  45. ———. 1989. Rediscovering institutions. New York: Free Press.
  46. ———. 1995. Democratic governance. New York: Free Press.
  47. ———. 1998. The institutional dynamics of international political orders. International Organization52 (4): 943–69. · DOI · Paper page
  48. ———. Forthcoming. The logic of appropriateness. In Handbook of public policy, ed. Martin Rein, Michael Moran, and Robert E. Goodin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  49. March, J. G., M. Schultz, and X. Zhou. 2000. The dynamics of rules: Change in written organizational codes. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  50. Marinetto, M. 2003. Governing beyond the centre: A critique of the Anglo-governance school. Political Studies51:592–608. · DOI · Paper page
  51. ———. 1968 [1937]. Science and the social order. Paper presented at the American Sociological Society Conference, December. Reprinted in Social theory and social structure, enlarged ed., R. K. Merton, 591–603. New York: Free Press.
  52. ———. 1973 [1942]. Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology1:115–26. Reprinted as The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, R. K. Merton (ed. and with an intro. Norman W. Storer), 267–78. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  53. Merton, R. K., A. P. Gray, B. Hockey, H. C. Selvin, eds. 1952. Reader in bureaucracy. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
  54. Nef, J. 2003. Public administration and public sector reform in Latin America. In Handbook of public administration, ed. B. G. Peters and J. Pierre, 523–35. London: Sage. · doi:10.4135/9781848608214.n43
  55. Olsen, J. P. 1988. Administrative reform and theories of organization. In Organizing governance: Governing organizations, ed. C. Campbell and B. G. Peters, 233–54. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh University Press. · doi:10.2307/jj.12381760.13
  56. ———. 1997. Institutional design in democratic contexts. Journal of Political Philosophy5:203–29. · doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00032
  57. ———. 2000. How, then, does one get there? An institutionalist comment to Herr Fischer's vision of a European federation. In What kind of constitution for what kind of polity? Responses to Joschka Fischer, ed. C. Joerges, Y. Meny, and J. Weiler, 163–79. Florence: European University Institute; and Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law School.
  58. ———. 2001. Garbage cans, new institutionalism, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review95:191–98. · DOI
  59. ———. 2003a. Towards a European administrative space? Journal of European Public Policy10:506–31. · DOI · Paper page
  60. ———. 2003b. What is a legitimate role for Euro-citizens? Comparative European Politics1 (1): 91–110. · doi:10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110001
  61. ———. 2004b. Survey article: Unity, diversity and democratic institutions. Lessons from the European Union. Journal of Political Philosophy12 (4): 461–95. · DOI
  62. Olsen, J. P., B. G. Peters, eds. 1996. Lessons from experience: Experiential learning in administrative reforms in eight countries. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
  63. Orren, K., and S. Skowronek. 1994. Beyond the iconography of order: Notes for a “new” institutionalism. In The dynamics of American politics: Approaches and interpretations, ed. L. Dodd and C. Jillson, 311–30. Boulder, CO: Westview. · DOI
  64. Osborne, D., and T. Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  65. O'Toole, L. J., Jr. 1997a. The implications for democracy in a networked bureaucratic world. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory7 (3): 443–59. · DOI
  66. ———. 1997b. Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review57 (1): 45–52. · DOI · Paper page
  67. Peristeras, V., T. Tsekos, and K. Tarabanis. 2003. Realising e-government: Architected/centralised versus interoperable/decentralised ICTs and organizational development. Paper prepared for the European Group of Public Administration Annual Conference, September 4–7, 2002, Potsdam, Germany.
  68. Peters, B. G. 1998. Managing horizontal government: The politics of coordination. Public Administration76:295–311. · DOI · Paper page
  69. ———. 1999. Institutional theory in political science. London: Routledge.
  70. Peters, B. G., and J. Pierre. 2000. Governance without government: Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory8:223–42. · DOI · Paper page
  71. ———. 2003a. Introduction: The role of public administration in governing. In Handbook of public administration, ed. B. G. Peters and J. Pierre, 1–9. London: Sage. · doi:10.4135/9781848608214.n1
  72. Peters, B. G., J. Pierre, eds. 2003b. Handbook of public administration. London: Sage. · DOI · Paper page
  73. Pollitt, C. 2003. The essential public manager. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
  74. Pollitt, C., and G. Bouckaert. 2004. Public management reform: A comparative analysis. 2d ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  75. Rhodes, R. A. W. 1994. The hollowing out of the state: The changing nature of the public service in Britain. Political Quarterly65:138–51. · DOI · Paper page
  76. ———. 1997a. It's the mix that matters: From marketisation to diplomacy. Australian Journal of Public Administration56:40–53. · DOI · Paper page
  77. ———. 1997b. Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
  78. ———. Forthcoming. Policy network analysis. In Handbook of public policy, ed. Martin Rein, Michael Moran, and Robert E. Goodin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  79. Rokkan, S. 1966. Norway: Numerical democracy and corporate pluralism. In Political oppositions in Western democracies, R. A. Dahl, 70–115. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  80. Rothstein, B. 2003. Social capital, economic growth and quality of government: The causal mechanism. New Political Economy8 (1): 49–71. · DOI · Paper page
  81. Saint-Martin, D. 2001. How the reinventing government movement in public administration was exported from the U.S. to other countries. International Journal of Public Administration24 (6): 573–604. · doi:10.1081/pad-100104397
  82. Savoie, D. J. 1994. Reagan, Thatcher, Mulrony: In search of a new bureaucracy. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  83. Schumpeter, J. S. 1996 [1942]. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Routledge.
  84. Selznick, P. 1949. TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  85. Stinchcombe, A. L. 2001. When formality works: Authority and abstraction in law and organizations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  86. Suleiman, E. A. 2003. Dismantling democratic states. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  87. Sunstein, C. R. 1990. After the rights revolution: Reconceiving the regulatory state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  88. Tate, C. N., and T. Vallinder. 1995. The global expansion of judicial power. New York: New York University Press.
  89. Thompson, G. F. 2003. Between hierarchies and markets: The logics and limits of network forms of organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  90. Waldo, D. 1948. The administrative state. New York: Ronald Press. · DOI · Paper page
  91. ———. 1978. Economy and society. G. Roth and C. Wittich, eds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  92. Welch, E. W., and W. Wong. 2001. Effects of global pressures on public bureaucracy: Modeling a new theoretical framework. Administration and Society33 (4): 371–402. · doi:10.1177/0095399701334001
  93. Wollmann, H. Forthcoming. Local government reforms in Great Britain, Sweden, Germany and France: Between multi-function and single-purpose organizations. Local Government Studies. · DOI · Paper page
  94. ———. 1997. The state in a changing world: World development report 1997. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

See all 783

Metadata

Authors
Olsen, J. P.
Venue
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2005-03-01
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
1-24
ISSN
  • 1053-1858 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-9803
DOI
10.1093/jopart/mui027
OpenAlex
W2159387911
Cited by
783
References
4
FWCI
64.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Maybe It Is Time to Rediscover Bureaucracy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jopart/mui027
The paper
Olsen, J. P. (2006). Maybe It Is Time to Rediscover Bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui027

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.