Defining Electronic Bureaucracy and Bureaucratism

Introduction: The widespread adoption of information technologies and artificial intelligence (AI) in society and organizations reshapes management and decision-making processes, driving increased informatization and automation. Public administration is no exception. The transition to electronic government (e-government) aimed to enhance service quality, transparency, and efficiency, with the goal of reducing bureaucracy and bureaucratism. However, practical experience reveals that while information technologies were initially seen as tools to streamline bureaucratic processes, they often give rise to automated, electronic, or digital bureaucracy. This digital transformation has not necessarily simplified interactions with the state; instead, it has introduced new complexities, such as navigating intricate online forms and coping with system failures—frustrating experiences for users. Consequently, the issue of bureaucratism has migrated to the digital realm, prompting the need for precise definitions of e-bureaucracy and e-bureaucratism. Despite extensive scholarly exploration, consensus remains elusive. For instance, e-bureaucracy is characterized as the automation of traditional bureaucratic actions using AI and algorithms. This paper aims to bridge this gap by proposing clear definitions and examining how e-bureaucracy and e-bureaucratism manifest in the digital age, shedding light on their broader impact within public administration and governance. Content: This qualitative study aims to define electronic bureaucracy and bureaucratism, identifying signs of bureaucratization in the e-governments of Russia, Ukraine, and Poland. Using grounded theory and autoethnography, the author’s personal experiences in 2021 serve as primary data. Despite varying development levels, these e-governments share issues of complexity and user-unfriendliness. Common bureaucratic traits identified include specialization, strict rules, impersonality, and hierarchy. Duplication, rigid protocols, and impersonal interactions hinder efficiency. E-governments, mirroring traditional bureaucracies, show bureaucratic inefficiencies leading to bureaucratism, characterized by alienation, ritualism, and inertia. Signs of e-bureaucratism include duplicated actions, unfinished solutions, formalism, poorly designed interfaces, unnecessary procedures, irrelevant offerings, limited choices, lack of personalization, detachment from users, and excessive complexity. The study found that e-governments have not eliminated bureaucracy but transformed it digitally, necessitating improvements to align with Weber’s ideal bureaucracy principles and enhance the overall user experience. Conclusion: An examination of e-government services in Ukraine, Russia, and Poland reveals enduring bureaucratic traits, including specialization, strict rules, impersonality, and hierarchy. Despite the digital transformation, e-bureaucracies still inherit negative aspects from traditional bureaucracies. E-bureaucracy is defined as a rational-based management system that utilizes AI and computer-assisted data processing to enhance decision-making, service delivery, and communication. E-bureaucratism refers to practices within e-bureaucracies that hinder efficiency and effectiveness, such as alienation, ritualism, and inertia. These practices result in a loss of flexibility and weaken the connection with the external environment, ultimately leading to organizations failing to effectively meet their clientele’s needs. The findings suggest that merely digitizing bureaucratic processes is insufficient. A more effective approach involves leveraging modern technologies like blockchain and creating new systems through public-private partnerships, allowing digitalization and deregulation to coexist. This study underscores the need for modern organizational theories to focus on combating bureaucratization and e-bureaucratism, rather than solely adopting digital tools. The definitions for e-bureaucracy and e-bureaucratism aim to contribute to academic discourse and improve the efficiency of future bureaucratic systems.