(a) Bureaucratic features have remained constant in organisations despite the development of different forms under NPM and Public Governance approaches. Give reasons for the persistence of these bureaucratic features. (20 marks)

(b) There is no sing

Question

(a) Bureaucratic features have remained constant in organisations despite the development of different forms under NPM and Public Governance approaches. Give reasons for the persistence of these bureaucratic features. (20 marks)

(b) There is no single best way to manage an organisation. Instead, it is about the optimal structure and strategic fit between the organisation's internal sub-systems and its dynamic external environment. Elucidate. (15 marks)

(c) The fine demarcation between judicial control and judicial overreach disappears when judicial prudence is replaced by activism. Critically examine. (15 marks)

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

(a) Why Bureaucratic Features Persist under NPM and Governance

The persistence of Weberian bureaucratic features—such as hierarchy, written rules, files, impersonality, and merit-based career service—despite the advent of New Public Management (NPM) and public governance is a result of deep-seated legal, functional, and political necessities.

First, the rule of law and accountability are the strongest reasons for persistence. In a democratic state, bureaucratic procedures are essential to ensure legality and transparency. Weber himself argued that bureaucracy's technical superiority - precision, speed, continuity and knowledge of the files - makes it indispensable, and the "Neo-Weberian State" model, as described by Pollitt and Bouckaert (2004), argues that while management styles may change, the core of legal-rational authority remains. Similarly, Charles Goodsell in The Case for Bureaucracy (1983), Paul du Gay in In Praise of Bureaucracy (2000) and Johan P. Olsen ("Maybe It Is Time to Rediscover Bureaucracy", 2006) have made the case for bureaucracy, emphasizing that its formal structures are necessary for public trust.

Second, NPM itself is internally contradictory. While NPM (Hood, 1991; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992) promotes marketization, the management of contracts and Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) actually demands a heavy volume of rule-making and monitoring, which reinforces bureaucratic structures. Patrick Dunleavy's "digital-era governance" (2006) shows that technology has led to reintegration and centralisation after NPM's fragmentation, and "agencification" was partly reversed in the UK and New Zealand. Furthermore, "path dependence" and "blame avoidance" (Christopher Hood) drive civil servants to adhere to established files and procedures to protect themselves from political or legal liability.

Finally, the theoretical reaffirmation of bureaucracy's role in modern governance has led to a hybrid model. While Merton’s "trained incapacity" and Crozier’s "vicious circle" (1964) explain bureaucratic dysfunctions, these are often seen as issues of implementation rather than reasons to dismantle the core hierarchy. In India, reforms such as e-Office, Mission Karmayogi's competency-based training and limited lateral entry (begun in 2018, with the 2024 advertisement withdrawn after objections over reservation) have been layered onto, not substituted for, the career-based, rule-bound civil service. Thus, the core survives because it provides the essential "skeleton" of the state.

(b) Contingency Theory: No One Best Way

The proposition that there is no "single best way" to manage an organisation is the central tenet of Contingency Theory. This approach rejects the universal-principles position of classical management, arguing instead that effectiveness depends on the "strategic fit" or congruence between internal sub-systems and the external environment.

Key contingency studies provide the evidence for this. Burns and Stalker (1961) distinguished between "mechanistic" structures (suitable for stable environments) and "organic" structures (suitable for dynamic ones). Joan Woodward (1965) demonstrated that technology (unit, mass, or process production) dictates the optimal structure. Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) introduced the concepts of "differentiation" and "integration," showing that successful firms manage the tension between specialized sub-units. Additionally, James D. Thompson (1967) and Katz and Kahn (1966) viewed organizations as "open systems" subject to "equifinality" (a concept from Ludwig von Bertalanffy's general systems theory)—the idea that different paths can lead to the same successful outcome. Fred Fiedler's contingency model of leadership (1967) applied the same logic to leadership style. Alfred Chandler's Strategy and Structure (1962) added that structure follows strategy, and Trist and Bamforth's Tavistock study (1951) showed that an organisation's social and technical sub-systems must be jointly optimised.

In Public Administration, this logic is applied through Fred Riggs’s ecological approach (The Ecology of Public Administration, 1961), which suggests that administrative structures must fit their specific socio-economic environment. For instance, a revenue department may function best with a mechanistic, rule-bound design, whereas a disaster response agency requires an organic, matrix-based design for rapid adaptation.

However, the approach is descriptive rather than predictive. A major critique is the "environmental determinism" problem, countered by John Child’s "strategic choice" theory (1972), which argues that managers can actively shape their environment rather than just reacting to it. Nevertheless, the "fit" remains the primary determinant of organizational success.

(c) Judicial Control versus Judicial Overreach

The line between legitimate judicial control and judicial overreach is indeed blurred when "judicial prudence" is replaced by "activism." Judicial control refers to the review of administrative action under Articles 13, 32, 136, and 226 of the Constitution, using grounds like Wednesbury unreasonableness (1948) or the CCSU/GCHQ (1985) standards of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety, to which Indian courts have added proportionality (Om Kumar, 2001; Modern Dental College, 2016).

Judicial activism, pioneered by Justices Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer through Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in cases like S. P. Gupta (1981), expanded the scope of rights. Landmark cases such as Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997) and the use of "continuing mandamus" in Vineet Narain (1998) show the judiciary stepping into policy-making. However, this can cross into what critics call "overreach," as in the Second Judges (1993) and Third Judges (1998) cases, which established the collegium system, the NJAC judgment (2015), the 2016 ban on liquor sales within 500 metres of highways, the court-appointed Lodha Committee's restructuring of cricket administration, and the January 2021 stay on the farm laws. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor (April 2025) a bench fixed timelines for assent, but the November 2025 advisory opinion on a presidential reference held that courts cannot prescribe such timelines - an instance of the Court itself redrawing the line.

The demarcation disappears because of "executive and legislative default." When the government fails to act, the judiciary is forced to fill the vacuum. However, the Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v Chander Hass (2008) judgment serves as a critical warning against "judges running the government." The lack of "judicially manageable standards" for complex, polycentric resource questions makes it difficult for courts to make effective policy.

To maintain the balance, the "self-restraint doctrine" is essential. Remedies include adhering to the separation of powers (Article 50 separates the judiciary from the executive), imposing "sunset clauses" on structural injunctions, and strengthening the capacity of the executive and legislature so that the judiciary can return to its traditional role of a "watchdog" rather than a "policymaker."

(a) Bureaucratic features have remained constant in organisations despite the development of different forms under NPM and Public…

Model answer

(a) Why Bureaucratic Features Persist under NPM and Governance

(b) Contingency Theory: No One Best Way

(c) Judicial Control versus Judicial Overreach

How this answer will be evaluated

Evaluation rubric

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Structure that answers it

Where marks are lost

Practice this exact question

More from Public Administration 2026 Paper I