Weber’s Bureaucratic Principles: A Critical Overview Introduction In this paper, Max Weber’s contribution in modern bureaucracy has been critically discussed. Weber came up with the idea of principles of bureaucracy based on existing legal-rational authority in the society. His ideal type principles of bureaucracy are hierarchical structure, impersonal relation within the organization, capacity building of the employees, formal rules and regulations, management by written order and well division of labor. Critiques think that Weber’s bureaucratic model has significant limitation with its application in modern administration given that this model emphasizes on “dehumanization” of employees, process rather than the result, rules rather than
Marxist theory of the 'state' and capitalism has been supported and both criticised throughout the decades, however, there is clear evidence within today's societies that a 'state' does indeed exist, one need only observe the United Kingdom of present day. It can thus be suggested that Marx's theory of the 'state' is a social relation, however, how the individual interprets the 'state' lies within their perception and observation during periods in past and present situations where such said 'state' implements ideologies and policies which
2 statement. Waltz argues that the morality of prudence represents the conflict between order and survival. He argues that moral attitudes become more dominant when the consequences of political failure become more urgent. Waltz argues that the states must be concerned first of all with their stable position in the system rather than to maximize its power. The prudence can only be reasonable in a system of balance of power because this balance should be maintained by great powers.
Offensive neo-realism: Mearsheimer is the leading proponent of the theory of offensive neorealism. It is a structural theory which, unlike the classical realism theory related to the IR scholar Hans Morgenthau, it places the principal emphasis on the struggled competition for security among the great powers within the anarchy of the international system, and not principally on the human nature of statesmen and diplomats. Realism however, focuses on the need for power and states that human nature is rational, power hungry with the main focus on state sovereignty. It focuses on the need for security as a state and how the states compete for it. Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive neorealism is mainly built on the five core assumptions.
Task B With the arrival of behaviourism during the last century, a renewed, and fierce, debate concerning the concept of power ensued; Mills, Dahl, Polsby, Bachrach, Baratz, Lukes are some notable examples of thinkers on power. This review focusses on the discussion surrounding Lukes’ three dimensional view of power and the nature of power as being either a perceptual behaviour or something of a more structural nature. Isaac (1987) provides a detailed rationalist critique on the debate of power without taking part in it. Two main points of criticism anent the debate are that it limits itself to ‘power over’ (domination), and the failure to distinguish between possession and exercise of power (Isaac, 1987). Hayward’s article (2006) concerns
The approach of Eva Etzony-Halévy looks more closely at elite conflict. For proper functioning of democracy, the most powerful elites must be balanced against each other to overcome the unequality already created by raising them above ordinary citizen. Elite pluralism and elite autonomy are key terms of the theory. Elite pluralism describes the number of elites, elite autonomy (which is always relative) looks at the distribution of resources among them, so not one of the elites is profoundly more powerful than others. The theory is built on the comparison of Great Britain and the Weimar Republic, and of Russia and Poland at the end of the 1980's.
Every state is focused on maximizing its own power. The state is the highest form of human association and is responsible for maintaining the welfare of its subjects. Power is considered relevant to attain success and any types of means can be used by the ruler in order to acquire it. In his book The Prince he argues that the ruler needs not to be always good in order to ensure the stability of the state. This is contrast to the classical concept of ruler which is should be a man of virtue and the person who should uphold the law and justice.
2. Review of literature This section concisely sheds light on related literature concerning semantic prosody and cuprous-based studies of semantic prosody and semantic features. Along with the Implication of Semantic Prosody in Translation, followed by the significance of the proposed study and the research methodology and data. 2.1. Semantic Prosody The term semantic prosody, also known as semantic harmony (LewandowskaTomaszczyk, 1996), discourse or pragmatic prosody (Stubbs, 2001), or semantic relationships (Hoey, 2003; Nelson, 2006), was initially developed by Sinclair (1987) who had taken the idea from Firth’s (1957) concept of phonological prosody. Louw (1993) was the one who initially presented the term semantic prosody, and then it was used extensively by Hunston (2002, 2007), Partington (1998, 2004), Stubbs (1995, 2001), Tognini-Bonelli (2001), and Tribble (2000), etc.
And through this he meant to say that political structure in a given environment runs on the bureaucratic. The interesting fact about bureaucracy is that Marx Weber was the pioneering one who holds a unique position in the study of administrative who tries to understand and explain the deeper meaning and concept of the word bureaucracy. In fact we need to give credit to Max Weber since he was the first one to write on scientific treatment of bureaucracy. As it has been observed by S.R Maheswari, “The credit for systematic formulation of the bureaucratic theory goes to Max Weber, for, he founded the modern sociological study of bureaucracy, freed the term from pejorative connotations, and emphasised the indispensability of bureaucracy for the rational attainment of the goals of an organisation”. As analysed by Mohit Bhattacharya, “In Weberian concept of bureaucracy, bureaucracy is not a term that needs to be confused or link with civil service rather it is of the sociological concept of rationalisation of collective activities”.
He stated and I quote “Experience tends universally to show that the purely bureaucratic type of administrative organization – that is, the monocratic variety of bureaucracy – is, from a purely technical point of the view, capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency and is in the sense formally the most rational known means of exercising authority over the human beings. (Weber, 1978: 223). The German sociologist Max Weber argued that bureaucracy constitutes the most efficient and rational way in which one can organize human activity, and that systematic processes and organized hierarchies were necessary to maintain order, maximize efficiency and eliminate favouritism. Weber also saw unrestrained bureaucracy as a threat to individual freedom, in which an increase in the bureaucratization of human life can trap individuals in an "iron cage" of rule-based, rational