Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 31 Download : 40

Main Article Content

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to revisit and reframe the classic debate between bureaucracy and post-bureaucracy by exploring how public administration literature conceptualizes their coexistence. Rather than treating them as opposing models, this research investigates how paradoxes from their interaction shape modern governance practices.


Research Method: This study employs a qualitative Systematic Literature Review (SLR) method to synthesize relevant academic publications from 2018 to 2024, examining how paradoxes between bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic logics are described, interpreted, and managed within public sector institutions. The review process involved thematic coding and conceptual synthesis of 50 peer-reviewed articles from databases including Elsevier, Emerald, Wiley, and Springer.


Results and Discussion: The study reveals that bureaucracy and post-bureaucracy frequently coexist within hybrid organizational structures. This coexistence creates persistent paradoxes—such as stability versus adaptability and control versus innovation—that must be strategically managed rather than resolved. Ambidextrous leadership and paradox-sensitive governance are key mechanisms for navigating these tensions. The study offers a more integrative, paradox-based framework for public administration scholarship.


Implications: The findings highlight the importance of designing flexible and accountable public institutions. Managerially, they require leadership competencies that encompass duality and organizational complexity. Theoretically, the study bridges gaps between opposing models and promotes a reflective approach to institutional reform.

Keywords

bureaucracy post-bureaucracy public administration hybrid governance

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Pakasi, U., Anirwan, A., & Kamaluddin, S. (2025). Reimagining the Bureaucracy and Post-Bureaucracy Debate: A Review on Paradoxes in Public Administration. Journal of Public Policy, 1(1), 46–59. Retrieved from http://jurnal.ppsuniyap.ac.id/index.php/jpp/article/view/91
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Ahmed, L. K. F. N. (2024). Public Administration. Prachi Digital Publication.
  2. Attwood-Charles, W. (2018). Post-bureaucratic organizations: normative and technical dimensions. Boston College.
  3. Bandeira, P., & Ferraro, A. (2017). Integrating participatory institutions into the traditional representative and bureaucratic model of public governance. International Political Science Review, 38(5), 642–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512116641815
  4. Bauer, M. W., Knill, C., & Eckhard, S. (2016). International bureaucracy: Challenges and lessons for public administration research. Springer.
  5. Bekkers, V., Edelenbos, J., & Steijn, B. (2011). Linking Innovation to the Public Sector: Contexts, Concepts and Challenges BT - Innovation in the Public Sector: Linking Capacity and Leadership (V. Bekkers, J. Edelenbos, & B. Steijn (eds.); pp. 3–32). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230307520_1
  6. Carmine, S., & De Marchi, V. (2023). Reviewing Paradox Theory in Corporate Sustainability Toward a Systems Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 184(1), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05112-2
  7. Chidziwa, T., Chidziwa, L., & Langa, V. (2023). Moving From Bureaucracy To Adhocracy: An Innovative Approach Towards Torwards An Improved Operations Strategy. EPH-International Journal of Business & Management Science, 9(3), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.53555/eijbms.v9i3.149
  8. Christopher, M. (2016). Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Logistics & Supply Chain Management. Pearson UK.
  9. Cunha, M. P. e, Gomes, E., Mellahi, K., Miner, A. S., & Rego, A. (2020). Strategic agility through improvisational capabilities: Implications for a paradox-sensitive HRM. Human Resource Management Review, 30(1), 100695. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100695
  10. Denhardt, J. V, & Denhardt, R. B. (2015). The new public service: Serving, not steering. Routledge.
  11. Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 463–487. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0341
  12. Hattke, F., & Vogel, R. (2023). Theories and theorizing in public administration: A systematic review. Public Administration Review, 83(6), 1542–1563. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13730
  13. Hood, C., & Dixon, R. (2015). A government that worked better and cost less?: Evaluating three decades of reform and change in UK central Government. OUP Oxford.
  14. Ingaggiati, M. (2024). Public Administrations Between Bureaucracy And Post-Bureaucracy: A Paradoxical Perspective. https://hdl.handle.net/2434/1121631
  15. Ivanov, D., & and Dolgui, A. (2021). A digital supply chain twin for managing the disruption risks and resilience in the era of Industry 4.0. Production Planning & Control, 32(9), 775–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1768450
  16. Johansen, J. H. (2018). Paradox management: Contradictions and tensions in complex organizations. Springer.
  17. Johnson, C. E., & Hackman, M. Z. (2018). Leadership: A communication perspective. Waveland Press.
  18. K. Smith, W., Erez, M., Jarvenpaa, S., Lewis, M. W., & Tracey, P. (2017). Adding complexity to theories of paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change: Introduction to organization studies special issue on paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change. In Organization Studies (Vol. 38, Issues 3–4, pp. 303–317). SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617693560
  19. Kamalahmadi, M., & Parast, M. M. (2017). An assessment of supply chain disruption mitigation strategies. International Journal of Production Economics, 184, 210–230. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.12.011
  20. Kettl, D. F. (2015). The transformation of governance: Public administration for the twenty-first century. Jhu Press.
  21. Leifso, J. B. (2020). Shapeshifting: political rationalities, lean, and the transforming landscapes of Canadian public bureaucracies. https://doi.org/10.7939/r3-a0wn-e125
  22. Leong, D. (2024). Organizational Homeostasis: A Quantum Theoretical Exploration with Bohmian and Prigoginian Systemic Insights. Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences, 48(1), 215–242. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1248239
  23. Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707712
  24. Lewis, M. W., Andriopoulos, C., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradoxical leadership to enable strategic agility. California Management Review, 56(3), 58–77. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2014.56.3.58
  25. Lodge, M., & Gill, D. (2011). Toward a new era of administrative reform? The myth of post‐NPM in New Zealand. Governance, 24(1), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2010.01508.x
  26. Lopes, A. V., & Farias, J. S. (2022). How can governance support collaborative innovation in the public sector? A systematic review of the literature. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 88(1), 114–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852319893444
  27. Mele, V., Belardinelli, P., & Bellé, N. (2023). Telework in public organizations: A systematic review and research agenda. Public Administration Review, 83(6), 1649–1666. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13734
  28. Nisar, M. A., & Masood, A. (2021). Bureaucracy and the other: A systematic review of postcolonial scholarship in public administration. Available at SSRN 3886409. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3886409
  29. Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2013). A new theory for public service management? Toward a (public) service-dominant approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012466935
  30. Pandey, S. K., Smith, A. E., Pandey, S., & Ojelabi, O. A. (2023). Reimagining race and gender in public administration and public policy: Insights from an interdisciplinary systematic review. Public Administration Review, 83(1), 14–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13570
  31. Peters, B. G. (2018). The politics of bureaucracy: An introduction to comparative public administration. Routledge.
  32. Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1162421
  33. Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422
  34. Scholten, K., Sharkey Scott, P., & Fynes, B. (2019). Building routines for non-routine events: supply chain resilience learning mechanisms and their antecedents. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 24(3), 430–442. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-05-2018-0186
  35. Schomaker, R. M., Bauer, M. W., & Ege, J. (2022). Bureaucracy and Internationalization BT - Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance (A. Farazmand (ed.); pp. 1067–1075). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66252-3_3748
  36. Wijaya, A. (2024). Peningkatan Kinerja dan Perlakuan Risiko Rantai Pasok Beras Cadangan Pangan Pemerintah (Studi Kasus pada Perum BULOG, Kantor Wilayah Jawa Barat). JURNAL PANGAN, 33(3), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.33964/jp.v33i3.881
  37. Yeo, J., & Jeon, S. H. (2023). Diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in recent public administration research: A systematic review of the literature since George Floyd. Journal of Policy Studies, 38(2), 33–54. https://doi.org/10.52372/jps38204
  38. Yusuf, Y. Y., Gunasekaran, A., Adeleye, E. O., & Sivayoganathan, K. (2004). Agile supply chain capabilities: Determinants of competitive objectives. European Journal of Operational Research, 159(2), 379–392. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2003.08.022