Reference no: EM133268421

Assignment:

Is Political Control of the Bureaucracy Beneficial?

When working with bureaucrats, elected officials (the president or members of Congress) face the problem of political control--Should they allow bureaucrats to exercise judgment when implementing policies or give them specific, narrow directives? Compounding this problem is the fact that most bureaucrats are civil service employees, meaning they cannot be fired except under very extreme circumstances. As a result, even when elected officials give very specific directives to an agency, they may find that bureaucrats essentially ignore the directives and that very little can be done to force compliance (after all, regardless of what bureaucrats do or don't do, they will still have a job). Civil service protections also mean that members of Congress or a new presidential administration cannot clean house in an agency, replacing untrustworthy bureaucrats with individuals who will do what they are told. Should civil service protections be abolished?

Get rid of civil service protections. The civil service system began in an era when few government jobs required specialized knowledge, expertise, or an advanced degree.

The modern federal bureaucracy is exactly the opposite--most jobs, particularly those that involve real policy-making power, require expertise to be done effectively. Under these conditions, civil service protections are to some extent unnecessary, as bureaucrats have considerable job security because of their expertise and experience. Getting rid of recalcitrant bureaucrats involves significant costs--by removing their knowledge of the policies being decided and the procedures by which decisions are made, it may become impossible for an agency to function at all. Moreover, a bureaucrat's reluctance to behave as ordered may be a sign that something is wrong-that the directive makes no sense or that there are easier ways of accomplishing the task.

Consider the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. There is little doubt that most EPA scientists believe that climate change is real and that it is the result of human actions. Both of these views are in opposition to President Trump's stated positions. Are civil service protections the only thing preventing Trump from firing these scientists? Doing so would decimate the EPA and make it impossible for the agency to carry out many of its functions, some of which (like cleaning up Superfund sites) are things Trump favors. Trump may not like having EPA that disagree with him, but he would probably like the consequences of a mass firing even less.

Civil service protections are still needed. The fact that firing bureaucrats costs the government the benefit of their experience and expertise does not mean that elected officials will never threaten to do so, or even carry out their threats. Removing civil service protections-making bureaucrats vulnerable to threats about their future employment- could easily lead to bad policy outcomes. Eliminating civil service protections would also change the kinds of people who undertake careers in government service. Civil service protections enable policy experts to work for the government without fearing that they will be fired for simply voicing their concerns or because a new administration places a high value on loyalty. Without the protections afforded by civil service regulations, these individuals might choose a different career, depriving the federal government (and the American people) of the benefits of their knowledge and training.

In the case of the EPA, civil service protections help ensure that agency scientists will continue to do cutting-edge research and report their findings, even if their conclusions conflict with the views of their political superiors-and that these scientists will work for the agency in the first place.

Should civil service protections remain in place? Explain your answer.