Context-Specific Images of the Archetypical Bureaucrat: Persistence and Diffusion of the Bureaucracy Stereotype

When the word ‘bureaucrat’ is used, it often bears no relation to the concept of ‘bureaucracy’ as an efficient way of organizing an administration, as it does in Max Weber’s writings (Weber, 1922). Even ‘civil servant’ carries a negative connotation. Civil servants are lazy and risk avoiding (Merton, 1940). If a civil servant takes initiative, this is considered as being engendered by the wish to protect one’s own or one’s administration’s interests, as the public choice approach would state (Niskanen, 1971; Dunleavy, 1992). These connotations pervade all uses of the words. There are many jokes about civil servants. Most officials in TV-series are corrupt. The alienation between the administration and citizens is also a common theme in literature. Beck-Jorgensen analyzed novels in which government-citizen relations took a central place (e.g. Kafka’s ‘The Castle’). His analysis showed that when dealing with the alienation between the citizen and government, novels or the characters in them never refer to concrete activities, facts, or events, but to perceived aims, consequences and contexts of the administration in question (Beck Jorgensen, 1994). Evaluations of government are not only based on ‘objective’ facts, but also on pre-established images. Context determines when these pre-established images (stereotypes) surface, and when an ‘honest’ evaluation of government is made. Even though we find similar processes throughout the entire government, we will focus on the image of ‘civil servants’ and ‘bureaucrats’. Part of the image of the administration is generated by stereotypes. We will not only focus on the content of these stereotypes, but also on the factors that determine their persistence and diffusion despite observations to the contrary. Governments worldwide are making efforts to modernize their administrations in order to give them a more positive image. The existence of negative stereotypes of the administration suggests that any modernizing efforts by governments are bound to fail. In this article we want to do two things: first, we want to show how stereotyping theory can help to explain citizens’ image of government, and second, we’d like to show how, by approaching the stereotype of civil servants as a social norm, the image of civil servants is diffused and preserved.

[1]  Perry R. Hinton,et al.  Stereotypes, Cognition and Culture , 2000 .

[2]  Barbara A. Gutek,et al.  Bureaucratic Encounters: A Pilot Study in the Evaluation of Government Services , 1975 .

[3]  Margaret Levi,et al.  A state of trust , 1996 .

[4]  E. Noelle-Neumann The Spiral of Silence A Theory of Public Opinion , 1974 .

[5]  P. Sztompka,et al.  Trust and Emerging Democracy , 1996 .

[6]  W. Niskanen Bureaucracy and representative government , 1971 .

[7]  Geert Bouckaert,et al.  Public Service Performance and Trust in Government: The Problem of Causality , 2003 .

[8]  J. Zaller,et al.  The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. , 1992 .

[9]  Charles J. Fox Reinventing Government as Postmodern Symbolic Politics , 1996 .

[10]  T. Hall Live Bureaucrats and Dead Public Servants: How People in Government Are Discussed on the Floor of the House , 2002 .

[11]  G. Āllport The Nature of Prejudice , 1954 .

[12]  G. Bouckaert,et al.  Quality of public service delivery and trust in government , 2003 .

[13]  D. Farmer,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner and the Uses of Rhetoric , 2003 .

[14]  Hubert J. O'Gorman PLURALISTIC IGNORANCE AND WHITE ESTIMATES OF WHITE SUPPORT FOR RACIAL SEGREGATION , 1975 .

[15]  M. Weatherford Interpersonal Networks and Political Behavior , 1982 .

[16]  J. Citrin,et al.  Comment: The Political Relevance of Trust in Government , 1974, American Political Science Review.

[17]  Gordon W. Allport,et al.  The Nature of Prejudice , 1955 .

[18]  John R. Hibbing,et al.  Congress as Public Enemy: Public Attitudes toward American Political Institutions , 1995 .

[19]  P. Dunleavy Democracy, Bureaucracy, And Public Choice , 1991 .

[20]  David Lowery,et al.  Citizen Satisfaction with Local Governance: A Test of Individual, Jurisdictional, and City-Specific Explanations , 1990, The Journal of Politics.

[21]  Melvin J. Dubnick BUT CAN YOU TRUST THEM TO BE ETHICAL , 2002 .

[22]  Carroll J. Glynn,et al.  Perceived Support for One's Opinions and Willingness to Speak Out: A Meta-Analysis of Survey Studies on the 'Spiral of Silence' , 1997 .

[23]  Robert K. Merton,et al.  Bureaucratic Structure and Personality , 1940 .

[24]  L. Terry Public Administration and the Theater Metaphor: The Public Administrator as Villain, Hero, and Innocent Victim , 1997 .

[25]  M. Shamsul Haque,et al.  Legitimation crisis: a challenge for public service in the next century , 1998 .

[26]  I. Walker,et al.  Social Cognition: An Integrated Introduction , 1996 .

[27]  Tom Loveless The Structure of Public Confidence in Education , 1997, American Journal of Education.

[28]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign , 1968 .

[29]  D. Marson,et al.  Citizen/Client Surveys : Dispelling Myths an d Redrawing Map s , 1999 .

[30]  C. Goodsell The case for bureaucracy : a public administration polemic , 1983 .

[31]  E. Rogers Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[32]  R. Harré,et al.  Cultural Stereotypes and Positioning Theory , 1994 .

[33]  Jay M. Shafritz,et al.  Toward a Definition of Organizational Incompetence: A Neglected Variable in Organization Theory , 1994 .