Difference Between Audit & Investigation Essay Example for Free

Difference Between Audit Investigation Essay Investigation is the act of detail examination of activities so as to achieve certain objectives. Specially, investigation is made in suspected places. It finds out the nature and reasons of suspected areas but auditing is the act of examining books of accounts so as to prove true and fairness of operating results and financial position of a business. Following differences can be seen between auditing and investigation: 1. Purpose An audit is carried out for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the balance sheet and profit and loss account show true and fair view of the state of companys affairs and its profit or loss. But an investigation aims at establishing a fact or is carried out for some particular purpose i.e. to know the financial position of the concern or the earning capacity of the concern etc. 2. On Behalf An audit is carried out on behalf of the proprietor of the business, while an investigation may be conducted on behalf proprietors when they suspect any fraud in their business or on behalf of outside parties who wish to lend money or intend to purchase business or at the instance of the government on the request of the shareholders. 3. Scope An audit includes only an examination of the accounts of a business whereas an investigation covers not only an examination of the accounts but also an inquiry into other relevant matters connected with the purpose for which it is undertaken. 4. Use Of Techniques An audit is usually a test checking but an investigation is a much more thorough examination of the books of accounts. It goes into the depth of the problem and keeps on looking for far more definite evidence to arrive at a conclusion that it can firmly substantiate. Further, investigation may be conducted even after the audit of the accounts. 5. Period An audit is related to only a year or six months while investigation may cover several years. 6. Statutory Obligation In the case of joint stock companies, audit is compulsory under law while there is no such statutory obligation with regard to investigation. 7. Examination Use Of Policies In audit, an auditor has to see whether the methods of valuation and other accounting policies have been consistently followed or not and he has to ensure that all disclosures have been properly made in the financial statements, while an investigation is not at all bound by accounting conventions, policies and disclosure requirements.

The Concept Of The Imperial Presidency

The Concept Of The Imperial Presidency It was historian Arthur M. Schlesinger who popularised the term imperial presidency to describe the evolution of the modern day president. Schlesinger contended that expansion and abuses of the presidential office were so profound by 1972, they had thwarted the traditional checks and balances of the constitutional system. He concluded the imperial presidency emerged due to the aggregation of presidential war powers that were primarily acquired in response to Americas participation in twentieth century wars. Schlesinger connected the presidencys usurpation of foreign policy to the accumulation of domestic powers, stressing that the war powers and executive secrecy were two significant devices which gave rise to the misuse of power by presidents.  [4]  He also reflected a growing belief that the evolution of the presidency had permanently transformed the balance of power; resulting in an extremely powerful president and a resident Congress in the decision-making arena.  [5]   Until recently, many commentators widely regarded that the Nixon administration represented the true singular embodiment of the imperial presidency.  [6]  More than three decades later, the notions of the imperial presidency has once again resurfaced. Many scholars, including Schlesinger himself, observe that the imperial presidency has been revived under the Bush administration,  [7]  and given further vigour under the leadership of President Obama.  [8]  But how authentic is this approach in understanding presidential power in decision-making today? How much utility is there in Schlesingers concept of an imperial presidency? Is it the case as Schlesinger suggests, the modern day president is out of control, operating beyond the constitutional parameters and in clear defiance of the doctrine of separation of powers. THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY REBORN The starting point of this paper is recognition of Schlesingers imperial presidency, and that it was restored to former prominence under the presidency of George W. Bush. However, this paper makes a distinction between the usurpation of power and the abuse of power.  [9]  Unlike presidents who temporarily assumed power in times of war, we argue like Nixon, Bush abused power by claiming a near absolution of power to be the enduring prerogative of the presidency.  [10]  Presidents such as Lincoln, FDR, and Truman, it is argued, momentarily usurped power anticipating Congress would hold them to account after the wartime emergency ended.  [11]  It is in this distinction that we argue makes the presidency of George W. Bush an imperial presidency. By actively trying to keep a monopoly of constitutional power, it continuously relied on powers beyond those vested in the executive by the Constitution, and often unilaterally of Congress. THE NEW IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY The imperial presidency of George W. Bush was constructed and enforced by Vice-President Cheney and his chief legal advisor Addington, given legal veneer by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Yoo, endorsed by White House Counsel and later Attorney General Gonzales.  [12]   This paper also makes a distinction between the imperial presidency under Nixon and the imperial presidency under Bush. A drawback of Schlesingers approach is that his theory emphasises the abuse of power by the individual in the office, the president. Qualifying his theory, we argue that it was not an imperial presidency but an imperial vice-presidency. There is insurmountable amount of evidence suggesting Vice-President Dick Cheney was the chief architect  [13]  behind the concept of broad-based, unreviewable, and secret presidential powers  [14]  that gave further projection to the unitary executive legal theories.  [15]  These legal theories, advocated by Cheney,  [16]  were depended upon frequently and in various contexts by the Bush administration to justify their assault on individual liberties and other intrusions of the American constitution.  [17]   However, it is clear from the opening sentence of Article II, the Constitution vests the entire executive power in the president and not the vice-president;  [18]  a point illustrated by President Trumans Oval Office desk plate, which read, the buck stops here.  [19]  Reflecting this point, Clinton Rossiter described the presidency as a one man jobwhocan never escape making the final decisions in which the public and Constitution hold him responsible.  [20]  To make sense of Bushs presidency, this paper argues that the Bush administration was a victim of what Janis termed Groupthink.  [21]  Applying Janiss hypothesis, an example of the influence of groupthink can be found in the Bush administrations decision to pursue an invasion of Iraq.  [22]  According to former Pentagon analyst Karen Kwiatwoski, there was a groupthink style of environment throughout the executive hierarchy, which blindly sought for the agreement to invade Bagdad.  [23]  Theses neoconservat ive executives formed a royal court around Bush, and by controlling the type and supply of information they were able to shape and influence his knowledge, to such an extent, it could be argued they were making presidential decisions on behalf of the president. Bush was simply a string-puppet, who was directed ironically by the men whom he led. For example, in a press conference in 2002, President Bush was asked what he was doing to capture Osama Bin Laden, an individual in his conviction to be the Americas most notorious enemy. Bush responded, You know, I just dont spend much time on him.  [24]  This perhaps explains why President Bush and Congress rushed into war before a broad-based coalition of allies could be formed. In this sense, Congress and the American public also became victims of groupthink, as they too were persuaded by highly misleading information. Therefore, it was not just an imperial vice-presidency but an imperial executive presidency, where power was being ab used by a number of executive individuals.  [25]   REINING IN THE EXECUTIVE Schlesingers approach in understanding the charges of a too powerful president is useful. Although, its utility of the great man perspective is restrictive and misleading at the same time when trying to understand the true nature and power of the presidency in the decision-making process. Despite operating under similar conditions, it is arguable that the current Obama administration no longer enjoys the vast amount of executive power, which was expanded and abused under the Bush administration. A similar argument can be drawn when analyzing Bushs two-term presidency. As the presidency entered into its final bout, with the political, media and public attention transferring to the presidential candidates, the Bush presidency became somewhat lame duck,  [26]  whose authority and influence had been curtailed extensively. Therefore, a distinction can be made between Bushs first and second term. It is evident that in his first term, the Bush administration acquired a vast amount of executive authority, which allowed them to dictate American foreign policy. However, this is not a new phenomenon. Wildavskys Two Presidency theory suggests that the president wears two hats, enjoying more freedom in foreign affairs.  [27]  Qualifying his theory, we argue that the Bush administrations ability to act unilaterally in this domain had a spill-over effect, which soon began to pervade and embolden the domestic presidency as well. This gave rise to Schlesingers revolutionary presidenc y;  [28]  the Bush administration was able to change the dynamics of American democracy by creating a plebiscitary presidency  [29]  where they were only accountable during elections (ironically strengthening his presidency as he was re-elected). Moreover, by overriding the constitutional provisions of checks and balances the Bush administration became the dominate branch in the decision-making process of the American political system. However, it is arguable that towards the end of his second term the Bush administration was far more restricted and constrained, especially in relation to its domestic policy ambitions with a more assertive Congress playing a more dominant role in the decision-making process.  [30]  Even though the presidency continuously and arrogantly acted unilaterally from Congress, its scope to do so especially in the domestic arena had been heavily curtailed. We contend that the expansion of the presidency to a certain degree has been reined-in, going some way to restoring the balance of power between the president and Congress. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES AND THE CONCEPT OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER The utility of the historical and legal approach helps us make sense of the current change in dynamics of the presidency and sheds light on how the Bush administration was able to act unilaterally in the decision-making process. This approach suggests that the aggregation of presidential power has not occurred continuously, and neither is the modern day presidency a source of permanent power that has nullified the Constitution as suggested by Schlesinger. This is because presidential power is not an attribute but a relation. The constitutional and historical legitimacy of the presidency may put any president in a privileged position in the decision-making process, but the magnitude of his power is variable as much of it exists in relation to his influence over other individuals and institutions. Therefore, we contend that presidential power at the federal level ebbs and flows: varying from one domain of political activity to another; from one circumstance to another; from one preside ncy to another; evolving gradually at times and fluctuating abruptly at other times. A prominent reason for this is because of the deliberate efforts by the Founding Fathers to stagger the constitutional powers, installed conflict into the heart of the American polity.  [31]  The vague wording of the Constitution instigates a natural invitation for struggle between the executive and legislature,  [32]  in which both institutions push the boundaries to maximize their political power. Consequently, a tug of war for influence develops between the presidency and Congress for control of the political agenda, which is more prevalent when Congress is divided, or in times of uncertainty. The historical approach does seem to suggest that a pattern exists: repeated assumptions of power in the decision-making process are followed each time by a chorus of criticism, which in return is followed by stricter congressional oversight towards presidency.  [33]  Similarly, scholarly judgments tend to reflect this cycle, although it is arguable, that these observations are somewhat exaggerated and do only reflect that period of time. For example the notions of an imperial presidency were embedded due to the fierce opposition of the Nixon presidency. Likewise, the reflections of an imperiled presidency post-Watergate were an overstated reaction to the perceived limited presidential activity in the decision-making process by Carter and Ford.  [34]  However, it is plausible based on the history of the American polity that the option is either executive supremacy or congressional supremacy. On the other hand, the concept of power suggests this does not necessarily mean that it has to be one or the other. As aforementioned above, power only exists in relation to influence, but influence is not a game of fixed sums, where one gains the other looses in the decision-making process. Similarly, the influence of both institutions is in a constant flux, forever changing in different circumstances. Therefore, it is pointless to make judgments which institution has more power at any given moment as evidence is murky. AGENDA-STRUCTURING POWERS According to C. Wright Mills, a president has more scope of influence in relation to Congress in resolving issues then introducing new issues on the political agenda. Other commentators like James Bryce make a similar distinction by arguing: In quiet times the power of the president is not great; yet in troublesome times it is otherwise, for immense responsibility is thrown on one who is both commander-in-chief and head of the civil executive.  [35]   An explanation for these phenomena can be found in the executives function to respond to unforeseen circumstances more responsively than the deliberative decision-making body of Congress. Thomas E. Cornin contends, when such events occur, the presidency is in the driving seat, especially in relation to foreign affairs. The presidency enjoys the prerogative in determining what constitutes a crisis,  [36]  and can exploit its privileged position to structure new developments to their accord. This is not to say Congress lacks the constitutional authority to intervene, rather, it often lacks the will or courage to do so.  [37]  This is because whenever a president waves the crisis flag or takes a foreign-policy initiative, in most circumstances, he is likely to have the country behind him, including influential business leaders, the media and the majority of the public.  [38]   This explains how the Bush administration was able to implement their visions of an imperial presidency. The unprecedented events of 9/11 infused Wildavskys two presidencies into one, presenting the Bush administration a blank canvas whereby they were able to structure the emergency response. More importantly, 9/11 strategically placed them at the forefront of the decision-making process in both domains. However, it is plausible the reason why Congress rubber stamped Bushs 9/11 policies, is because at the time Congress too favored a strong political response and held the commander-in-chief responsible to deliver such a response. In this sense, according to sociological approach of Mills,  [39]  the Bush administration was not exerting presidential power, but was simply reflecting the will of Congress and the American public. Bush was merely a surf-rider on the waves of international developments. Like Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis,  [40]  the Bush administration knew it was important to act on their wishes and was conscious that an unpopular response to 9/11 would result in a backlash politically. Therefore, this approach suggests, due to the natures of emergencies, no matter who happens to be president, every incumbent is compelled to follow a course of action that most Americans and congressmen approve, purely for political opportunism and political survival. In this sense, the presidency shapes the president. On the other hand, the utility of Barbers psychological approach suggests presidents also shape presidencies.  [41]  Although presidential decisions are determined by political and other constraints largely beyond their control, the personality of the incumbent is significant in helping shape presidential decisions. Presidential decisions may be influenced by the climate of expectation and power situation,  [42]  but because they enjoy the best bully pulpit, presidents actively try to influence the public and educate them through various means into going along with what they want.  [43]  In the case of the Bush Presidency, the administration successfully manipulated both the public and Congress about the severity of threat Iraq imposed. A fundamental reason why Congress was easily tricked into war was because Congress relied heavily upon the information provided by the White House to inform them about the debate. In the domestic domain, Congress is more of an expert and c an rely upon various avenues of information to gain a better understanding. However, in foreign affairs information is more restricted and it is usually the case Congress goes along with the expertise of the executive. As the American media often failed to report accurately on the Middle East wars, focusing on rallying behind the troops, the Bush administration was in the privileged position of educating the public and Congress about Americas successful campaign against the war on terrorism. As there was no official oppositional leader to challenge Bush, his presidency was able to shape American foreign policy unilaterally, thus allowing President Bush to become an imperial president whose actions were undisputed by Congress. It was only until casualties started mounting up, that the public support started wavering. In the absence of public consensus, Congress became more assertive in relation to Bushs policies, as it became concerned about its lack of involvement in the strategy of the wars that was draining America out of its men and resources. However, by then it was all too late. For the sake of national prestige Congress was committed (as usual) to keep funding the wars which had allowed the presidency to run riot. The irony here is, although, the wars liberated the presidency from the constraints of the domestic environment, it projected the presidency into a more complex and volatile environment with multiply constraints. Once Bush committed the troops, he found it extremely difficult to pull the troops out. This meant they became part of the environmental parameters within which the Obama administration had to operate in. Again, the irony here is, rather than embolden the domestic presidency it has reversed the process and added more constraints on the Obama presidency. CONCLUSION Does the United States still have an imperial presidency? The difficulty in the answer lies with the concept. The imperial presidency still means many things to many people. The answer is further complicated as it is hard to distinguish between a strong presidency and imperial presidency. Schlesingers concept implies that the imperial presidency exists because of the presidents prerogative in foreign policy which he abuses to extend his other powers. The problem here is, because the Supreme Court rarely passes judgments in relation to presidential abuses in this domain,  [44]  we are left with political judgments from politicians and scholars that are conflicting, as there is more than one criteria to judge presidential power. It is like Michael Novak observed, the right worries about the imperial president at home; the left about the imperial president abroad.  [45]  This is evident for the Obama presidency. As he has implemented an extraordinary amount of legislation and co ntinued executive secrecy, some commentators contend that he has extended Bushs legacy.  [46]  They see his ambitious economic and social policies as unconstitutional. As aforementioned above, the modern day president is compelled for the sake of American prosperity to pursue certain kinds of economic and social policies. Just because the Obama presidency has been successful, it does not mean other actors have not have not influenced the final decision. In most of the legislation passed, Obama has had to compromise, even his national health care programme. We conclude that the seeds of an imperial presidency have always existed. However, for it to flourish there has to be a combination of men and events.  [47]  If the individual in the office does not have a sense for power and relies on the formal powers of the office then it is likely the system of checks and balances will hold firm. Similarly, extraordinary events can curtail presidential power. America recently had the diplomatic version of 9/11 with confidential cables being exposed, withdrawing even more influence from the president in decision-making power.  [48]  

Similarities And Differences Between Solar And Wind Environmental Sciences Essay

Similarities And Differences Between Solar And Wind Environmental Sciences Essay At present, human beings are living in a society which is developing rapidly, facing a severe crisis of energy. As the population is increasing in a high speed, the ecological environment has been damaged by human activity. At the same time, with industry highly developed, the environment has been polluted seriously. Therefore, other alternative energies should be found instead of fossil fuels, which is green, efficient and renewable. Thus, people began to discover the importance of renewable energy sources, for instants, solar, biogas and water. In fact, the majority of renewable energy sources come from the solar energy, which means they can be exploited for centuries and even millennia. In this essay, wind energy and solar energy are put in a comparison. Both of them are clean energy and environmentally-friendly, although they differ in cost and efficiency. The first important similarity of wind energy and solar energy is that both of them are renewable. Solar energy is the most abundant energy resources that human can make use of. It is estimated that during the past thousands of years the sun consumes only 2% of its own energy (Duncan, 2002). In the next few billion years there will not be significant changes to the sun, so the sun can be used as a permanent source of energy. Likewise, wind energy is also unlimited. Because it is generated by air flow on the Earths surface. Wind is everywhere, no matter it is in the vast grasslands or mountains. Wind power can be extracted by wind mills. As the wind makes wheels rotating, it is changing the wind power into electric power. Obviously, these two kinds of energy both come from the nature, which are totally recycled. Another similarity is that both wind energy and solar energy cause almost no pollution to the environment. Compared to the environmental effects of traditional energy sources, the environmental effects of solar energy and wind energy are relatively minor. Coal, oil and other fossil fuels emit harmful gases and residue, while the use of solar energy will not bring about pollution. Moreover, it will not produce any adverse effects on the environment, which is a clean source of energy. Meanwhile, after the extensive use of solar energy, the temperature will be slightly increased, although this temperature will not cause adverse effects on the environment and the ecological balance (Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991). Wind power consumes no fuels, and emits no polluted air. Wind energy is abundant, almost endlessly used, widely distributed and clean. Furthermore, both of them dont produce carbon dioxide, which do not cause the greenhouse effect. All in all, both of them bring peace to t he environment. In spite of these similarities, wind energy and solar energy are different in some aspects. At present, the use of solar energy technologies has the disadvantage of high cost. Topfocus (2007) stated that the cost of generating electricity by solar power is about 7-12 times higher compared to the normal electricity, and 6-10 times higher compared that of generating electricity by wind power. Furthermore, in many rainy areas with short period of sunshine, it is very difficult to completely rely on solar power supply. This means unless there are a large number of solar panels or there is a more sophisticated solar energy technology, it is still difficult to produce a large number of power supplies to meet the daily needs. In addition, solar panels have a limited lifespan, which is about 10-20 years. This means the cost to deal with the technical problems is extremely high (Brignall, 2010). In contrast, the wind turbines have longer lifespan, although it requires a lot of land to build. As long as the turbines have been built, it can be used for hundreds of years. In the short term, the base costs of wind turbines are relatively cheap. (Alvesta, n.d.) Another difference exists in the efficiency. Using solar energy is more efficient than wind energy. According to Duncan (2000), about 70% of sun energy can be received by the earth. In order words, more power can be collected by the solar panels. Furthermore, the materials used on the solar panels are silicon, which has less resistance in the power generation process (Ffbing, 2009). Compared to the solar energy, wind energy has short effective time and need to be built near the sea. When wind power is transformed into electric power, the efficiency is only about 20 % (Chapo, 2006). In conclusion, after comparing solar energy and wind energy, both of them have advantages and disadvantages. The solar energy solve the problem that human will not afraid there are no energy to use. However, the technologies still need to improve. Using wind energy is cheaper and more direct, although it needs high technology to be more efficient. At present, Chinas environmental pollution problems highlight the fragility of ecosystems. A large number of mining and the use of fossil fuels make a great impact on the environment, especially in Chinas energy consumption structure. The high proportion of coal, carbon dioxide emissions growing faster, which has a great impact on climate change. Development and utilization of renewable energy plays an important role in optimizing energy structure and protecting the environment, which reduces greenhouse gas and cope with climate changes. In my opinion, the renewable energy will play an important role in peoples life and let human have a bet ter future.

Carolina :: Essays Papers

Carolina Carolina Arboleda was born in Columbia before moving to Greenwich six years ago. She moved to America along with her mother’s side of the family, while her father and his blood related family members remain in Columbia. Carolina’s first impression of Greenwich was that it is a fairly boring town, with an absence of activities and places to go. She did however praise the good school system, and hoped to make the best of her new life. Family is very important to Carolina. She has a brother who is three years old and a sister who is fourteen years old. She gets along fairly well with her siblings, and spends quality time with her sister, usually going to movies or the library. Since her sister is significantly younger, they don’t associate with the same friends or go to parties together, but maintain a close relationship that she hopes will last a lifetime. Carolina thinks that living with only her mother and siblings brings their family closer as a whole, for everybody has to help out around the house and contribute to the family’s general well being. In the absence of a job, Carolina spends her time with friends and doing schoolwork. She does not participate in any organized sports, but likes to play basketball and swim at a local park. She says that her mom has never pressured her into doing any sports or activities that she didn’t want to do, but does however support her in her schoolwork. Carolina prefers trips into New York City instead of staying in Greenwich on the weekends where she likes to hang out at video arcades, and go to dance clubs with friends. While stuck in Greenwich Carolina enjoys going to movies and occasionally hanging out at the library, reading and relaxing in the calm environment. Since she does not yet have a car Carolina relies on rides from her mother and friends to take her to school and other activities. Carolina is a senior at Greenwich High School, a place that plays a very significant role in her life, for it is where she spends most of her time, and it is her performance here, which will determine the next school that she attends. Generally, Carolina likes Greenwich High School, but thinks that it is too strict sometimes. She thinks that the closed-door policies are not needed and just causes a hassle for students in the morning.

A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen Essay -- torvald, nora, christine

In Henrik Ibsen’s dramatic play A Doll’s House there are many characters that have grown to be adults that they either do not wish to be or that they are expected to be. The character breakdown as the play goes from act to act is apparent. From a woman struggling to be the perfect wife and mother to a husband trying to be perfect and surround himself with people that are likewise we see that it is much harder to put on a mask to be something you are not. Nora Helmer is a simple woman. She is the mother to young children as well as an adoring wife to her husband Torvald. Nora is described by her husband as a spendthrift, a little featherhead, and a skylark. (Delbanco & Cheuse) These terms are used in a fashion to say that she is flighty, a dainty woman who shops and flits about with no care in the world. Even her friend Christine Linde tells her that she is immature and childish to the realities of the world. This is actually not a fair statement of Nora. She has already put forth a strong attitude when Torvald was ill. She found a way to get the monies needed to ensure that he got well. She may not have gone about it the legal way but she went to whatever lengths needed to ensure that the man she loved could get well. This was a step outside of the expectations of her. She has always been there to do whatever a man expected of her. Her father expected her to be there to take care of him and the household. Her husband took her in h is home and expected the same of her. She was never able to form her own person as someone else was always there telling her who to be and how to be it. Nora wants to be taken seriously and to learn how to be strong for herself. She realizes that she has been able to get this loan and has been paying i... ...ectations they are not happy but just being. By the end of the play there is some hope for all of them. Works Cited Brunnemer, K. (2009). Sexuality in Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House. Retrieved 11 23, 2013, from Bloom's Literary Reference Online: http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&WID=97972&SID=5&iPin=BLTHS004&SingleRecord=True. Delbanco, N., & Cheuse, A. (n.d.). Literature Craft and Voice. In H. Ibsen, A Doll's House (pp. 1346-48). Haller, E. (n.d.). Bloom's Literature. Retrieved 11 23, 2013, from Facts on File: http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&WID=97972&SID=5&iPin=ETL0595&SingleRecord=True. Metzger, S. (n.d.). An overview of A Doll's House. Retrieved 11 23, 2013, from Gale Literature Resource Center: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CH1420002305&v=2.1&u=txshracd2560&it=r&p=LitRC&sw=w&asid=2a621898dc6a06a303d9c6015c7e4bd0

Bureaucratic Management Essay

The concept of bureaucracy as a form of organization has become the basis for scholars and practitioners to determine and evaluate other forms of organizations. It is observed that whenever an organization is described, one always says it is either bureaucratic or non-bureaucratic. This paper will identify the characteristics of bureaucratic organizations and determine whether these characteristics are still present among organizations of today. This essay is outlined according to the following structure: The first part introduces the reader to Max Weber and his idea of the bureaucratic organization. The major characteristics of the bureaucracy will be presented and discussed in accordance with the original ideas propounded by Weber himself, either through his own writings or those who have exhaustively studied his works. The second part will be a discussion of why the bureaucratic forms developed, interpreted to mean a discussion of their causes as well as the reasons why the bureaucracy flourished as a model of an organization. The final part is a qualified assessment of whether the bureaucratic model of organizations is still being used by present-day organizations or whether organizations have outgrown it and have found the more effective form. Some examples will be given as to what organizational structures or forms are being used by modern organizations. From these will be determined if organizations are now in the post-bureaucratic period. Bureaucracy as a concept of organization was a contribution to theory attributable to either Karl Marx or Max Weber. However, since much of the writings of Karl Marx are more ideologically focused on the philosophical and social aspects, especially with his concept of revolutionary communism, Max Weber has come to be known as the proponent of the concept of bureaucracy. It is safe to believe at this point though, that Max Weber was highly influenced by the writings of Karl Marx and from whose ideas some his bureaucratic concepts are anchored. This essay will focus on the ideas advanced by Max Weber regarding the bureaucratic organization. The description â€Å"Weberian†, referring to his model of bureaucracy, has become a comfortable term to use in bureaucratic literature. Being the major contributor to social theory with his idea of the bureaucratic organization, Max Weber finds himself in major written works, proving his important place in social and political theory. The reasons for his importance are discussed in the Weber book edited by Sam Whimster entitled The Essential Weber: A Reader.   Some reasons provided are: the concept of the work ethic; the idea of rationality as applied to the capitalist enterprise, the bureaucratic organization, and legal systems; discipline; the legitimacy of power and leadership; a general theory of power based on the Marxist idea of social classes; among others.[1] Having said this, one wonders why Weber’s bureaucracy is considered the â€Å"ideal organization† or the â€Å"ideal-type† organization. What makes it become the model for future organizations? What are the main characteristics of the bureaucratic organization? To know these characteristics will help one understand why his model is considered to be an ideal model. The Main Characteristics of Bureaucratic Management The idea of bureaucracy elicits varied reactions from different people. Some agree with the idea of achieving order through its prescribed system of doing things. Others though condemn it for causing problems like delays, corruption, being too impersonal, etc.   In order to put all these in their proper perspective, a good starting point is to define the concept of bureaucracy. The first and most common word one comes across in literature related to bureaucracy is the word rationality. Quoting Weber, Neil Garston defines bureaucracy in the book Bureaucracy: Three Paradigms by way of the categories of rational legal authority.   Authority in this sense is equated to bureaucracy and involves the following: [2] 1. A continuous organization of official functions bound by rules 2. A specified fear of competence involving spheres of obligations marked by division of labor; incumbent being provided with authority to carry out functions; clearly defined means of compulsion 3. The organization of offices follows the principle of hierarchy 4. The rules which regulate the conduct of an office may be technical rules or norms 5. Administration is completely separated from ownership 6. Complete absence of appropriation of his position by the incumbent 7. Administrative acts, decisions and rules are formulated and recorded in writing. Garston goes on to describe the purely bureaucratic organization as â€Å"being from the technical point of view, capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency and is in this sense the most rational means of carrying out imperative control of human beings.[3] From above description of bureaucracy, a rational organization for Weber is an organization that is governed by a system of rules and procedures. The rationality in his ideal organization is its capability to be efficient through methods of carrying out control over human beings. The aspects of being stable and reliable make the organization ideal. The rules which are observed with much discipline make the organization less prone to instability because there will be none or very little room for sudden changes which may result in the breakdown of the system. In short, Weber advocates an organization that is governed by rules which are universally and strictly followed by people who are qualified and properly trained. Below is a further explanation of the characteristics of a bureaucratic organization, as presented in the initial part of the essay: 1. A continuous organization of official functions bound by rules The application of rules is for everyone and the rules have to be complied with. Rules are applied irrespective of the position and not the person who occupies the position. 2. A specified sphere of competence involving spheres of obligations marked by division of labor; incumbent being provided with authority to carry out functions; clearly defined means of compulsion. Work is divided among the staff, each one with his own set of responsibilities as well as the means of doing them.   The different position titles reflect the nature of how work is divided among the staff, each position has corresponding obligations and responsibilities. 3. The organization of offices follows the principle of hierarchy The organization is characterized by positions of authority structured in a hierarchy, which means that, according to Weber, each lower office is controlled and supervised by a higher one. And consequently, there are positions that have more power. 4. The rules which regulate the conduct of an office may be technical rules or norms. This means that the organization is staffed by qualified people because only those who pass the standards get hired. The basis of both the selection and promotion of employees is the employees’ technical qualifications. As an example, in the specific area of HR, the Personnel Manual codifies the qualification criteria for the selection and hiring of employees. 5. Administration is completely separated from ownership 6. Complete absence of appropriation of his position by the incumbent Both characteristics refer to the aspect of separating administration from ownership in bureaucratic organizations. The means of administration do not belong to the bureaucrat but are concentrated at the top. Thus the position of the official cannot be sold or inherited and it cannot be appropriated and integrated in his private patrimony.[4] The means of production and  administration referred to include the physical equipment like computers, documents, buildings, etc. 7. Administrative acts, decisions and rules are formulated and recorded in writing.   Weber advocates the recording of rules and all acts of administration through written forms, which he referred to as â€Å"the files†. Weber uses the terms â€Å"rational† and â€Å"bureaucratic† in his model. From this, bureaucracy is sometimes called the bureaucratic rationality theory. An assessment of this idea was made by   Stanley Udy Jr. in the article â€Å"Bureaucracy and Rationality in Weber’s Organization Theory: An Empirical Study. The specifications made by Weber were reformulated as either â€Å"bureaucratic† or â€Å"rational† variables. The study proposed the positive and negative associations between the variables from a comparative analysis of 150 formal organizations in 150 non-industrial societies: â€Å"(a) bureaucratic variables are positively associated; (b) rational variables are positively associated; but (c) rational variables are negatively associated with bureaucratic variables†.[5]   This is interpreted to mean that there are certain characteristics of Weber’s bureaucracy that are considered rational, some are considered bureaucratic but not all of them are both bureaucratic and rational. This is really proof of how much dissected the bureaucratic theory is. How about the effect of bureaucracy to the people within the organization? The bureaucracy, with all its characteristic features, is seen as producing two views of the human outcomes, the positive and the negative views. According to the negative view, the bureaucratic form of organization stifles creativity, fosters dissatisfaction, and demotivates employees while in the positive view, bureaucracy provides the needed guidance and clarifies responsibilities, thereby easing role stress and helping individuals be and feel more effective.[6] The Development of Bureaucratic Forms In the writings of Weber, there were already indications of a bureaucratic organization as early as in the middle ages under the rule of the kings. Kings during that time ruled on traveled around ruling the country on horseback, bringing with them sometimes an army of men who took his orders. We have seen this scene fully documented in movies of ancient times where the king, with just a simple signal, can get his men to follow all his orders, from simple documentation to the complex instructions about going into battle. Weber saw this  as a sign of bureaucracy with his idea of the â€Å"bureau†. From this ancient practice developed the concept of the modern bureaucracy.   Presently though, the bureau as Weber described it is structured in a variety of ways, but the main idea of having staff and having an office still remains. Weber called the ancient practice as the â€Å"bureaucratization of the army†.[7] Weber’s works are dominated by the term â€Å"rationalization†. This seemed to have moved him to write about the bureaucratic model as an ideal type organization. According to him, this concept of rationality can help organizations achieve their objectives. The early theories and models of organizations, which are considered traditional, were highly criticized by Weber, saying they are either irrational or non-rational. Being a sociologist mainly, he believed that the use of religion or even magic in ruling is not effective. The traditional forms were not systematic and there were no rules, leaders only relied on feelings and supernatural explanations or perhaps their charisma. While Max Weber considered history to be a force in motivating him to write about bureaucracy, another author provides another dimension to how bureaucratic forms of  organizations developed. Contentions were made relative to Hegel’s Theory of Bureaucracy.   One is that Hegel’s theory is as comprehensive as Weber’s ideal type of bureaucratic organization in that the paradigm of Weber could fit in a reformulation of Hegel’s model.   A second contention made is that Hegel adapts the Aristotelian category of practical judgment to characterize the bureaucratic activity as subsumption. The Weberian concept of rationality is even helpful in the clarifying the difficulties in Hegel’s political thought. This leads to the third contention that Hegel’s model can contribute to a theory of bureaucracy that is more applicable to modern political and social reality.[8] This whole idea of comparing Hegel and Weber and even using the ideas of Aristotle proves that the bureaucracy is an idea that is not only forced by history but also one that is a natural way of organizations. The scholars and other students of bureaucracy only attempted to improve what has already been an idea and a model in the minds of the thinkers. Thus it can be said that the bureaucracy developed as a result of the need to improve the traditional methods of establishing the structures for organizations. While organizations were not really devoid of structure then, the weaknesses in their models became a motivation to come up with better models. The ideas of the bureaucracy were borne out of the need to make them more efficient by following the structure proposed by Weber. The presence of a system of rules governing administration is believed by Weber to be an important component of being able to run the affairs of the organization very smoothly. This is especially true among formal organizations as they are more applicable to them. Another reason is the need to do away with the subjectivity and personal biases governing human organizations. This means that when there are standardized rules, the  possibility of a lot of personal favors may be avoided. It is considered ideal to have the rules universally applied so that there are no personal biases that may arise. The â€Å"personalization† of the positions sometimes cause complex problems arising out of differences in perceptions and attitudes. The impersonal touch of organization is seen to be beneficial in order that rules may be universally applied more easily. The bureaucracy also developed further as it was seen to be continuously pertinent   .. even in today’s socioeconomic and cultural life. This is the position espoused in the book Max Weber and the New Century. The book advances the position that Weber’s ideas are still preeminent and continue to have lasting vitality within social theory. By applying them to topics of contemporary concern, they are expressed in different cultural forms. Sica calls the study of Weber’s works â€Å"a universe of Weberian analysis†.[9]   

Racism, Responsibility and Death Essay

Set in the late 1950s, the play Fences portrays the life of a fifty-year old Black named Troy, depicting his life as a husband, a father, a friend, and an individual set in the time where racism was highly dominant in America. Beyond cultural discrimination, themes like death, duty, friendship, and lost opportunities are also being seen in the play. Thesis: Real- life conditions are the backdrop of Wilson’s Fences as reflected through the story’s salient themes like racism, responsibility, and death. Topic Sentence1: Racism happening towards Black Americans during Wilson’s time is the backbone of the playwright’s story. Being an African- American himself, Wilson easily relates in his story the actual situation that was happening during that time in America where Blacks were being seen differently from White Americans. He was able to create a story depicting this theme, which I believe is very intriguing and crucial on that time since the issue was given a new angle at the mark of the industrialization age in the country. This claim was clearly seen through Wilson’s use of biases in Troy’s workplace. The main character noticed that it was only the Whites who were being promoted to drivers. On the first scene, he complained on the biases he has observed Quote 1: â€Å" †¦ what’s the matter, don’t I count? You think only white fellows got sense enough driving a truck? † (p. 2). Topic sentence 2: Family responsibilities are commonly perceived as burden in economically- ill families. Issue on responsibility, I can say, is still related with Troy’s race. Since he is a Black, his chances of getting promoted were affected. Troy assumes many responsibilities in the story: a husband, a father, and a brother to his disabled brother Gabriel. Although surrounded by such duties, Troy was trying to keep everyone satisfied with what he is giving. With this, his relationship to another woman, Alberta, was his escape from the burden he was carrying since for him the woman is not his responsibility, not until they found out that she was pregnant. Although Troy was earning not enough money, he was still brave for not abandoning his child. Instead of ducking it, he accepted the consequences of his actions. Quote 2: â€Å" I ain’t ducking the responsibility of it. As long as it sets right in my heart†¦ then I’m okay. † ( p. 63). Topic sentence 3: Death was presented in the play as an idea one should face bravely. In some stories, death is being portrayed as an aloof, mysterious thing. However, in the Fences, death was portrayed as something that one should face and battle with. Troy once told his story about how he wrestled and won against death. However, when he and his Cory had a major dispute causing for the latter to leave the house, Troy was left calling for death to come and defeat him. Quote 3: â€Å" †¦ I can’t taste nothing no more. ( Troy assumes a batting position and begins to taunt Death†¦ ) †. ( p. 89). Sticking to the conventional and traditional approach of writing a play, August Wilson has able to weave and combine dynamic characters , plausible plot, creative language, sophisticated style, and timeless themes all in a life-reflecting yet unusual and genius work of art. Work Cited Wilson, August. Fences. New York: Penguin Books, 1987