DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/gp.11.1.2026.26-40

THEORETICAL DIALECTIC OF BUREAUCRACY VS POST-BUREAUCRACY: Filling the Bureaucracy Gap through the Presence of Post-Bureaucracy

*Idrus Mohamad Thomas Mopili  -  Program Studi S3 Administrasi Publik, Universitas Negeri Gorontalo|Universitas Negeri Gorontalo, Indonesia
Asna Aneta  -  Program Studi S3 Administrasi Publik, Universitas Negeri Gorontalo|Universitas Negeri Gorontalo, Indonesia

Citation Format:
Abstract

The dialectic between bureaucracy and post-bureaucracy in public administration has given rise to various interpretations that often criticize the limitations  of conventional bureaucracy and encourage the adoption of the post-bureaucracy model. This study aims to analyze the theoretical dialectic between the two paradigms with a focus on identifying gaps in bureaucracy that can be filled through the presence  of post-bureaucracy. The research method used is qualitative with a library research approach, which relies on primary and secondary data sources from related literature. The findings of the study show that  conventional bureaucracy is still needed as a foundation of governance that ensures stability, legal certainty, and procedural accountability. However, in the face of the complexity of the modern environment, this model is considered less responsive to the demands of the dynamics of change, participation, and innovation. This is where post-bureaucracy offers structural flexibility, cross-actor collaboration, digital governance, as well as an orientation to public values. The resulting ideal space is not a substitution, but an integration between the two models: a bureaucracy that maintains rules and accountability, but is flexible and adaptive to change. This synthesis is expected to answer the gap in contemporary public administration and realize stable, inclusive, and responsive governance to the interests of the community.

Note: This article has supplementary file(s).

Fulltext View|Download |  Research Instrument
Untitled
Subject
Type Research Instrument
  Download (76KB)    Indexing metadata
Email colleagues
Keywords: Dialectics, Bureaucracy, Post-Bureaucracy, Public Administration

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Articles
Language : EN
Most cited articles
KAJIAN MITIGASI BENCANA TANAH LONGSOR DI KABUPATEN BANJARNEGARA More cited articles
  1. Aberbach, J. D., Putnam, R. D., & Rockman, B. A. (1981). Bureaucrats and politicians in western democracies. Harvard University Press
  2. Allison, G. T., & Zelikow, P. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis (Vol. 327, Number 729.1). Little, Brown Boston
  3. Alvesson, M., & Thompson, P. (2006). Post-bureaucracy?
  4. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2012). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571
  5. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational Learning
  6. Barnett, J. T. (2025). Ecological Feelings: A Rhetorical Compendium. MSU Press
  7. Bovens, M. (2007). Public Accountability
  8. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445–456
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (Fourth Edition). Sage Publications
  10. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2011). Complexity and Hybrid Public Administration
  11. Clarke, A., Lindquist, E. A., & Roy, J. (2017). Understanding governance in the digital era: An agenda for public administration research in Canada. Canadian Public Administration, 60(4), 457–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12246
  12. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2022). Scientization under pressure—The problematic role of expert bodies during the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Organization Review, 22(2), 291–307
  13. Crozier, M. (1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon, the university of Chicago Press
  14. Cooper, H. M. (1998). Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews (Third Edition). Sage Publications
  15. Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2015). The New Public Service
  16. Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond
  17. Dunleavy, P., (2006). Digital Era Governance
  18. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2011). Digital Era Governance: IT Corporations, the State, and E-Government. Oxford University Press
  19. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods (Second Edition). McGraw-Hill
  20. Faedlulloh, D., & Yulianto, Y. (2023). Model for Post-Pandemic Bureaucracy in Indonesia: Is Post-Bureaucracy Relevant? Journal of Borneo Administrator, 19(3), 221–236
  21. Farmer, D. J. (1995). The language of public administration: Bureaucracy, modernity, and postmodernity. University of Alabama Press
  22. Gaebler, T. (1993). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Plume
  23. Gouldner, A. W. (1954). Patterns of industrial bureaucracy
  24. Haug, N., Dan, S., & Mergel, I. (2024). Digitally-induced change in the public sector: A systematic review and research agenda. Public Management Review, 26(7), 1963–1987
  25. Heckscher, C. (1994). Defining the post-bureaucratic type. The post-bureaucratic organization: New perspectives on organizational change, 14, 62
  26. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public administration, 69(1), 3–19
  27. Hupe, P., & Buffat, A. (2014). A public service gap: Capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street-level bureaucracy. Public management review, 16(4), 548–569
  28. Hamel, G. (2007). The Future of Management
  29. Janowski, T. (2016). Digital Government Evolution
  30. Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. (2012). Governance network theory: Past, present and future. Policy & Politics, 40(4), 587–606. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557312X655431
  31. Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (Fourth Edition). Sage Publications
  32. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and Environment
  33. Luna-Reyes, L. F., et al. (2020). Digital Government Transformation
  34. Luna-Reyes, L. F., & Gil-García, J. R. (2022). Digital era governance: From progress to an agenda for future research. Future Internet, 14(5), 126. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi14050126
  35. Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation
  36. Maben, J., Latter, S., & Clark, J. M. (2006). The theory–practice gap: Impact of professional–bureaucratic work conflict on newly‐qualified nurses. Journal of advanced nursing, 55(4), 465–477
  37. Meier, K. J. (1975). Representative bureaucracy: An empirical analysis. American political science review, 69(2), 526–542
  38. Meier, K. J. (2019). Theoretical frontiers in representative bureaucracy: New directions for research. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2(1), 39–56
  39. Merton, R. K. (1961). Bureaucratic structure and personality. Complex organizations: A sociological reader, 47–59
  40. Maben, J., Latter, S., & Clark, J. M. (2006). The theory–practice gap: Impact of professional–bureaucratic work conflict on newly‐qualified nurses. Journal of advanced nursing, 55(4), 465–477
  41. Meier, K. J. (1975). Representative bureaucracy: An empirical analysis. American political science review, 69(2), 526–542
  42. Meier, K. J. (2019). Theoretical frontiers in representative bureaucracy: New directions for research. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2(1), 39–56
  43. Merton, R. K. (1961). Bureaucratic structure and personality. Complex organizations: A sociological reader, 47–59
  44. Meier, K. J. (1975). Representative Bureaucracy
  45. Moleong, L. J. (2021). Qualitative Research Methodology (Revised Edition). PT Remaja Rosdakarya
  46. Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2023). Digital governance: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 154, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113365
  47. Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating Public Value
  48. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (Second Edition). Sage Publications
  49. Niskanen, J. (2017). Bureaucracy and representative government. Routledge
  50. OECD. (2018). Agile Governance for an Agile Age. OECD Publishing
  51. O'Leary, R., & Bingham, L. B. (2009). The Collaborative Public Manager
  52. Osborne, S. P. (2010). The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance. Routledge
  53. Peng, B. (2022). Digital leadership: State governance in the era of digital technology. Global Media and China, 7(1), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059436421989835
  54. Peters, B. G. (2010). Meta-Governance and Public Management
  55. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations
  56. Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The New Institutionalism
  57. Parker, R., & Bradley, L. (2004). Bureaucracy or post-bureaucracy? Public sector organisations in a changing context. Asia Pacific journal of public administration, 26(2), 197–215
  58. Peters, B. G. (1981). The problem of bureaucratic government. The Journal of Politics, 43(1), 56–82
  59. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public management reform: A comparative analysis-into the age of austerity. Oxford University Press
  60. Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. W. W. Powell, P.J. DiMaggio, eds. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, 1–38
  61. Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (2012). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago press
  62. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political studies, 44(4), 652–667
  63. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The New Governance
  64. Riccucci, N. M., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2017). Representative Bureaucracy
  65. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations
  66. Sukmadinata, N. S. (2017). Educational Research Methods (Revised Edition). PT Remaja Rosdakarya
  67. Selznick, P. (1953). TVA and the grass roots: A study in the sociology of formal organization (Vol. 3). Univ of California Press
  68. Swedberg, R. (2023). Two ways of looking at theory, exemplified by the dynamics of bureaucracy by Peter M. Blau. Journal of Organizational Sociology, 1(2), 223–249
  69. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why People Obey the Law
  70. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Vol. 2). University of California press
  71. Zed, M. (2008).Literature Research Methods. Indonesian Torch Foundation

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2026-03-31 17:21:33

No citation recorded.