My Thoughts about Tullock’s The Politics of Bureacracy?

Tullock argues that each member of an organization is a rational utility maximizer, and he examines how this affects both organizational objectives and the execution of these objectives.  What is most interesting, especially for a sociologist, is that the analytic unit is the dyadic relationship between inferiors and superiors; superiors and inferiors; and peer and peer within an organization.  Tullock demonstrates just how powerful the rational actor analytic can be – when applied to anything.

Tullock’s point of view regarding the ability of hierarchical organizations, particularly government organizations, is quite pessisimistic.  Due to the pervasive self-seeking throughout an organization, there is likely to be a disconnect between promulgated organizational functions, and what actually takes place in organizations.  Tullock, in fact, suggests that only in a utopian world will an organization be efficient – i.e., will an organization’s rewards, punishments, and operating procedures be structured so that individual interests square with an organization’s formal objectives.  What is more, Tullock writes that self-interest so suffuses each dyadic relationship, between inferior and superior, for example, that only “hyper-vigilant performance evaluation” will ensure tolerable work performances.  This, of course, is the root cause of organizational inefficiency.  Not only are dependable performance evaluation methods scarce, the opportunity cost of using these methods is nearly equivalent to “doing the work of your underling.”

While this book is remarkably informative, it is a rather chilling read.  Why?  Because many, if not all, government and non-profit organizations, which provide social welfare benefits and services, for instance, rely extensively on supervisors to oversee and ensure that the disadvantaged are being offered the most appropriate services.  But, as Tullock indicates, supervisors cannot be certain that the knowledge s/he needs to coordinate services is what s/he will receive from their underling.  And if they are to be certain, they will, ultimately, have to re-do their supervisees’ work. 

Tullock’s The Politics of Bureaucracy is similar to Lipsky’s Street-Level Bureaucracy.  Tullock’s work falls under the rubric of positive political theory: Logically consistency, but wanting in empirics.  Lipsky’s work is exclusively empirical: Careful research, but the theoretical lens is absent.  After reading Tullock, and comparing him to Lipsky, I recognize that it is time to see some street-level bureaucrats.  I will take the analytical lens provided by Tullock with me, however.

Question: Is my reading of Tullock adequate?

Brian A. Pitt