Weberian model conclutions-Max weber and bureaucracy

If we do seek to review systematically the scattered remarks in his work, we discover the framework of a complex and many-sided conception of the state which provides a conceptual foundation for the analysis of the modern state. This is true both of the epistemological foundations and of the aspects of the monopoly of force, legitimacy, the law and bureaucracy. Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF. Skip to main content.

Weberian model conclutions

Weberian model conclutions

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access. Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later. You may be able to access this content by login via Shibboleth, Open Athens or with your Emerald account. As a conclutionw, the bureaucratic process becomes inundated with red tape. Bureaucracy: Max Weber says, ""Power isthe chanceto imposeyour willwithin a social context, even when opposed and regardless of the integrity of that chance. If we examine the cknclutions to which the evolution of Economy and Society is directly reflected in specific theoretical aspects, we shall see that the shifts are far from negligible, as I show below. His ambivalencetoward authority in his Weberian model conclutions life and his fascination with rationalityand with conclutins ethic of responsibility his attractionto inner worldly asceticism and his partial identificationwith the heroic life-styles of charismatic teachers-these and many other themes in his Weberian model conclutions have their source in his biography.

Fee chubby sex. Services on Demand

One of the ways elected officials have tried to grapple with this problem is Weberian model conclutions designing different types of bureaucracies with different functions. The influence of laws is based on the Webetian action of members of the classes. Fourth, Weber's writing reflects the social conditionofGermany ofhistime. Inhe became a Professor of Economics at Fidelburg University. He not only formulated his Weberian model conclutions theoretically and established the connection of bureaucracy as an administrative organisation with cohclutions and society, cknclutions imparted to his technical definition a degree of clarity and sophistication never attained before. For a capitalist state no other form of administration is more suitable than this. The persons exercising authority generally are called 'Master' who enjoys personal authority by virtue of their inherited status. The political and economic condition of Germany in the first two decades of the twentieth century was precarious and that situation forced Conclutionz to think of a powerful German State. These are the rules that lower-level bureaucrats must abide by regardless of the situations they face. Other theorists have come to the conclusion that the extent to Happy nudes bureaucracies compete for scarce resources is not what provides the greatest insight into how a bureaucracy functions. So we conclude that bureaucracy is not always mechanical. An important subset of the independent agency category is the regulatory agency.

This commentary makes an important contribution to the management history literature by examining an important aspect of Weber's influence on management thought, theory, and practice.

  • The bureaucratic theory of public administration owes its existence to Max Weber and his magnum opus Economy and Society published in
  • Turning a spoils system bureaucracy into a merit-based civil service, while desirable, comes with a number of different consequences.
  • Read this article to learn about the introductory, theory, features, legal form and other aspects of Weberian model of bureaucracy.
  • The three-component theory of stratification , more widely known as Weberian stratification or the three class system , was developed by German sociologist Max Weber with class , status and power as distinct ideal types.

The aim of this article is to update the exegetical discussion of the concept of patrimonialism in the sociological writings of Max Weber.

In the wake of the results of the latest publication of his works, it discusses the evolution of the sociology of domination in the different stages of writing of Economics and society , with special emphasis on the changes that Weber introduces to the traditional type of domination.

Focusing on the history of the work, two conceptual models of patrimonialism are distinguished that follow each other in his writings: the domestic model and the organizational model.

From a systematic point of view, these models will be detailed in their theoretical nature ideal-type and as comparative instruments of socio-empirical analysis.

In the conclusion, and in affinity with Weber's models, two ideal-typical conceptions of patrimonialism present in the Brazilian debate are characterized: the socio-patriarchal and the institutional-liberal conceptions. In focusing on an analysis of the concept of patrimonialism, the theme of this article is certainly far from insignificant: in fact, it involves one of the most important legacies in the sociological interpretation of Brazil.

In the contemporary context, far from having exhausted its persuasive power, patrimonialism occupies the very centre of the political debate on the role of the State Lamounier, In the wake of this second wave of studies, the thesis has been advanced that the theoretical appropriations of this tool and its application to the interpretation of Brazil's sociopolitical reality are misguided, constituting yet another example of our "out of place ideas" Schwarz, According to this line of argument, its original meaning has been distorted, either by the concept being utilized in an ahistorical form Souza, , or by the mobilization of a semantic sense divergent from the original Campante, The problem is that despite seeking to produce a more adequate interpretation of Weber, such critiques fare no better and simply end up reproducing the same problems.

Nonetheless, it is not my intention to engage in a review of the supposed equivocations of this literature, still less to problematize the empirical match between the concept of patrimonialism and Brazil's sociopolitical reality: it is not the intrinsic merit of this historical-sociological proposition that I call into question. Indeed, I believe it is necessary to free the discussion from this return to the sources and an attempt to delimit a 'true' meaning to this notion, as though concepts were unable to absorb semantic shifts that revive and reinvent their analytic relevance.

Leaving aside the negative task of critique, then, and concentrating solely on the positive conceptual determination, I intend to explore the discussion on the meaning of the thematic of patrimonialism in Max Weber's work, examining the findings available today in the specialized literature, especially in light of the exegetical discussion that has accompanied the process of republishing the complete edition of his work, the Max Weber Gesamtausgabe MWG.

Consequently, the hermeneutic locus of the present investigation is not Brazilian social thought, but the historical-critical exegesis of Weber's writings. The study will show that two sequentially ordered models of patrimonialism exist in Weber's work.

In the final section, extrapolating from this observation, the article identifies some of its implications for our understanding of how the concept of patrimonialism was received in Brazil's intellectual and political debate. The first step to understanding the concept of patrimonialism in Weber's thought involves turning to the author's texts, that is, to the context of his typology of forms of domination, in particular the traditional type.

These forms, in turn, can only be correctly comprehended by taking as a parameter the ramifications of the long, complex and discontinuous redaction of the writings later entitled Economy and Society. This preliminary historical review of the oeuvre [ Werkgeschichte ] provides us with an initial reference point for comprehending the concept of patrimonialism in Weber. The two volumes that historically became known under the title of Economy and Society comprise, in fact, just one part of a collection that proposed to investigate the relation between "the economy and the orders and social powers.

The logic that permeates the mass of texts left by Max Weber is not synchronic, as Marianne Weber presumed, but diachronic, as the current editors of the work have demonstrated Weber, The studies realized to date have led to the conclusion that the process of redacting these texts is defined by two main phases, separated by the First World War. More than a 'work,' Economy and Society should be considered, on the contrary, a 'process' of investigation.

Nonetheless, fate decided that the book that Max Weber would, very probably, have called 'Sociology' Schluchter, remained incomplete, leaving us with various questions unanswered. Perhaps the most important of these concerns the extent to which the complex process of redaction and maturation of Economy and Society has theoretical repercussions on the content of Weber's thought itself.

The point in question is whether we are dealing with just two phases of redaction or whether different epistemological conceptions also exist. More than a few voices Lichtblau, and Norkus, make the claim for radical changes between the oldest texts in Economy and Society and those written after the First World War, when Weber had returned to teaching in Vienna and Munich I do not intend to examine this complex dispute here, limiting myself to accept the position that appears to me as the most defensible, namely that there is no epistemological rupture in Weber's thought: refinements aside, his conception of sociology remains fundamentally the same.

This does not mean that corrections and innovations should be ignored. Much the opposite. If we examine the extent to which the evolution of Economy and Society is directly reflected in specific theoretical aspects, we shall see that the shifts are far from negligible, as I show below. An attentive reader will already have noted that there are two chapters - both on the subject of domination - that apparently repeat themselves in the two volumes of the Brazilian edition of Economy and Society.

The first of these Chapter 3 , located in the first volume of the Winckelmann edition, is entitled "The types of domination" and comprises the most recent version to be written or updated by Weber. The second Chapter 9 of the second volume in the Brazilian edition , incidentally much longer, belongs to the so-called old part of Economy and Society and was written by Weber between and During the latter period, the thinker announced with considerable pomp that he possessed "a complete sociological theory of the State," as expressed in a letter to his editor, dated 13 June Weber, : At first sight, the differences between these two texts is merely quantitative, at least if we adhere to the organizational schema established by Marianne Weber, who added a series of subtitles to Max Weber's manuscripts absent from the original.

As the new layout of the MWG shows, though, the older part of the sociology of domination in Weber is composed of eight independent manuscripts that received the following titles: Domination, Bureaucratism, Patrimonialism, Feudalism, Charismatism, Transformation of Charisma, Maintenance of Charisma, State and Hierarchy.

Nothing, therefore, reminiscent of an integrated, systematic and coherent order based around the three principles of legitimacy legal, traditional and charismatic with which we have become accustomed. Indeed, the novelties do not end there.

The editors of Number 5 of the volume of Economy and Society MWG that collects his writings on domination from the pre-war period succeeded in identifying eight distinct moments during which Weber dedicated himself, with varying degrees of attention, to the presentation and development of his sociology of domination.

The first detailed exposition of this theme is found in a text entitled " Einleitung " [Introduction], written in , 3 though Weber had already set out this typology in a work plan sent to Paul Siebeck in June This is followed by the extended chapter from the earlier part of Economy and Society , with its eight topics, which remained unfinished.

The topic was picked up again by Weber after the Great War, as documented in the version of this theme contained in the new part of Economy and Society and in another three texts. The first is a lecture given in , in Vienna, with the title "Problems in the sociology of the State," whose main novelty is the introduction of a fourth kind of legitimacy - democratic - an idea that would later be dropped. Another exposition follows that can be located in Politics as a profession from , and some annotations for use in classrooms from Finally, we also have a text published by Marianne Weber in , but whose dating is uncertain, entitled The three pure types of domination.

What is retained and what changes over the course of these eight presentations? To respond to this question, we have to examine it from two angles. At a general level, the question is to what extent the conceptual architecture of the sociology of domination as a whole itself transforms or not over this process of reflection.

From a more specific angle, it is important to investigate the extent to which aspects internal to the three types of domination are altered. In terms of the general schema, the specialists Breuer, and , and Schluchter, agree about one point. The Weberian trilogy of types of domination cannot be reduced to its historical dimension insofar as it implies a linear series of stages, whose starting point is the charismatic type and whose end point is the legal-bureaucratic model Hanke, : Nothing more alien to Weber than a teleological type of sequence.

In postulating a science that seeks to determine the general rules of events, the concepts of Max Weber cannot be comprehended merely as historical descriptions, but as ideal types of a sociological kind. Taking the legal-bureaucratic type as a parameter, Weber discusses the rational character of the modern mode of domination, and it is this theoretical aspect that forms the sociological core of his study Hanke, : Weber's endeavour is primordially sociological-typological rather than historical-evolutionary.

This does not mean that the Weberian trilogy is merely statistical or lacking a dynamic conception of sociopolitical processes. Schluchter observes that, in this case, it is the charismatic type which is located at the centre of his theoretical model, since, through this type, Weber identifies two processes of routinization that can occur through its 'traditionalization' or "legalization", or still further through the "objectification" of the charisma.

Nonetheless, while the specialists concur thus far, disagreement emerges over the criteria that analytically structure the Weberian theory of domination. On this point, Edith Hanke argues that the two chapters on domination in Economy and Society are inconsistent and in fact reveal a clear theoretical change from one version to the other. In his first phase, Weber had yet to refer to a typology based on criteria of legitimacy, an ordering principle that, she argues, was introduced only in his mature phase of reflection.

This view is challenged by Wolfgang Schluchter who, while acknowledging the imprecisions in Weber's work, sees no substantial theoretical contradiction between the thinker's two phases of production, which allows us, he argues, to read Weber's writings on domination as internally consistent. This interpretative polemic calls attention to a more important point, namely, the heuristic criteria that form the basis of the distinct types of domination Maurer, Although much of the secondary literature Bobbio, tends to give more emphasis to the role of the principles of legitimacy as a conceptual substrate of the different types of domination, its organizational dimension cannot be ignored.

The Weberian sociology of domination is founded on two independent and complementary pillars: cognitive-symbolic and structural-organizational. The first refers to the set of shared beliefs that found the acceptance of relations of authority legitimacy , and the second to the nature and ownership of the means of administrating power organization.

Domination is simultaneously constituted by legitimate beliefs distinguished by whether they are personal or impersonal, routine or extraordinary and by an administrative apparatus distinguished by the variations in the means and ownership of the administration of domination. Ignoring this second element leads to a cultural-idealist reading of the Weberian theory of domination, while forgetting the first leads to structural-institutional reductionism.

Spirit and form, or legitimacy and organization , are the two axial principles of Max Weber's political sociology, the former internal, the latter external. While at a general level we can, without ignoring the corrections and refinements made, reject the thesis of an epistemological rupture in Weber's writings on domination, when we descend to the level of conceptual detail, the differences become clearer.

A comparative analysis of the two versions of the traditional form of domination in Economy and Society allows us to identify various such changes. The first point concerns the analytic criteria used to confect this ideal type. In the earlier version, Weber advances the thesis that patriarchalism is the prototype of every traditional form of domination, the other subtypes being merely later developments of this original matrix. When we jump from this initial version to the later one, the analytic framework of domination is reshaped.

For this reason, feudalism ceases to be considered a 'particular case' of patrimonialism. Second, the prototypical role of patriarchalism is abandoned, and the subtypes or internal types of traditional domination become distinguished by organizational criteria - that is, based on the existence and nature of the administrative apparatus. As a consequence of this change, the concept of patrimonialism, which previously had a derivative role, comes to perform the determinant role in characterizing the organized administrative forms of traditional domination.

It is at this level that Weber modifies the comprehension of the concept, transiting from a domestic to an organizational model. The 'family' ceases to be the historical-genetic starting point and relinquishes its place to the structural criterion of 'ownership' of the means of administration as the basis for defining patrimonialism. As a result of this factors, the terminology that differentiates the subtypes of traditional domination becomes reorganized.

Hence rather than the linear-evolutionary sequence from patriarchalism to patrimonialism and from the latter to feudalism encountered in Weber's earlier theorizations, the author adopts a new arrangement of categories systemized according to two qualitatively distinct subsets located within traditional domination: on one hand, the primary types of patriarchalism and gerontocracy, and, on the other, patrimonialism.

Undoubtedly, this is not a question merely of stylistic corrections, since what we encounter ultimately are not just new criteria but new concepts.

The typical-ideal organizational schema of the traditional form of domination, although not implying exactly a rupture with the earlier investigation, was profoundly reworked in terms of its form and content. The implications of these developments for Weber's understanding of the concept of patrimonialism, and especially for how he pursues his historical-comparative analyses of this phenomenon, are examined in detail in the following sections.

Viewed superficially, the concept of patrimonialism does not appear to have undergone any change during the redaction of Economy and Society. It is present both in the older versions and in the post-war revision, which could lead us to believe that only its positioning within the general schema of domination was altered.

However, a closer examination reveals that as the concept matured, Weber lent it new meanings and scope: it is not just its place that is modified, but also both its content and its historical use Zingerle, ; Bruhns, and Breuer, In the first versions of his study of domination, Weber adopted Carl Ludwig Haller's concept of patrimonialism, which, in his work Restauration der Staatswissenschaft , published in , discriminated three forms of State: patriarchal, military and spiritual.

In the schema, patrimonialism is taken to be a historical evolution of patriarchalism and, as such, is not distinguished from the latter qualitatively. For its supporters, the foundation of politics is the pater familias. This reading was challenged by Georg von Below who criticized Haller for having reduced the Medieval State to the private form of domestic relations, thus confusing the spheres of public and private law.

Terminologically , I shall have to maintain the concept of 'patrimonialism' to characterize determined types of political domination. However, the absolute disjuncture between domestic, corporeal and seigniorial power, on one hand, and political domination on the other - in relation to which no other criterion of distinction yet exists, save for what the former is not military and juridical power - I hope is sufficiently accentuated. The broader thesis of his book has acquired a remarkable validity.

What I wish to do is simply test whether this distinction is as old as history itself. The terms could not be clearer. The concept of patrimonialism remains, but it is now completely separate from private powers.

What impact did this decision have for the meaning of the concept? Hence it comprises a prototypical structure or "the formally most consistent authority structure that is sanctified by tradition"

But there is a another aspect which is even more important than the former. Instead, it has a board of directors and managers. The acquisitive model proposes that bureaucracies are naturally competitive and power-hungry. Even the supreme head or authority of administration is guided or ruled by law and he passes through rigorous training. He failed to see that if meritocracy wins in all cases there may arise dissensions in the whole administrative structure of a state.

Weberian model conclutions

Weberian model conclutions

Weberian model conclutions

Weberian model conclutions

Weberian model conclutions

Weberian model conclutions. Navigation menu


If we do seek to review systematically the scattered remarks in his work, we discover the framework of a complex and many-sided conception of the state which provides a conceptual foundation for the analysis of the modern state. This is true both of the epistemological foundations and of the aspects of the monopoly of force, legitimacy, the law and bureaucracy.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF. Skip to main content. Advertisement Hide. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves. This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Staatswissenschaften University of Erfurt Germany. Personalised recommendations. Cite chapter How to cite? ENW EndNote. Buy options.

Weberian model conclutions