| 来源类型 | Article |
| 规范类型 | 评论 |
| How Liberal Are Bureaucrats? | |
| s-robert-lichter; stanley-rothman | |
| 发表日期 | 1983-11-01 |
| 出版年 | 1983 |
| 语种 | 英语 |
| 摘要 | During the 1960s and 1970s the federal government added several new cabinet departments and many more new regulatory agencies. Among the new agencies were some, like the Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that enjoyed wide-ranging discretionary powers over the whole society instead of just one industry or sector. At the same time, a number of sleepy older agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission and Food and Drug Administration were being transformed into aggressive consumer advocates. Some social critics have asserted that this expansion has led not only to more government but also to different government than before. They point out that many of the newer regulatory agencies (and of the “transformed” older ones) take a hostile, adversarial attitude toward those they regulate. The staffers of these agencies—so the critics charge—are drawn from the “new class” of intellectuals and communicators whose political base lies not in traditional interest groups but in academia and the media. Accordingly, the new regulators are said to pursue the ideological agenda of the liberal left. By contrast, old-line regulators are said to be much more friendly with those they regulate—if not actually “captured” by them. Is this portrait accurate? Are activist bureaucrats among the shock troops of the new liberalism that emerged during the 1960s? To find out, we interviewed 200 top-level administrators in both the established traditional agencies and the newer activist ones. For each agency so defined, we randomly chose names from the Office of Personnel Management’s List of Senior Executive Service personnel, after excluding political appointees. Our “traditional agency” sample consisted of 98 administrators from the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, and the Treasury, and the Bureau of Prisons in the Department of Justice. Our “activist agency” sample consisted of 102 administrators from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Trade Commission, Action, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. The interviews were conducted in 1982, and 85 percent of those contacted completed the questionnaire. Our findings give scant support to those who see the bureaucracy as hostile to business or other traditional institutions. Senior civil servants as a whole are indeed somewhat more liberal than most Americans. However, they are considerably less disaffected from traditional American values than their conservative critics contend. Moreover, while key bureaucrats in the activist agencies are somewhat more liberal than those in the traditional agencies, the differences are not large enough to explain the “adversarial” behavior of which businessmen complain. Our findings give scant support to those who see the bureaucracy as hostile to business or other traditional institutions. Bureaucrats’ Opinions—Liberal … Looking first at social and personal backgrounds (Table 1), top-level bureaucrats are overwhelmingly white, male, well-educated, and well off. Those in activist agencies are rather more likely to come from high status families. Five out of ten of them report that their fathers were businessmen or professionals, as against four out of ten of the traditional bureaucrats. Activist bureaucrats are somewhat more likely than traditionals to have been raised as Jews, and slightly more likely to regard themselves as currently nonreligious (36 percent as against 28 percent). In contrast, over 90 percent of the general public describe themselves as having some religious affiliation. Furthermore, both groups are far more likely to classify themselves as political liberals than is the general public, though activist bureaucrats do so to a greater degree than traditional bureaucrats (63 percent compared with 48 percent). Only 21 percent of the public as a whole places itself politically left of center. Table 1 SOCIAL AND PERSONAL BACKGROUNDS (percent) Table 2 PRESIDENTIAL VOTING RECORD, 1968–80 (percent voting for)a a Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding or votes for minor party candidates. The liberal self-identification of bureaucrats, especially of the activists, translates into a strong tendency to vote Democratic (Table 2). However, while traditional bureaucrats favor the Democrats more than the average voter does, many of them are quite capable of crossing over to the Republicans. They supported Humphrey in 1968 and Carter in 1976 by roughly two-to-one margins, but they gave pluralities to Nixon and Reagan in 1972 and 1980 respectively. Activists show no such inconsistency. In the 1972 Nixon landslide, nearly two out of three supported McGovern. And even Jimmy Carter, who was highly unpopular in “official” Washington by 1980, won their support by a margin of two-to-one against Reagan. By contrast, the general public gave less than 40 percent of its vote to McGovern and just 40 percent to Carter, compared with 51 percent to Reagan. … But Not Radical Whatever their party preferences, however, activist and traditional bureaucrats differ only moderately in their economic, social, and political views. As Table 3 indicates, both groups are liberal reformist, and both are mildly alienated from some aspects of the system. Roughly half of both groups believe that government should substantially reduce the income gap between the rich and the poor, and nearly as many say that government is responsible for guaranteeing a good standard of living for all. On the other hand, more than half agree that less government regulation of business would be good, and about nine out of ten believe that people with more ability should earn more. Activists support deregulation of business to a lesser degree than traditionals (57 percent versus 66 percent), but only one of twenty activists believes that government should take over large corporations. We asked a series of questions designed to measure social and political alienation and got similar results. Eight out of ten members of both groups believe that private enterprise is fair to workers, and fewer than one in seven thinks it would be a good idea for America to move toward socialism. Fewer than 30 percent think that American society alienates people, and a very substantial majority argue that hard work will lead to financial security, although activists are slightly less optimistic on this point than traditionals. On almost all these questions the activist bureaucrats’ views are considerably more supportive of American society than are those of leading journalists, public interest group activists, or the Hollywood elite (TV producers, writers, and directors).* For example, only three out of ten public interest group activists believe that private enterprise is fair to workers, half think that America should move toward socialism, only 18 percent are confident that hard work leads to financial security, and almost three-quarters argue that American society alienates people. On defense issues bureaucrats are relatively dovish. Although majorities of both groups accept the notion that the CIA might sometimes need to undermine hostile governments, neither group would particularly welcome a more forceful policy toward the U.S.S.R., and neither believes in attempts to achieve military superiority. Except on CIA questions, activists are more dovish than traditionals and also more likely to believe that U.S. foreign policy is designed mainly to protect American business. Table 3 ATTITUDES ON SELECTED ISSUES (percent agreeing) We found the same pattern of responses on three sets of questions dealing with disadvantaged groups, the new morality of the 1960s, and energy and the environment. Again, bureaucrats are somewhat more liberal than the population as a whole and activist bureaucrats are more liberal than the traditionals. However, neither group is as liberal as the media, Hollywood, and public interest group elites. Twenty-eight percent of traditional bureaucrats and 40 percent of activist bureaucrats would give women preference in hiring, and 35 and 53 percent respectively would do the same for blacks. Over half of the traditional bureaucrats and four out of ten activists believe that homosexuality is wrong, and close to seven out of ten in both groups believe that adultery is wrong. Thus, while bureaucrats are more liberal and cosmopolitan in these areas than the general public, 85 percent of whom believe that adultery is wrong, they are rather more conservative than the media, Hollywood, and public interest group elites. Less than half the media and Hollywood elites and only 55 percent of the public interest group elite believe that adultery is wrong. Finally, two-thirds of the traditional bureaucrats and three-quarters of the bureaucratic activists agree that our environmental problems are serious. However, this does not translate into opposition to nuclear energy: only one in twenty traditional bureaucrats and one in fifty activist bureaucrats would halt nuclear development, compared to somewhat more than half of the general public and almost 70 percent of public interest group leaders. We also presented key administrators with the following list of goals for America to pursue in the next decade (the same list we have used in studying other leadership groups): • Maintaining a high rate of economic growth. • Making sure that this country has strong defense forces. • Giving people more say in how things get decided at work and in their community. • Progressing toward a less impersonal, more humane society. Table 4 GOALS FOR AMERICAN SOCIETY (percent) a Adds to less than 100 because of 3 percent nonresponse and rounding. b Adds to more than 100 because of rounding. • Fighting against crime. • Progressing toward a society where ideas are more important than money. Political scientist Ronald Inglehart, who has offered these same choices to subjects in America and Europe, classifies concern for economic growth, national defense, and crime as traditional “instrumental” values, and concern for a humane society, participation, and placing ideas above money as “expressive” (or “post-bourgeois”) values that are gaining strength among new elite groups in industrial societies. In his research, he found that expressive values are held by only a small (but growing) minority of the general population. Our own research indicates that public interest group and Hollywood elites prefer expressive values by substantial majorities, whereas businessmen prefer instrumental values by about two to one. It is not surprising, in light of their other responses, that top-level bureaucrats also choose instrumental over expressive values by two to one or more. Indeed, activist bureaucrats are somewhat more likely to do so than are traditionals. Thatcher Fans and Times Readers To supplement the above data, we used three other measures to tap bureaucrats’ perceptions of, and agendas for, American society. First, we asked administrators to indicate, using a seven-point scale, how much influence they thought that each of ten leadership groups actually wields over American life. We then asked them how much influence they wanted each group to have. As Table 5 shows, traditionals and activists share roughly the same perceptions and preferences. In general their rankings follow the liberal agenda. Both groups of bureaucrats think that business, the media, government agencies, unions, and the military dominate American society and that consumer groups, black leaders, intellectuals, and feminists have little influence. Both would like to see intellectuals and consumer groups near the top of the influence ladder and the military on the bottom, along with religious leaders. Perhaps most striking is their view of intellectuals. They would raise this group, which they see as nearly devoid of influence today, to the very pinnacle of power. Such sentiments notwithstanding, however, both groups of bureaucrats would reduce the power of the media far more than they would reduce that of business, and both believe that business should remain influential in American society. This last view sharply differentiates bureaucrats from the media and public interest group elites, both of whom would place business much lower on their preferred influence list. We then asked administrators to assess some highly visible individuals and groups in the current political environment. Both traditional and activist bureaucrats, as Table 6 shows, give their highest ratings to John Kenneth Galbraith. But Margaret Thatcher is a surprising second for traditional bureaucrats and a close third for activists. She receives a higher rating among traditionals than either Ralph Nader or Edward Kennedy, and falls only slightly behind Nader among activists. While traditionals hold much more favorable views of Ronald Reagan than do activists, neither group was that much out of line with the views of the general public in 1982 when we conducted our interviews. Just as significantly, Fidel Castro is at the bottom of the list for both groups, with the Sandinistas ranking among the bottom three. Once again, it seems quite clear that top-level bureaucrats are domestic reformers—with, however, some surprising conservative leanings—and that, unlike many among the public interest group elite, they are not particularly sympathetic to leftist revolutionary movements elsewhere. Finally, we asked top-level administrators to rank the reliability of thirteen media outlets. Our aim was to obtain some idea of the information sources to which they turn in obtaining their perspective on society. The results, presented in Table 7, are quite in line with our other findings. Table 5 RANKINGS OF INFLUENCE OF LEADERSHIP GROUPS Note: Rankings are group mean scores on a scale from one (low influence) to seven (high influence). Table 6 APPROVAL OF PUBLIC FIGURES AND GROUPS (percent approving) Table 7 RELIABILITY OF INFORMATION SOURCES (percent rating reliable) Both traditionalists and activists place the New York Times at the top of their list. The quite liberal New York Review of Books receives high reliability ratings from about a third of the bureaucrats, far exceeding the ratings of such conservative and “neoconservative” journals as National Review, The Public Interest, or Commentary. (Indeed, most bureaucrats were simply unable to rate the latter two at all.) On the other hand, both traditionals and activists see the New York Review as less reliable than the much more conservative U.S. News & World Report. Furthermore, traditional bureaucrats rate National Review higher than the left-wing Nation or the liberal New Republic. Interestingly, the Washington Post receives relatively low marks from both traditionalist and activist bureaucrats, although the former are obviously far more disenchanted with it than the latter. Adversary Behavior without “Adversary Culture” In sum, our findings indicate that top-level bureaucrats, including those in activist agencies, are not, on the whole, part of an “adversary culture.” They come across to us as liberal and reformist, but not alienated from American society and not particularly hostile to business. In general, they describe themselves as desiring to improve the system rather than to change it in fundamental ways. Of course, it is possible that at least some of the more liberal key administrators left government or moved to nonactivist agencies following the advent of the Reagan administration. It might also be argued that more “adversarial” bureaucrats are to be found among lower-echelon younger personnel who are waging a sometimes successful war against their higher-placed colleagues. However, for the top-level civil servants we interviewed, age is not an important variable. We found only slight differences in attitudes between those over and those under fifty years of age. In general, [top-level bureaucrats, including those in activist agencies] describe themselves as desiring to improve the system rather than to change it in fundamental ways. Given these facts, how does one account for the conviction of businessmen and conservatives that the bureaucracies of the activist agencies are hostile to the system? The liberal reformist tendencies of bureaucrats undoubtedly explain it in part. However, other factors are clearly at work, notably those outlined by Eugene Bardach and Robert A. Kagan (Going by the Book: The Problem of Regulatory Unreasonableness, 1982) and James Q. Wilson (The Politics of Regulation, 1980). As they point out, bureaucrats have many masters. They are responsible to Congress and the political leadership of the executive branch as well as to the courts and are very much influenced by public opinion (especially that of other leadership groups) as it is mirrored in or accentuated by the media. Serving these masters is a formidable task. For example, Congress presents them with some regulatory statutes that are extremely vague, leaving room for substantial bureaucratic judgment, and others that are quite restrictive, setting ambitious goals in very specific language. The most famous example of the latter is the Delaney Amendment, which forbids any use of a food additive shown to be even a very weak carcinogen in laboratory animals. Similarly, the goal of the 1972 Water Pollution Control Act amendments was to eliminate all pollution discharges by 1982, without regard to benefits or costs. Even where the goals are not so ambitious and specific, public interest groups can often count on the courts to support their demand for interpretations stricter than Congress may have had in mind. The Clean Air Act is a case in point. When EPA approved state implementation plans giving temporary variances from the 1975 primary air quality targets for certain pollution sources, the National Resources Defense Council sued the agency and won. Rather than being bold adventurers who seek to build empires or rigid ideologues who wish to harass the business community, administrators are more likely to err on the side of caution, as Bardach-Kagan and Wilson point out. They may want to increase the size of their division or department, but not at great risk. For them, the fear that an approved substance may turn out to harm a few individuals has far more impact, because of the way the media tend to report such issues, than the loss of possible widespread benefits from less rigid regulations. This is where appropriate leaks to the press by more ideologically committed colleagues can play an important role. Pity the bureaucrat who is charged with having “sold out” to business when all he or she did was to write a rule that sought to balance estimated costs and benefits. The evidence we gathered would seem to support the argument that much of the “unreasonable” behavior of activist bureaucrats is defensively rather than ideologically motivated. The evidence we gathered would seem to support the argument that much of the “unreasonable” behavior of activist bureaucrats is defensively rather than ideologically motivated. This would explain their perception of the media’s power and their hostility to journalists. It is true that activist bureaucrats overwhelmingly approve of Ralph Nader. But that approval is not quite as strong as it might seem. In evaluating individuals or social movements, respondents could choose one of five categories, ranging from strong disapproval through strong approval. Only 20 percent of our activist bureaucrats strongly approve of Ralph Nader. In comparison, 25 percent strongly approve of Margaret Thatcher. Aside from liberal ideology and defensive posture, there are other factors that help explain the behavior of bureaucrats in the newer health and safety agencies. Different regulatory agencies attract different kinds of experts. For example, administrators with backgrounds in public health gravitate toward EPA and the FDA, while the Occupational Safety and Health Administration attracts those trained in safety design. The professional norms of health experts emphasize extreme caution in dealing with potential toxic substances, and safety experts are likely to choose expensive engineering solutions for industrial safety problems rather than solutions that stress worker education, health screening, or the use of personal protection devices (such as industrial earmuffs in noisy areas). While neither group of bureaucrats is hostile to business, both are less concerned with cost-benefit analyses than are, say, economists. Another factor, of course, is the increased litigiousness of our society and the growing role for lawyers within government, which encourages the proliferation of formal—sometimes rigid—rules at the expense of more flexible enforcement. Finally, above and beyond all this, Americans now are more aware of possible environmental dangers than they were several decades ago and more confident that government can eradicate these dangers without seriously lowering living standards. While this confidence has been abetted (sometimes unwittingly) by the media, it has deeper roots and can easily lead to overreaction when a problem is discerned. While our data indicate that activist bureaucrats are more liberal than the general run of high-level civil servants, we would not conclude that they necessarily affirm the more extreme policies to which businesses and regulatory reformers object. They are struggling to implement a broad range of new activities, mandated by Congress and often promoted by articulate segments of the population, at a time when faith in business and government is low. It is not surprising that they are attacked by those they supposedly protect for being too lenient (or even corrupt) and by those they regulate for being hostile or irrational. Thus the adversary character of many agencies is, as Wilson and Bardach-Kagan conclude, not primarily a function of a new breed of bureaucrats. Rather it reflects important changes in American culture as well as in American social structure, including broad shifts in the patterns of power and influence that characterize the society. While bureaucratic reforms might mitigate some of the worst aspects of “bureaucratic unreasonableness,” the present pattern is unlikely to change, unless America itself changes once again. ■ Stanley Rothman is Mary Huggins professor of government at Smith College. S. Robert Lichter is assistant professor of government at George Washington University. The data on which this essay is based are from a larger study on American social and political elites, directed by Rothman and Lichter and sponsored by Smith College, the Research Institute on International Change at Columbia University, and George Washington University. The interviews were conducted by Metro Research, a Washington-based survey research firm. *We cover these groups’ views more fully in Public Opinion, October/November 1981, December/January 1983 (co-author, Linda Lichter), and April/May 1983. |
| 主题 | Uncategorized |
| URL | https://www.aei.org/articles/how-liberal-are-bureaucrats/ |
| 来源智库 | American Enterprise Institute (United States) |
| 资源类型 | 智库出版物 |
| 条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/235383 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | s-robert-lichter,stanley-rothman. How Liberal Are Bureaucrats?. 1983. |
| 条目包含的文件 | 条目无相关文件。 | |||||
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
