Unit 5C: Governing the USA David Houghton The Lecturer in Government at University of Essex writes for BBC Parliament

Job for life? Work in the bureaucracy

The federal bureaucracy is sometimes described as the fourth branch of government in America.

While it has no formal constitutional status as such, there is something to the argument that it enjoys (informal) powers in its own right.

In theory, the federal bureaucracy in the United States merely implements public policy, putting into effect the policies decided by the political arms of government.

ALSO IN THIS SECTION: Unit 5C - Governing the USA Constitution and Supreme Court Congress Presidency Federalism Reading list

And yet, as in most industrialised democracies that have developed extensive bureaucracies, the reality is not quite as straightforward as this neat division of responsibility would suggest.

Though its power is often exaggerated in the minds of ordinary Americans, the bureaucracy is a powerful body in its own right.

Sources of bureaucratic power

This power stems from at least two main sources: first of all, bureaucrats have access to, and to some extent control over, information which is essential to the successful implementation of policies.

Many issues in politics require detailed technical expertise, and while elected politicians are rarely in possession of such expertise, career bureaucrats are.

The presentation of information can potentially be distorted in ways that favour the bureaucratic interests of a department or the personal views of a bureaucrat.

A second factor relates to the value of being permanent. While career politicians shift in and out of jobs which they may hold for a only a year or two, there is a 'permanent government' of career bureaucrats in America which stays in office regardless of the party which wins the election.

Their familiarity with a specific area gives them a command of the subject and familiarity with the history of issues which politicians can rarely equal.

One consequence of this, according to Hugh Heclo, is that the United States has a "government of strangers"; in other words, when you come into office you have to deal with a large number of people who are unfamiliar to you.

Only a minority will be political appointments with whom you are well acquainted, even those who come from your own political party.

Presidents vs Bureaucracy

Presidents have regularly complained about the power of the permanent bureaucracy, and there are often tensions between the White House and the Departments and agencies which are responsible for implementing presidential directives.

Presidents have usually seen the State Department, for instance, as a slow moving drag on innovation, an inhibition on getting things done and a body which crushes new ideas and new thinking in favour of traditional ways of looking at the world.

John F Kennedy, for instance, felt that the State Department often got in his way; when offered advice by a colleague, Kennedy famously quipped "I agree with you, but I don't think the government will".

The bureaucracy has also often successfully resisted reform. Most recently, the FBI, CIA and the US Immigration Service have proved highly resistant to reform efforts made by the Bush administration in the wake of the September 11 2001 attacks.

And yet it is important to realise that the bureaucracy is ultimately under the political control of the presidency, Congress and the courts, and some efforts at reform and reorganisation have been successful in the past.

We should not overemphasise the power of the federal bureaucracy. It generally does follow the directions determined by elected officials, even if the latter are not always satisfied with the former's enthusiasm for these directions.

It is probably also far less corrupt than it was, say, in the 19th century; under the spoils system of that time, jobs in the federal bureaucracy would frequently be allocated on the basis of party allegiance and used as patronage to reward loyal supporters.

Since the creation of a professionalised civil service in the 20th century, however, the system has certainly become a good deal more meritocratic.