Weber had different suggestion that he made on classical thought. In that he had views that were different from other sociologist that existed in that time. He argued for a strict separation between scientific objectivity and all the judgments of value and he supposed that the ethical and political commitments to be the property that was embraced without any effort to supply their rational foundations. He made an argument on the loss of individual freedom to the efficient but over rationalized bureaucracy that rose in service of economic investment. He came up with a classical organization theory where he made several definitions of terms which include bureaucratic, power and control. In bureaucratic administration he meant the fundamental exercise of control on the basis of knowledge and from the thought of sociology power was seen to be exemplified within organizations by the process of control. (Bramble, 2002, pp, 80).
We will write a custom Essay on Political Economy and Economic Changes specifically for you
807 certified writers online
He distinguished between authority and power by first defining the relationship that existed within which one person could impose his will regardless of the resistance from the other while authority was seen when there was a belief in the legitimacy of that power. He made classification of organizations according to the nature of legitimacy in that charismatic authority is based on the sacred or outstanding characteristic of the individual. In this authority the person is in charge of the operations that take place in the organization and does not have to get ideas from others in the organization. This means that this person is an authoritative in that he or she does his or her decisions alone. The traditional authority is a respect for custom in this authority an organization has set rules and regulations that have to be followed therefore what this person should have to do is to ensure that they follow the rules for the proper operation of the organization. This means that in an organization that has this authority they have to put in mind the set rules and regulations because if a person dopes not follow them then they are reliable to punishment and rewards are set for those who follow the set rules. There is the rational legal authority that is based on set rules in that this will mean that people will have to follow the set rules that are legally set by government to be followed by all in a particular organization. According to Weber the rational legal authority is attained through the efficient form of organization. In explaining bureaucracy he argued that managers should not rule through arbitrary personal whim but should have a form of system of rule and he had a list of beliefs which he thought were best in dealing with legal authority. (Bramble, 1993, pp, 160).
The legal code can be established which can claim obedience from members of the organization, the law is a system of rules that have to be applied in particular cases and administration has to look after the interest of the organization within the limit of that law, the person who has to exercise authority has to obey impersonal order, being a member then one will be able to obey the law, obedience is due not to the person who holds the authority but to the impersonal order which has to be granted to the position that is set. Weber was convinced that bureaucracy as being more effective than other forms and he claimed that this day administration was based on written documents, therefore this tended to make office the focus of organization. His concern was to establish ways of behaving which avoided the corruption, unfairness and nepotism which was characterizing the 19th century organizations. He had ideas of the organizations and came up with different characteristics which include a continuous organization of official functions that is bound by rules, there was specialization in that each office had a defined sphere of competence involving the division of labor in that he made that the organizations had departments that were to be run by specific people and this led to reduction of time wastage and high production achieved. There was clear definition of hierarchy of offices in that a firm system of supervision was based on clear levels of authority. There were set rules in that there was stable, comprehensive system of conduct which had to be learned and required technical qualifications to understand and administer. There was impersonality in that no hatred with equality of treatment for all the clients of the organizations in that the staff members were free of any external responsibilities and constraints in other words the staff were able to attend their duties in a fair and objective way. There was free selection of appointed officials in that the selections of professionals is based on qualifications so that no question of bias. (Bell, 1980, pp, 180).
The officials were paid on basis of hierarchical rank and the officials were appointed on basis of a contract. There was clear career structure and a system of promotion that is based on seniority of superiors. The officials could work on a detached fashion from the ownership of the organization. There was strict, systematic discipline and control of the officials work. Even though he based the idea on formal rationality he believed that bureaucratic control would lead to a number of social consequences, in that a tendency to a leveling of social classes by allowing a wide range of recruits with technical competence, there was plutocracy due to the time that was required to achieve the necessary technical training and the greater degree of social equality due to dominance of the spirit of impersonality. In fact the information that was given to Weber concerning the classical organization can believe in this modern time in that there are set rules and regulations that people are supposed to follow so that they come up with information that is required. This will mean that with the set rules then no one in organization is supposed to go against them if they have to work without conflict. Therefore Weber used the knowledge he had on power and authority claimed that this is important in the modern organizations. The suggestions that Weber made in classical thought can be used in modern thought this is because in that time people who were in change of organizations had to use traditional authority to govern them this meant that they were to follow the traditions that were set for the operation of the organization in that they had to know what exactly was required so that they could work and perform well in that the organizations were supposed to have things set for workers so that they could not conflict in their operation. Weber had believe that ultimate values could not give justified that is through value free analysis and he had comparison of different religions, political or social systems and one system could not be chose over the other without taking the value, end, purpose and perspective that was established. Weber believed that objective comparisons among systems could be made once a particular end had been established, acknowledged and agreed upon. (Bryan, 1991, pp, 100).
Therefore from this point then Weber was able to make an objective comparison on the economic systems as capitalism and socialism. Although Weber announces the value from which he intended to analyses a particular policy he also acknowledges that the value may be merely a construct of ones culture and an example that he gave was on the influence of culture that was upon perspective lies on his comments about political economy. Weber had his information been based on other economist according to what they thought about a issue in that they had to have a value to something therefore in explaining the political economy he was able to come up with the ideals that were seen to be important in any discussion so that he could have the right discussion that could not conflict with that of others. In other words the modern thought of Weber laid on the discussions that were made by others and in making explanations then he could have a base on what to talk about. Therefore in dealing with the political; economy for example he was able to know which route to take so that they get the information that was required. in that hew used the ideals to introduce the subject matter of the science and the values that he talked about had to stand above the subject matter in a higher order he had criticism on those scientist who unconsciously allowed the starting point for the analysis and explanations of economic events to determine their judgments of these events. Therefore he was not always for the activities that scientist believed on about the organizations. Through all the arguments of Weber then we can conclude that he had different view from other scientist concerning a certain discussion. Therefore there is need for one to know the objective arguments that are supporting subjective values while maintaining the truth.
There have been questions to whether the monarchies could still exist in Australia in the 21st century. This is because there has need many changes that have taken place as people have been in need of change like the changes in technology and other changes in the industries this means that there has been a question on what to do so that they can have changes incorporated in their organizations. In Australia there have been many changes that have been brought about by globalization this means that with globalization then there has been changes in global market and organizations has also changed. The monarchies could not survive in this country during the 21st century due to the challenges that came with globalization and the views that were brought by Weber, this ,meant that the globalization led to new markets this is because there were new technology that was used therefore the organizations were ready to produce and sell to customers. Therefore they had to keep in line with the changes so that they could succeed. In comparing the classical thought and modern thought of Weber it can be clear that these two thoughts were interrelated in a way in that the modern thought had some values that were for classical thought therefore in connection to the organization set up the officials had to work in a manner that could allow all people to do what was required.( Bramble,1997,pp, 30).
This meant that they had to ensure that they did their work so that they can have their success just in the same manner it is in globalization. This means that with these two thoughts then people can have clear information on how organization is framed and how it has to operate so that they come in terms with changes that are taking place that is globalization. Without information on globalization then one can not be able to succeed in leading an organization to success. This is because from the information that was given by Weber about values then he had the right information that people should follow so that they have values for an organization. Generally to have success in something one should know which way to follow in that they should have right information that will lead to achievement of what they intend to have in the organization. According to Weber power and bureaucracy have to work together so that an organization can succeed in that there should be those in authority ruling the employees so that they have a way through to success. What I mean is that an organization that has no authority and set rules can not bear the challenges that are brought about by globalization therefore they end up having problems in their operations. (Bryan, 1996, pp, 425).
Modern thought and classical thought have to go together so that they provide information that is desirable. This is because people are in need of having information on political economy and economic changes that are required in the world today therefore with the information of Weber then one can have a foundation in running an organization as a manager and have the employees work for the good of their organization.
Armstrong, P. (1979): problems of race and class. Melbourne, Longman, pp, 50-80.
Armstrong, P. (1983): socialist alternative to labor. Melbourne.
Australian P. (1976): platform, constitution and rules. Canberra.
Barbalet, M. (1982): social theory by Marxist. London.
Belcher, Y. (1993): Australian economy. Sociality review, 6, pp, 90-130.
Bell, D. (1980): political economy. Australian Book Company, pp, 170-190.
Get your first paper with 15% OFF
Bramble, P. (1990): political economy. Journal of industrial relations, 32, pp, 20-50.
Bramble, P. (1993): state of working organization. Socialist review, 5, pp, 150-170.
Bramble, P. (1997): globalization. Journal of Australian political economy, 39, pp, 30-70.
Bramble, P. (1998): problems with labor leadership. Class and class conflict in Australia. Longman, pp, 40-60.
Bramble, P. (2001): social democracy. Melbourne, south pacific.
Bramble, P. (2002): solidarity. Journal of Australian political economy, 48, pp, 70-120.
Brennan, T. (1998): state and globalization. Journal of Australian political economy, 1, pp, 30-70.
Brezniak, P. (1978): Australian crisis. Journal of Australian political economy, 1, pp, 1-50.
Bryan, D. (1979): political economy of development. Journal of Australian political economy, 2, pp, 80-90.
Bryan, D. (1982): economic nationalism. Australian outlook, 37, pp, 60-80.
Bryan, D. (1986): mechanism of restructuring. Journal of Australian political economy, 19, pp, 30-40.
Bryan, D. (1988): internationalism of capital. Journal of contemporary Asia, 18, pp, 10-30.
Bryan, D. (1989): industry and capital restructuring. Journal of Australian political economy, 22, pp, 10-30.
Bryan, D. (1991): Australian economy. Journal of Australian political economy, 29, pp, 90-120.
Bryan, D. (1996): capital and Marxian value theory. Cambridge journal of economics, 20, pp, 420-450.
Edwards, U. (1985): science, politics and personality. Philadelphia: temple university press, pp, 74.
Max, W. (1987): Modern science. London: the German historical institute, pp, 576.
Peter, W. (1995): works of Weber. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, pp, 10.
Weber, M. (1989): political writing. The nation state and economic policy, pp, 2.