Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Master's Theses Graduate College 4-1983 The Marxian and the Weberian Theories of Bureaucracy: Contradictions and Approximations Khai Leong Ho Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Ho, Khai Leong, "The Marxian and the Weberian Theories of Bureaucracy: Contradictions and Approximations" (1983). Master's Theses. 1593. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/1593 This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE MARXIAN AND THE WEBERIAN THEORIES OF BUREAUCRACY: CONTRADICTIONS AND APPROXIMATIONS by Khai Leong Ho A T hesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Department of Political Science Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan April, 1983 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission THE MARXIAN AND THE WEBERIAN THEORIES OF BUREAUCRACY: CONTRADICTIONS AND APPROXIMATIONS by Khai Leong Ho, M.A. Western Michigan University The purpose of this study is to analyse (1) the basic elements in Marx's and Weber's theories of bureaucracy, and (2) the contradictions and approximations that appear in both the Marxian and the Weberian paradigms. An attempt is made to examine the dysfunctional aspects of bureaucracy in relation to the Weberian model, and the bureaucratization of socialism which is the unanticipated consequence of the Marxian model. The conclusion of this study indicates that the two seemingly opposite approaches, after all, have certain sim ilarities in their theoretical framework and in their practical dilemma. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Professors C.l. Eugene Kim and Claude S. Phillips for their constructive criticism and interest throughout this project. An expression of gratitude is due Professor William A. Ritchie, my major thesis advisor, for bringing the socialist literature to my attention and his continued guidance and input in the thesis. His humor and scholarship make it both enjoyable and intellectually fulfilling to work with him. I would also like to thank the Department of Political Science at Western Michigan University for having given me many academic opportunities and challenges, and the stay here has been most satisfying for my intellectual development. Khai Leong Ho i i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1320525 HO, KHAI LEONG THE MARXIAN AND THE WEBERIAN THEORIES OF BUREAUCRACY: CONTRADICTIONS AND APPROXIMATIONS WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY M. 1983 University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................ i* INTRODUCTION • • • • • • * « . « • # • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ^ Review of Literature Basic Propositions . ... .......... 11 Methodology 13 Chapter I . THE LEGACY OF MARX AND WEBER . .......................... • 16 Marx and the Dialectical Analysis of Human History and Bureaucracy............................ ..........................................18 Weber's Conception of Bureaucracy and the Rationalization of Development ............ 26 Theoretical Considerations . .......................................... 34 The In flu en ce and th e Debate . ...................... 38 I I . THE BUREAUCRATIC DILEMMA OF THEORY AND PRACTICE: THE MARXIAN MODEL ...................... ..... 40 Lenin and the Withering of the State . .................................. 41 The State Bureaucracy Strengthened: The Case of Soviet Union . ...................... 46 A Romanticist's Attack on Organization: Mao's Vision of Bureaucracy.........................................................49 The State Bureaucracy strengthened: The Case of China ........................ ....... 54 Some C ritical Remarks ....... ..... 56 iii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I I I . THE MODERN BUREAUCRATIC PARADOXES: THE WEBERIAN MODEL . ...... ... ... 59 The Structure of Bureaucracy...... ..................... 60 Paradoxes of Bureaucracy........... ...................... 61 The Dichotomy of Politics and Administration. ..................... 69 Concluding Remarks . .. ............ 72 IV. CONCLUSIONS: CONTRADICTIONS AND APPROXIMATIONS. ...... 75 Bureaucratization: A Comparison...................... ........ 76 Dysfunctions of Bureaucracy: A Comparison......... 84 Some C ritical Evaluations ................. 90 Conclusion . ...................... ............... 94 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........ .................. 97 iv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to analyse (1) the basic elements in Marx's and Weber's theories of bureaucracies, and (2) the contra­ dictions and approximations that appear in both the Marxian and the Weberian paradigms. An attempt is made to examine the dysfunctional aspects of bureaucracy in relation to the Weberian model, and the bureaucratization of socialism which is the unanticipated consequence of the Marxian model. The conclusion of this study indicates that the two seemingly opposite approaches, after all, have certain sim ilari­ ties in their theoretical framework and in their practical dilemma. Review of Literature The literature relevant to the study and which serves to establish the direction of this inquiry can be divided into three categories for our purpose: (1) Literature on Marx's and Weber's conception of bureaucracy; (2) Literature on the bureaucratic process of socialism, and (3) Literature on the theoretical foundation and elaborations of the Weberian position on bureaucracy. Interpretations of Marx's and Weber's conception of bureau­ cracy as separate entities are abundant. Andras Hegedus, a Hungarian 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 political economist, offers a Marxist interpretation of Marx's position in his Socialism and Bureaucracy (1976). After denouncing those contemporary sociologists who trace the scientific treatment of bureaucracy no further than Weber, Hegedus claims that scientific explanation of bureaucracy was first attempted by Marx. Marx, according to Hegedus, treated bureaucracy "as a set of substantive relations to which certain types of socio-economic administration or management give rise," and not as "the blundering of incompetent officials" (1976:9) as contemporary sociologists tend to interpret Marx. Among the non-Marxist studies is Sherman Chang's The Marxian Theory of the State (1965) which attempts to interpret Marx's position