Defining Electronic Bureaucracy and Bureaucratism

Main Article Content

Oleg Shovkovyy

Abstract

Introduction: The widespread adoption of information technologies and artificial intelligence (AI) in society and organizations reshapes management and decision-making processes, driving increased informatization and automation. Public administration is no exception. The transition to electronic government (e-government) aimed to enhance service quality, transparency, and efficiency, with the goal of reducing bureaucracy and bureaucratism. However, practical experience reveals that while information technologies were initially seen as tools to streamline bureaucratic processes, they often give rise to automated, electronic, or digital bureaucracy. This digital transformation has not necessarily simplified interactions with the state; instead, it has introduced new complexities, such as navigating intricate online forms and coping with system failures—frustrating experiences for users.


Consequently, the issue of bureaucratism has migrated to the digital realm, prompting the need for precise definitions of e-bureaucracy and e-bureaucratism. Despite extensive scholarly exploration, consensus remains elusive. For instance, e-bureaucracy is characterized as the automation of traditional bureaucratic actions using AI and algorithms.


This paper aims to bridge this gap by proposing clear definitions and examining how e-bureaucracy and e-bureaucratism manifest in the digital age, shedding light on their broader impact within public administration and governance.


Content: This qualitative study aims to define electronic bureaucracy and bureaucratism, identifying signs of bureaucratization in the e-governments of Russia, Ukraine, and Poland. Using grounded theory and autoethnography, the author’s personal experiences in 2021 serve as primary data. Despite varying development levels, these e-governments share issues of complexity and user-unfriendliness. Common bureaucratic traits identified include specialization, strict rules, impersonality, and hierarchy. Duplication, rigid protocols, and impersonal interactions hinder efficiency. E-governments, mirroring traditional bureaucracies, show bureaucratic inefficiencies leading to bureaucratism, characterized by alienation, ritualism, and inertia. Signs of e-bureaucratism include duplicated actions, unfinished solutions, formalism, poorly designed interfaces, unnecessary procedures, irrelevant offerings, limited choices, lack of personalization, detachment from users, and excessive complexity. The study found that e-governments have not eliminated bureaucracy but transformed it digitally, necessitating improvements to align with Weber’s ideal bureaucracy principles and enhance the overall user experience.


Conclusion: An examination of e-government services in Ukraine, Russia, and Poland reveals enduring bureaucratic traits, including specialization, strict rules, impersonality, and hierarchy. Despite the digital transformation, e-bureaucracies still inherit negative aspects from traditional bureaucracies. E-bureaucracy is defined as a rational-based management system that utilizes AI and computer-assisted data processing to enhance decision-making, service delivery, and communication. E-bureaucratism refers to practices within e-bureaucracies that hinder efficiency and effectiveness, such as alienation, ritualism, and inertia. These practices result in a loss of flexibility and weaken the connection with the external environment, ultimately leading to organizations failing to effectively meet their clientele’s needs.


The findings suggest that merely digitizing bureaucratic processes is insufficient. A more effective approach involves leveraging modern technologies like blockchain and creating new systems through public-private partnerships, allowing digitalization and deregulation to coexist. This study underscores the need for modern organizational theories to focus on combating bureaucratization and e-bureaucratism, rather than solely adopting digital tools. The definitions for e-bureaucracy and e-bureaucratism aim to contribute to academic discourse and improve the efficiency of future bureaucratic systems.

Article Details

Section
Academic Article

References

Allen, M. (2017). The sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1-4). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411

Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 375 – 395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241605280449

Andreev, E. M. (2003). Social order and tolerance. Society and Law, 1(1), 375.

Atamanchuk, G. V. (2006). Theory of public administration: A course of lectures. Omega-L.

Bakhtairova, E. A. (2021). Digital transformation of public administration and the new electronic bureaucracy. Kreativnaya ekonomika, 15(6), 2673-2692.

Chernyshevsky, N. (1905). What is to be done? (2nd ed.). Sankt Petersburg: Tikhanov V.A.

Crozier, M. (1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon. University of Chicago Press.

Elitarium (2021). Basic concepts and principles of bureaucracy. http://www.elitarium.ru/byurokratiya-vlast-chinovnik-byurokratizm-gossluzhba-max-weber-woodrow-wilson-model-sistema-koncepciya-struktura-ierarhiya/

Engels, F. (1884). The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. In K. Marx & F. Engels, Collected Works (Vol. 26). International Publishers.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1821). Elements of the Philosophy of Right (A. W. Wood, Ed. & H. B. Nisbet, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.

Holliday, A. (2002). Doing and writing qualitative research. SAGE Publications, Inc.

Latova, N. (2021). Bureaucracy. https://www.krugosvet.ru/enc/gumanitarnye_nauki/sociologiya/byurokratiya.html

Marx, K. (1927). Critique of Hegel's philosophy of right. Vintage.

Merton, R. K. (1940). Bureaucratic structure and personality. Social Forces, 18(4), 560-568. https://doi.org/10.2307/2570634

Murashova, A. O. (2019). Bureaucracy in the system of electronic government // actual problems of legal, social, and political development of Russia. In Proceedings of XII International scientific-practical conference of students, undergraduates, graduate students, applicants. Saratov, Russia, Publishing house "Saratov source," Saratov State University.

Paulin, A. (2017). Beyond bureaucracy. In Public administration and information technology (Vol. 25, pp. 372). Springer, Cham.

Petrova, S. V., & Sidorova, A. V. (2021). Transformation of the political and electoral process in the context of digitalization. State and Municipal Administration, Scientific Notes, 1, 209-213.

Phillippi, J., & Lauderdale, J. (2018). A guide to field notes for qualitative research: Context and conversation. Qualitative Health Research, 28(3), 381-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317697102

Ponomarev, S. V. (2019). Ecosystem of digital production. Kaluga Economic Bulletin, 3, 81-84.

Porayko, A. N. (2017). Democratic principles of countering bureaucracy in the system of public governance of Ukraine (Ph.D. Dissertation). Institute of Legislation of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Ukraine.

Proskurina, D. S., et al. (2020). The bureaucratic segment of public administration in the era of digitalization: A tool for building a legal state or a path to authoritarianism? Scientific Yearbook of the Analysis and Forecasting Center, 4, 285-291.

Rostelecom (2021). Unified portal of state and municipal services. https://www.company.rt.ru/projects/digital_economy_rf/egov/realized/gosuslugi/

Shabanov, T. Y. (2018). Digital institutionalization as a factor of bureaucratization. Scientific Yearbook of the Analysis and Forecasting Center, 1(2), 138-143.

Smorgunov, L. V., et al. (2024). Gosudarstvennaya politika i upravlenie. Kontseptsii i problemy [State Policy and Management. Concepts and Problems] (2nd ed., revised and expanded). Moscow: Yurayt Publishing. (Higher Education). ISBN 978-5-534-06730-9. Text: electronic. Retrieved from Yurayt Educational Platform.

Solovyov, V. M. (2013). Prevention and counteraction of corruption in public administration of Ukraine: Theoretical aspect (Ph.D. Dissertation). Institute of Legislation of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Ukraine.

Tagarov, B. Z. (2012). Contemporary approaches to determining criteria for information economy. Scientific Yearbook of the Analysis and Forecasting Center, 4, 3.

Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. Harper & Brothers.

Turing, A.V. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 49, 433-460. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433

Udalov, D. V. (2020). Digital transformation of socio-economic space. Scientific Yearbook of the Analysis and Forecasting Center, 3(82), 33-36.

United Nations (2020). Digital government in the decade of action for sustainable development. United Nations e-government survey 2020. United Nations. New York, USA, United Nations: 364.

Urwick, L. F. (1943). The elements of business administration. Pitman Publishing.

Volkov, Y. G. (2003). Society: Yesterday, today, tomorrow. Society and Law, 1(1), 375.

Wall, S. (2008). Easier said than done, writing an autoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(1), 38 – 53. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690800700103

Weber, M. (2012). Economy and society: Essays on the sociology of understanding. Kiev: Publishing House “Universe.”

Yakovenko, G. B. (2010). State bureaucracy and its ways rationalization. Public Administration and Local Government, 1, 47-51.

Zakharchenko, A. (2016). Bureaucracy and e-government - 12 online services that will make it easier to communicate with the authorities. https://focus.ua/technologies/356989