Using a measure of red tape based on the amount of time required for the performance of core organizational tasks, hypotheses are tested as to why some organizations have more red tape than others. Among the explanations considered are organizational size, sector, "publicness" defined in terms of governmental interaction and influence independent of sector, and external constraint defined in terms of interorganizational agreements and percentage of time devoted to external activities. The data for the study come from a national study of more than 900 research-intensive organizations. The focus on these organizations assures that the core tasks performed are similar to one another and reduces the likelihood that findings are simply a function of differences in organizational mission. Results indicate that it is useful to think of red tape in terms of diverse dimensions related to key organizational tasks. Both sector and publicness are positively associated with measures of red tape, with publicness providing a somewhat more robust explanation along some dimensions of red tape. Contrary to previous studies, organizational size seems to have little bearing on differences in red tape.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alchian, A. A. , & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization. American Economic Review, 62, 777-799.
2.
Alchian, A. A. , & Demsetz, H. (1973). The property rights paradigm. Journal of Economic History, 33, 16-27.
3.
Aldrich, H. E. (1972). Technology and organizational structure: A reexamination of the findings of the Aston group. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 26-43.
4.
Andrews, F. M. (Ed.). (1979). Scientific productivity: The effectiveness of research groups in six countries. London: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Blau, P. M. (1963). The dynamics of bureaucracy (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Blau, P. M. , & Meyer, M. W. (1971). Bureaucracy in modern society (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.
7.
Blau, P. M. , & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal organizations: A comparative approach. San Francisco: Chandler.
8.
Bozeman, B. (1982). Organization structure and the effectiveness of public agencies. International Journal of Public Administration, 3, 235-296.
9.
Bozeman, B. (1987). All organizations are public. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
Bozeman, B. , & Crow, M. (1988). The U.S. R&D laboratory system: The effect of public and market influence. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
11.
Bozeman, B. , & Crow, M. (1991). Red tape and technology transfer in U.S. government laboratories. Journal of Technology Transfer, 16(2), 29-37.
12.
Bozeman, B. , & Loveless, S. (1987). Sector context and performance: A comparison of industrial and government research units. Administration & Society, 19, 197-235.
13.
Bretschneider, S. (1990). Management information systems in public and private organizations: An empirical test. Public Administration Review, 50, 536-545.
14.
Buchanan, B. (1975). Red tape and the service ethic: Some unexpected differences between public and private managers. Administration & Society, 6, 423-438.
15.
Chandler, R. C. , & Plano, J. C. (1982). The public administration dictionary. New York: Wiley.
16.
Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure and strategies of control: A replication of the Aston study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 163-177.
17.
Child, J. (1973). Predicting and understanding organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 168-175.
18.
Chubb, J. E. , & Moe, T. M. (1985). Politics, markets and the organization of school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans.
19.
Clarkson, K. W. (1972). Some implications of property rights in hospital management. Journal of Law and Economics, 12, 23-42.
20.
Crow, M. (1985). The effect of publicness on organizational performance: A comparative study of R&D laboratories (National Technical Information Service No. PB85-216646). Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service.
21.
Crow, M. , & Bozeman, B. (1989, September/October). Bureaucratization in the laboratory. Research/Technology Management, 32, 30-31.
22.
Davies, D. G. (1977). Property rights and economic efficiency: The Australian airlines revisited. Journal of Law and Economics, 20, 223-226.
23.
Downs, A. (1967). Inside bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown.
24.
Goodsell, C. T. (1983). The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic (2nd ed.). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
25.
Gouldner, A. W. (1952). Red tape as a social problem. In R. K. Mertonet al. (Eds.), Reader in bureaucracy (pp. 410-418). New York: Free Press.
26.
Hage, J. (1965). An axiomatic theory of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10, 289-320.
27.
Hage, J. , & Aiken, M. (1969). Routine technology, social structure, and organization goals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 366-376.
28.
Hall, R. (1963). The concept of bureaucracy: An empirical assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 69, 32-40.
29.
Hall, R. (1977). Organizations: Structure and process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
30.
Hill, M. (1976). The state, administration, and the individual. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
31.
Holdaway, E. , Newberry, J. F., Hickson, D. J., & Heron, R. P. (1975). Dimensions of organizations in complex societies: The educational sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 37-58.
32.
Katz, D. , & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
33.
Kaufman, H. (1977). Red tape: Its origins, uses and abuses. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
34.
March, J. , & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
35.
McKelvey, W. , & Aldrich, H. (1983). Populations, natural selection, and applied organizational science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 101-128.
36.
Merton, R. K. (1940). Bureaucratic structure and personality. Social Forces, 17, 560-568.
37.
Meyer, M. W. (1972). Bureaucratic structure and authority: Coordination and control in 254 government agencies. New York: Harper & Row.
38.
Meyer, M. W. (1979). Change in public bureaucracies. London: Cambridge University Press.
39.
Meyer, M. W. , & Brown, M. C. (1977). The process of bureaucratization. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 364-385.
40.
Neuberg, L. G. (1977). Two issues in the municipal ownership of electric power distribution systems. Bell Journal of Economics, 18, 303-323.
41.
Perrow, C. (1972). Complex organizations: A critical survey. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
42.
Pugh, D. S. , Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R. (1969). An empirical taxonomy of structures of work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 115-125.
43.
Pugh, D. S. , Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1968). Dimensions of organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13, 65-105.
44.
Rainey, H. G. (1983). Public agencies and private firms: Incentives, goals and individual roles. Administration & Society, 15, 207-242.
45.
Rushing, W. A. (1966). Organizational rules and surveillance: Propositions in comparative organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 32-39.
46.
Simon, H. (1947). Administrative behavior. New York: Free Press.
47.
Thompson, V. (1961). Modern organization. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
48.
Warwick, D. P. (1975).A theory of public bureaucracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49.
Weber, M. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (Translated, edited, and with an introduction by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills). New York: Oxford University Press.
50.
Weick, K. (1969). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
