Bureaucracy in search of a new identity

The current historical phase is characterised by an intensification of the processes of change affecting public institutions. Gradual, continuous changes – often resulting from the internal evolution of administrative structures – are now accompanied by transformations of a different nature, which are more profound and systemic, and stem from external factors. These two dynamics are not mutually exclusive but overlap, creating an increasingly complex landscape. The key difference between these two phenomena lies in their origin. Ordinary changes result from the activities of the public administration and the evolution of its organisational structures. More radical transformations, on the other hand, are driven by changes affecting society, the economy, the environment and technology. Such changes inevitably necessitate a review of the administrative organisation and the ways in which it carries out its functions.

To understand the effects of major transitions, we must first move beyond a now-inadequate representation of public administration. To define it as the ‘state apparatus’ is to resort to a metaphor that does not accurately describe the nature of the administrative phenomenon. The state is, in fact, one of the most important manifestations of social organisation: its presence permeates every sector of collective life and its actions are reflected in all areas of civic experience. For the same reason, the term ‘institutional engineering’ also seems reductive. Administrations cannot be regarded as mere mechanisms whose functioning depends exclusively on the efficiency of their individual components. Rather, they must be interpreted as complex organisms, the understanding of which requires historical, sociological and institutional tools as well as legal ones.

This distinction is rooted in the tradition of philosophical thought. Without retracing the entire debate that unfolded from Empedocles to Leibniz, it suffices to note that, within organisms, every element is closely linked to the whole, and any change occurring in one part inevitably has consequences for the entire system. By contrast, in the mechanistic conception developed by Democritus and subsequently by Newton, every phenomenon can be traced back to a specific causal relationship, whilst the overall functioning derives from the sum of the individual components. Public administrations clearly belong to the first category: their equilibrium depends on the continuous interactions between all the parts that make them up.

A second preliminary consideration concerns the very way in which we refer to public administration. The use of the singular risks conveying the idea of a uniform entity, whereas the reality is far more complex. There are highly centralised administrations, organisations based on networks of cooperation, bodies with a high degree of autonomy, and polycentric systems akin to veritable institutional archipelagos. Furthermore, within each model, numerous variations coexist, determined by the differing distribution of powers and responsibilities. Organisational differentiation has also often been used as a means of circumventing the limitations of traditional bureaucracy. Lucio Villari recalls, in the passages devoted to the story of Oscar Sinigaglia, that Francesco Saverio Nitti was ‘imbued with the need for special methods outside the realm of bureaucracy’; Sinigaglia himself argued for the need for an “almost complete exclusion of bureaucracy from the conduct of business, so as to prevent the country from being ruined” (L. Villari, Le avventure di un capitano d’industria, Turin, Einaudi, 1991, pp. 41 and 48–49).

A similar observation is made by Giuseppe Bonazzi, who argues that ‘a country’s administration is the institution that most faithfully reflects the social and cultural characteristics typical of that country’ (G. Bonazzi, Storia del pensiero organizzativo, Milan, Angeli, 1989, p. 247). This observation highlights how the characteristics of public administration cannot be understood in isolation from the social context in which it operates.

The major transitions currently underway are taking place simultaneously on multiple fronts and are producing effects that are set to accumulate. First and foremost, they are affecting the environmental and energy sectors, necessitating new policies for the protection of the ecosystem and a different approach to the management of energy sources. At the same time, they are altering the political balance of power, leading to a redistribution of powers between local, regional, national, supranational and global levels. Digital transformation plays a central role in this. The gradual spread of information technology not only affects the way offices operate, but also tends to alter decision-making processes and the organisation of public administrations themselves. A prime example is the ‘Only Once’ principle applied in Estonia, where almost all interactions between citizens and the administration take place digitally; only a few activities, such as marriage, divorce and the purchase of property, are excluded (B. Romano, From the Baltic to the Black Sea: A Journey to Discover the Other Europe, Bologna, Il Mulino, 2024). Finally, these technological transformations are accompanied by a redefinition of the relationship between the public and private sectors. The growing importance of ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) criteria has brought the issue of the social function of business and its responsibility towards the community back into the spotlight.

All these transitions are taking place simultaneously, but do not follow a single, unambiguous direction. Some operate predominantly at a local level, whilst others take on a national or supranational dimension; some are driven by public bodies, whilst others by economic or social dynamics. The result is a system of multiple and sometimes divergent forces which compound the changes already brought about by the internal evolution of public administration and the political system. It is precisely this overlap that constitutes one of the most complex aspects of contemporary governance. Finally, it is advisable to avoid attributing to political revolutions an automatic capacity to transform public administration. History demonstrates the opposite: even the French Revolution of 1789 left the administrative structures of the Ancien Régime essentially intact. Moreover, the term ‘revolution’, originally borrowed from astronomy, referred to the cyclical movement of the stars – characterised by a return to the starting point – rather than a radical and definitive change.

The manifold transformations brought about by environmental, economic, technological and institutional shifts are reflected in an administrative system which, by its very nature, has a limited capacity to adapt. This characteristic is not merely a case of organisational inefficiency, but stems from the very structure of public administration and the functions it is required to perform. A primary reason for this lies in its scale. In all contemporary legal systems, the public administration as a whole is one of the main employers and constitutes an organisation of extraordinary complexity. Any reform involves a very large number of departments, areas of responsibility, procedures and institutional relationships, inevitably slowing down any process of transformation. Added to this is the historical continuity of administrative structures. Constitutions may be amended, governments come and go, and political policies change, but the administration retains a considerable degree of stability over time. Indeed, it represents the most permanent component of the organisation of the state and ensures the continuity of public action even during periods of greatest political instability.

A further factor is the relationship of subordination to the law. Administrative activity does not enjoy absolute autonomy, as any significant change must be grounded in legislation. Public administrations therefore operate within limits set by the legislature and are inevitably influenced by decisions taken by the political authorities. Added to this is a distinctly social component. Public administrations do not merely manage procedures, but also established interests, collective expectations and acquired rights. As a French scholar has aptly observed, societies do not change by decree. Consequently, those affected by administrative action tend to defend the structures that guarantee them certain benefits, often resisting reforms that might alter them.

Taken together, these factors explain why public administrations have a limited capacity to adapt and, conversely, a marked tendency to preserve their internal equilibrium. This phenomenon can be traced back to the concept of homeostasis, that is, the ability to maintain organisational stability even when the external context undergoes profound change. This characteristic is both a strength and a weakness. Whilst on the one hand it ensures continuity in the provision of public services, on the other it can lead to a gradual disconnect between the rapid pace at which society, the economy and technology evolve and the slowness with which the administrative apparatus is able to adapt. When this gap becomes too wide, there is a risk of a genuine functional crisis, in which the immobility of institutions clashes with the speed of external transformations.

To understand the responses offered by the public administration to major transitions, it is necessary to consider the role played by administrative law. The latter constitutes the legal framework within which public bodies operate and is, to a large extent, shaped by political direction, whilst it is only partly influenced by the internal developments within the administrations themselves. The pressures to which the administration is subjected stem from various sources. On the one hand, there are the demands made by politicians and civil society, which express new collective needs and call for more effective services. On the other hand, there are the internal requirements of government departments, which are primarily geared towards organisational continuity, functional efficiency and the preservation of established balances. This dual origin of the pressures for change inevitably gives rise to tensions. Public administrations must, in fact, reconcile compliance with the law with society’s growing demand for innovation, whilst administrative law continues to be heavily influenced by political decisions. The result is a system in which the objectives of the various components do not always coincide, making the process of adaptation more complex.

Furthermore, different transitions do not require the same type of administrative response. The ecological transition demands a capacity for coordination that extends beyond the borders of the nation state. Environmental issues, the fight against climate change and energy security cannot be tackled by individual, isolated administrations, but require forms of international cooperation and close integration between different levels of government. Environmental protection, in fact, depends on multilateral agreements, as no country is capable of managing global phenomena such as global warming on its own. Similarly, the management of energy resources is closely linked to economic and political relations between states. The challenges posed by the digital transformation, however, are of a different nature. In this case, the main issue concerns the ability of public administrations to update their staff’s skills and to bridge the ‘digital divide’, which continues to be one of the main obstacles to the effective modernisation of public services. Technological innovation, in fact, does not consist solely of introducing new IT tools, but requires, above all, a cultural and professional shift within administrative bodies.

Public administrations do not respond to transformation processes according to a single model. Over time, certain recurring approaches have emerged that enable administrative bodies to adapt gradually to change without compromising the continuity of public service delivery. The first of these is incrementalism, that is, the gradual introduction of innovations. Rather than radically altering structures and procedures, administrations prefer to spread change across a series of limited interventions. This strategy reduces organisational resistance and facilitates the assimilation of new developments, but it also slows down the positive effects that reforms could bring to the community. Innovation thus penetrates administrative systems gradually, often at a slower pace than the rate at which society and the economy are evolving.

A second approach involves organisational fragmentation. The emergence of new functions, unprecedented problems or highly specialised expertise frequently leads to the creation of autonomous bodies or dedicated structures. The resulting specialisation makes it possible to tackle increasingly complex issues with greater technical expertise; at the same time, however, it makes coordination between different administrations more difficult, increasing the risk of functional overlaps, conflicts of jurisdiction and a diffusion of responsibilities. Alongside these tools, a third form of adaptation is developing, consisting of the creation of organisational units characterised by a more flexible framework than the standard one. These are genuine experimental areas in which new procedures, organisational models and technologies can be tested before they are potentially rolled out across the entire administrative system. These ‘bubbles of immunity’, as they are commonly referred to, make it possible to reconcile the need for innovation with that of preserving the stability of the system, ensuring that not every experiment has to immediately contend with the rigidity of the general framework.

These examples demonstrate how the administration does not passively endure external changes, but develops tailored tools to absorb and manage them, whilst maintaining a natural inclination towards continuity.

The limited adaptability of the public administration should not be viewed solely in negative terms. The stability of structures and procedures is, in fact, an essential condition for ensuring the continuity of the State’s actions and the reliability of its institutions. There is a constant tension between the transformations affecting society and the permanence of administrative structures. On the one hand, there are the demands for innovation imposed by economic, technological and social changes; on the other, there remains the need to ensure regularity, predictability and certainty in the exercise of public functions. This conservative force therefore also serves as a safeguard. The administration’s natural caution prevents changes that are too rapid or ill-considered from compromising the functioning of government departments and the protection of the collective interest. Administrative continuity thus serves as a balancing factor between the instability of the external environment and the permanence of institutions.

Whilst the public administration faces obstacles in adapting to the changes brought about by major transitions, the political system experiences even greater difficulties in devising suitable tools to manage this complexity. The most frequently proposed solution is administrative simplification. However, this concept is often interpreted in a reductive manner, as merely replacing existing rules with new legislative or regulatory provisions. Such an approach overlooks the possibility of intervening through different means, such as repealing regulations that are no longer necessary, deregulation, or the liberalisation of activities that no longer require such pervasive public oversight. Reducing the number of procedures does not necessarily address the problem of administrative complexity. Contemporary changes are multiplying the public interests that need to be safeguarded, expanding the powers assigned to public administrations and inevitably increasing the demand for public intervention. In this context, boasting about the abolition of a certain number of administrative procedures risks being a purely quantitative indicator, incapable of capturing the true nature of the difficulties affecting the organisation of the state.

The problem becomes even more apparent in mature democracies. The historical development of these systems has gradually transformed numerous collective interests into public interests worthy of protection, entrusting their management to specialised administrative bodies. The expansion of public remit has inevitably led to an increase in the number of departments, procedures and instances of mutual interference between administrative bodies. This evolution has resulted in slow decision-making, conflicts over jurisdiction and, ultimately, a gradual erosion of public trust in institutions.

The transformations brought about by major shifts, combined with the changes taking place on a daily basis within public institutions, call for a fundamental rethinking of the way in which public administration is studied. First and foremost, we need to return to a comprehensive reflection on administrative organisation, re-examining the very meaning of the ‘administrative machine’. In this regard, Lewis Mumford’s contribution remains highly relevant; in his book "The Myth of the Machine" (Milan: Il Saggiatore, 1969), he urges us to view organisations not merely as technical devices, but as phenomena closely intertwined with history, culture and the evolution of society. It is also necessary to develop a genuinely ecological interpretation of public administration, capable of grasping the reciprocal relationships between institutions and the social context. This involves distinguishing facts from perceptions, and assessing major long-term trends in a balanced manner without neglecting the significance of the individual phenomena that help to determine them.

Finally, any reflection on the future of public administration cannot be separated from a comparison with the great classics of organisational sociology. Among these, Max Weber continues to occupy a central place; his analysis of bureaucracy, set out in Economy and Society, remains to this day one of the fundamental theoretical references for understanding the structure, functions and transformations of public administrations. His reflections show how the efficiency of administrative systems does not depend solely on formal rules, but also on the ability of institutions to adapt to the needs of society without compromising the principles of legality, impartiality and continuity that justify their existence.

It is worth returning to the classics, foremost among whom is the German sociologist Max Weber, from whose work "Economy and Society" we have included here some excerpts from the chapter on bureaucracy.

Bureaucratic administration represents the purest form of the exercise of power based on the rule of law. It develops fully only where administrative activity is organised as a stable function, governed by general rules and entrusted to officials acting within a precisely defined sphere of competence. Each office has a specific remit. This comprises a set of official duties allocated according to fixed criteria, the powers necessary for the performance of those functions, and any means of coercion authorised by law. No civil servant may exercise authority not conferred upon them by the rules; similarly, no public function may be exercised as a personal or property right. The activities of the office are carried out in accordance with rules that can be learnt. Knowledge of these rules constitutes a specific technical competence. The modern civil servant is not chosen because they belong to a particular family, nor because they enjoy the personal favour of the sovereign, but because they possess specific training, normally demonstrated through examinations or other tests of qualification.

The bureaucratic organisation is structured as a hierarchy of offices. Each lower-level office is subject to the control and supervision of a higher-level one. This structure enables appeals against decisions and ensures an orderly distribution of responsibilities. The hierarchy is not merely a means of command, but also a tool for coordinating and controlling the entire administrative process. The administration is based on written documents. Records, decisions, instructions and correspondence are kept in the form of files. The body of documents constitutes the administration’s permanent record and ensures continuity of action even when the people holding the posts change. The modern office lives, so to speak, through its archives. Civil servants carry out their duties as their main profession. They receive a stable remuneration, generally in the form of a fixed salary, and regard their position as a career. Promotion depends, at least in theory, on length of service, merit and the judgement of superiors, not on personal whim or the purchase of a post.

An official’s private assets are strictly separate from the administration’s resources. The property, money, buildings and equipment used in the performance of official duties belong to the organisation and not to the person who temporarily manages them. Similarly, an official position is not the property of the person holding it. It may be conferred, modified or revoked only in accordance with the provisions of the law. The rules governing public office require civil servants to act impartially. They must not allow themselves to be guided by personal sympathies, feelings or private interests. Obedience is due to the rules and to orders lawfully issued, not to the personal qualities of those in superior positions. For this reason, in their dealings with the administration, citizens do not obey the civil servant as an individual, but rather the impersonal legal system that he or she represents. The efficiency of the bureaucracy stems precisely from the rationalisation of administrative activity. Precision, speed, continuity, clarity of responsibilities, the predictability of decisions and the reduction of arbitrariness constitute the main advantages of such an organisation. The more the administration conforms to general rules and technically defined responsibilities, the better it is able to tackle complex problems with regularity and continuity.

Bureaucracy tends to take hold in all areas of modern society. The contemporary state cannot do without it; the same applies to large businesses, armies, political parties, churches and any large-scale organisation. The expansion of administrative tasks and the growing complexity of economic and social life make the use of a permanent apparatus of specialists inevitable. The technical superiority of the bureaucratic organisation over other forms of administration is comparable to the superiority of the machine over artisanal methods of production. Just as the machine enables faster, more uniform and more predictable production, so bureaucracy allows for a more precise, continuous and calculable management of public and private affairs. It is precisely this technical superiority that also explains the bureaucracy’s particular position of power. Those who control the administrative apparatus possess a wealth of specialist knowledge that is not readily accessible to laypeople. In addition to technical expertise, the administration tends to accumulate practical knowledge derived from day-to-day experience, familiarity with case files, precedents and procedures. This knowledge constitutes one of the main sources of its power.

The increasing rationalisation of modern life therefore makes it ever more difficult to replace bureaucratic organisation with other forms of administration. Once fully developed, it represents one of the most difficult social institutions to eliminate, because all collective activity gradually comes to depend on the continuity of its functioning.