The first well-known English use dates from 1818, with the Irish writer Lady Morgan referring to the apparatus used by the British to use their Irish colony as “the bureaucracies or bureautrannei that had governed Ireland for so long.”  In the mid-19th century, the word appeared in a more neutral sense, referring to a system of public administration in which the functions of unelected career public servants were held. In this context, “bureaucracy” was seen as a form of administration in its own right, often subordinate to a monarchy.  In the 1920s, the German sociologist Max Weber broadened the definition of an arbitrary administrative system, run by professionals trained according to fixed rules.  Weber saw a relatively positive development in the bureaucracy; However, in 1944, the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, in the context of his experience in the Nazi regime, considered that the notion of bureaucracy had been “always applied with an opprobrious connotation” and in 1957 the American sociologist Robert Merton considered that the term “bureaucrat” had become, in certain circumstances, an “epithet, a dirty word”.  The word “bureaucracy” is also used in politics and government with a disapproving tone to denigrate official rules that make things difficult to do. [By whom?] In the workplace, the word [from whom?] is very often used to accuse complex rules, processes and written works that make it difficult to do anything.  Socio-bureaucracy would then refer to certain social influences that may influence the function of a society.  Table 1. Scientific and political expertise of political bureaucrats.
50If this argument that expertise in the world of bureaucratic politics is not automatically synonymous with power is right, where is the range of theoretical approaches that underlie adoption? Perhaps one of the reasons for tenacity is that expertise provides power to bureaucrats, that some of the classic statements about the nature of bureaucratic power – such as the work of James Burnham (1942) and especially Mr. Weber (1972) – have given it such an emphasis. While it makes little sense to reconsider Burnhamite`s theory in this regard, given that its central premise of adapting Marxist development analyses is almost no change of money, to what extent do these conclusions undermine woven approaches that remain central to a wide range of contemporary conceptions of the role of bureaucracy? The integrity of Weber`s theory is not lost much if one merely argues that Weber overestimated the centrality of the Prussian system of education, training and recruitment in modern bureaucratic systems. The rationality of bureaucracy and the predictability and predictability of state actions, which make bureaucracy indispensable to the development of modern capitalism, are hardly influenced by the extent to which bureaucrats are “experts”. While Mr Weber shows a great way of playing that bureaucracy is the mastery of knowledge, he points out elsewhere that a technically competent civil servant is not a prerequisite for bureaucracy: “Technical reviews […] are not an indispensable companion to bureaucratization. The bureaucracy in France, England and America has long managed to live without it, for the most part or completely… (Weber, 1972, p.