Rethinking Bureaucracy: How Governments Can Innovate Without Losing Accountability
In the Harvard Kennedy School article “How Governments Can Move Beyond Bureaucracy,” Jorrit de Jong, Director of the Bloomberg Center for Cities, presents a compelling argument for transforming bureaucracy without abandoning the values that give it purpose. Drawing from his extensive fieldwork and academic research, de Jong asserts that bureaucracy, while often maligned, is rooted in values such as standardization, accountability, and impartiality. These principles, originally conceptualized by Max Weber, can help ensure fairness and rationality in public service—but only when they are balanced with responsiveness and innovation.
The heart of the problem, de Jong explains, lies in the misdiagnosis of bureaucratic failure. Red tape and inefficiency often emerge not because the rules themselves are inherently flawed, but because the systems built to enforce them have drifted from their core values. Standardization becomes rigidity, formalization becomes pointless paperwork, and accountability becomes risk-averse stagnation. This, he argues, is not a reason to discard bureaucracy altogether but rather a call to reimagine it.
One of the key takeaways from the article is the importance of diagnosing bureaucratic dysfunction at different levels: user experience, organizational structure, culture, and statecraft. For instance, poorly designed services frustrate users and waste resources. If those services are digitized without thoughtful redesign, the result is simply faster frustration. Instead, governments should engage in user-centered design, simplifying language, forms, and processes from the ground up. At the structural level, contradictory regulations and rigid funding streams must be reconciled through redesign and smarter metrics. For example, schools that could save tuition by sending special-needs students farther afield may be unable to do so because commuting expenses fall outside authorized budgets.
Even deeper lies the cultural dimension. De Jong emphasizes that organizations will falter unless their people are motivated, empowered, and aligned around a clear sense of purpose. Reforming culture requires more than rewriting rules—it involves clarifying public values and redefining success. Finally, he addresses statecraft, or the tools governments use to achieve their goals. This includes regulation, direct service delivery, incentives, and communication. He highlights the city of Chelsea, Massachusetts, where building inspectors—originally limited to code enforcement—were empowered to make referrals to social services, dramatically improving outcomes by integrating housing inspections with broader community health strategies.
The implications of de Jong’s work are profound. First, governments must move past surface-level reforms like digitization and instead engage in a layered, systemic diagnosis of dysfunction. Second, data and design thinking can help governments not only save money but improve quality of life. Third, collaboration across organizational and sectoral boundaries is essential to overcoming silos and finding creative solutions. And finally, public servants must be trusted and trained to take initiative within a framework that still upholds accountability.
Perhaps most powerfully, de Jong shares a story about a woman in Wales who survived domestic violence and had to navigate a maze of fragmented public services. By mapping her journey and listening to her firsthand, agencies discovered how disconnected they were from the lived experience of those they aimed to help. Her story eventually led to systemic reforms—and even a job offer from the city. This real-world transformation embodies the potential of public innovation when bureaucracy is reimagined rather than rejected.
This blog post summarizes the insights and contributions of Jorrit de Jong as featured in his March 2025 article for the Harvard Kennedy School. The original article can be found at Harvard Kennedy School's website.
Disclaimer: This blog post is a general summary for educational and informational purposes only. It is not guaranteed to be accurate, complete, or up to date, and does not constitute legal advice.
