Abstract
The issue of accountability remains at the core of democratic governments. Voting is meaningless if elected officials are unable to control the actions and general behavior of public sector agents who, at times, appear to act with impunity according to their own sets of norms and objectives. The chapter revisits the threat to democracy posed by insulated bureaucratic organizations that operate at the local, national, and international levels. Exposure by legislative institutions or the media represents possible checks on abusive behavior; however, the chapter notes that those who step forward to expose wrongdoing often place themselves at risk. The chapter explores approaches to reining in strong organizations such as whistleblowing, external oversight, and internal oversight. Finally, the existential question of the extent to which insular bureaucracies endanger democracy is posed. The limitations of average voters are well recognized. However, the final call is to strengthen democracy through better communication, greater candidness, and trust in the ability of the people to reverse course when it appears that the train of government has gone seriously off the tracks.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anderson, M. (2013). As the Trayvon Martin case goes to trial, remembering a major media event. Pew Research Center. Retrieved August 20, 2015, from http://www.pewresearch.org/
Andrzejewski, A. (2015, May 24). The VA scandal one year later. Forbes. Retrieved October 8, 2018, from https://www.forbes.com/
Dahl, J. (2013, July 12). Trayvon Martin shooting: A timeline of events. CBS News. Retrieved October 9, 2018, from https://www.cbsnews.com/
Follman, M., & Clark-Flory, T. (2006, March 14). Prosecutions and convictions. Salon. Retrieved October 9, 2018, from https://www.salon.com/
Grynbaum, M. M. (2017, February 17). Trump calls the news media the ‘Enemy of the American People.’ New York Times. Retrieved October 9, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com
McGrath, R. J. (2013). Congressional oversight hearings and policy control. Legislative Studies Quarterly, XXXVIII(3), 349–376.
Niskanen, W. (1971 [1994]). Bureaucracy and public economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Olmsted, K. (2018). Terror Tuesday: How Obama refined Bush’s counterterrorism policies. In J. E. Zelizer (Ed.), The presidency of Barack Obama (pp. 212–226). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Riley, D. R. (1987). Controlling the federal bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Scher, S. (1963). Conditions for legislative control. Journal of Politics, 25(3), 526–551.
Stephens, B. (2017, February 26). Don’t dismiss president Trump’s attacks on the media as mere stupidity. Time. Retrieved October 9, 2018, from https://time.com/
Svara, J. (2015). The ethics primer for public administrator in government and nonprofit organizations. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Wagner, D. (2014, May 31). The doctor who launched the VA scandal. AZCentral. Retrieved October 8, 2018, from https://www.azcentral.com/
White, L. D. (1945). Congressional control of the public service. American Political Science Review, XXXIX(1), 1–11.
Wilson, W. (1885). Congressional government. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Koven, S.G. (2019). Conclusions. In: The Case Against Bureaucratic Discretion. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05779-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05779-4_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05778-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05779-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)