3.2.「形式合理性」と「実質合理性」の矛盾

(1) 合理的組織の矛盾関係：難民条約と救援のケース

　組織での形式合理性と実質合理性の矛盾関係に関し，UNHCRのケースで理解を確実にしておこう．「難民」は「難民条約」(Conventional and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees,1951)，第1条より「人種，宗教，国籍もしくは特定の社会的集団の構成員であることまたは政治的意見を理由に迫害を受けるおそれがあるという十分に理由のある恐怖を有するため，国籍国の外にいる者であって，その国籍国の保護を受けられない者またはそのような恐怖を有するため，その国籍国の保護を受けることを望まない者」である．ゆえに国境を越えていなければ「難民」ではなく，UNHCRの救援対象にならない．

　1991年の湾岸戦争の際，180万人のクルド人がイラク軍の追撃を受け，イランやトルコに向かった．そのうち50万人がトルコ国境地帯に移動した．クルド人問題に手を焼いていたトルコ政府は入国を拒否し，避難民は国境地帯で飢えと寒さに直面した(緒方,2006:40)．国際法によって国境を超えていない「国内避難民」(internally displaced people)の救援はUNHCRの管轄外となる．イラク国内で避難民を救済すべきかの決断に迫られる．実際には救援の手が差し伸べられ，法の枠を超える実質合理的な意思決定が選択された．当時，「国内避難民」の救援には前例がなく，この判断が新しい枠組みとなり，難民保護のため国内紛争に国際的な介入が行われる端緒となった．冷戦時代，国家主権と内政干渉の問題に抵触し「国内避難民」は保護されなかった．合理的な組織では，規則の順守と規則の枠を超えるケース・バイ・ケースの判断が要請される．この矛盾関係が規則順守の形式合理的な意思決定と規則の枠を超え個別状況に適合する実質合理的なそれとの矛盾である．

(2) 形式的合理的・実質合理的な意思決定領域

『法社会学』で，ヴェーバーは「法理論の抽象的な形式主義と，法によって実質的な諸要請を充足させようとする要求との間には，避けられない矛盾」(Weber,1976:469)があると指摘し，この矛盾関係が官僚制組織の重要な問題提起となる．ヴェーバーにとって「近代」は，調停不能な形式と実質の合理性との二律背反のうえに成立する(Bendix,1977:485)．

　形式合理的な組織としての「官僚制」は秩序維持の装置である．形式合理化は，システム論の視点から，複雑性縮減の機能である．アシュビーの「必要多様性の法則｣(Law of Requisite Variety)では，システムが外部環境の複雑性の増大に適応するため，システム内部の複雑性を増大させ，システムを維持する(Ashby,1956:206-207)．「複雑性」は可能な状態の数である．市場状況の不確実性が高ければ，企業組織は，対応すべき状態の数が増大し，組織の内部の対応策の数を増大させる．外部環境の複雑性に対応するため，内部の複雑性を増大させ，同時にシステム内の秩序維持のため，内部の複雑性を縮減させる必要がある．システムと環境の境界は複雑性の格差にある．システムの内部の複雑性は規則の制定と順守によって縮減される．実質的合理的な意思決定は，規則の枠を超えるという意味で新たな選択肢を導出させ，複雑性を増大させる．

　意思決定理論でH.A.サイモンは，意思決定領域を「プログラム化される意思決定」(programed decision)と「プログラム化されない意思決定」(nonprogrammed decision)の二つの領域を区別する(Simon,1977:46)．それらは「形式合理的な意思決定」と「実質合理的な意思決定」に対応する．「制定された規則」と情報処理の「プログラム」は，どちらも論理的な意味解明が行われ，内的矛盾を含まない，形式的で抽象的な諸命題によって構成される．「プログラム」とは「複雑な課題環境に対してシステムが反応していく場合，その一連の反応を支配する詳細な処方箋あるいは戦略である」(Simon,1977:46)．意思決定は，反復的で常規的な程度に応じ，プログラム化される．「手続規則の集合こそ，定義により，プログラムそのものに他ならない」(Simon, 977:47)．

　官僚制的な管理でも，くり返し発生する問題対処のため，問題発生のたびに解決策を考え，試行錯誤する必要のないよう管理規則が制定される．逆に手続きが構造化されず，規則が制定されないのは，予測できないか，問題発生の頻度が低いか，問題の性質が深刻な場合である．このような場合，規則は制定されず，プログラム化されず，現場での状況に応じた判断と対応が要請される．

　組織管理の課題解決の一側面は，「プログラム化されない意思決定」の「プログラム化される意思決定」への変換であり(Siomn,1977:70;78;81)，意思決定の形式合理化，課業の標準化，マニュアル化，組織管理の官僚制化である．情報技術の発展は，プログラム化されない意思決定領域のプログラム化の可能性を追及し(Siomn,1977:81)，「官僚制」の適応領域を拡大する．プログラム化は，プログラムを実行する機械化から自動化され，コンピュータ制御の製造機械，AI/IoTによって工場全体が自動化される．情報技術は，処理領域を拡大，処理速度を高め，官僚制化の適応範囲を拡張する．業務の定型化，工場の自動化，AIによる労働の代替と無人化に向かう．官僚制化は標準化されたプログラムでの対応であり，イノベーティブなそれではない．問題は，「イノベーション」と「ネットワーク組織」との関係となる．

(1) The Paradox of Rational Organizations: The Case of the Refugee Convention and Relief

Understanding the Paradox of Formal and Substantive Rationality in Organizations

Let's delve into the case of UNHCR to grasp the paradoxical relationship between formal and substantive rationality within organizations. According to Article 1 of the 1951 Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, a "refugee" is defined as "a person who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, either due to race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and is unable or unwilling, owing to such fear, to avail himself of the protection of the country of his or her nationality." Therefore, individuals who haven't crossed international borders are not considered "refugees" and fall outside the scope of UNHCR's relief efforts.

During the 1991 Gulf War, 1.8 million Kurds fled the Iraqi military's pursuit, seeking refuge in Iran and Turkey. Of these, 500,000 displaced people moved to the Turkish border region. The Turkish government, already troubled by the Kurdish issue, refused entry, leaving the refugees stranded in the border area, facing starvation and harsh weather conditions (Oshita, 2006:40). According to international law, providing relief to "internally displaced persons" (IDPs) who haven't crossed international borders falls outside the mandate of UNHCR. The organization was faced with a crucial decision: whether to provide relief to IDPs within Iraq. Ultimately, humanitarian assistance was extended, demonstrating a substantive rational decision that transcended legal boundaries. At the time, there was no precedent for providing relief to IDPs, and this decision set a new precedent, paving the way for international intervention in domestic conflicts for refugee protection. During the Cold War, IDPs were not protected due to the conflict between state sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs.

Rational organizations demand both adherence to rules and case-by-case judgments that go beyond the confines of rules. This paradoxical relationship stems from the contradiction between formal rational decision-making based on rule compliance and substantive rational decision-making that adapts to individual circumstances and transcends rules.

(2) Formal Rational and Substantive Rational Decision-Making Domains

In his work on legal sociology, Max Weber pointed out the "inevitable contradiction between the abstract formalism of legal theory and the demand to satisfy substantial requirements through law" (Weber, 1976:469). He identified this paradoxical relationship as a significant issue for bureaucratic organizations. According to Weber, "modernity" is founded on an irresolvable antinomy between form and substantive rationality (Bendix, 1977:485).

"Bureaucracy" as a formally rational organization serves as a mechanism for maintaining order. Formalization, from a systems theory perspective, functions to reduce complexity. Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety states that for a system to adapt to an increasingly complex external environment, it must increase its internal complexity to maintain itself (Ashby, 1956:206-207). "Complexity" refers to the number of possible states. In a highly uncertain market environment, the number of states that a company organization must respond to increases, leading to an increase in the number of internal response measures within the organization. To cope with the complexity of the external environment, it is necessary to increase internal complexity while simultaneously reducing internal complexity to maintain order within the system. The boundary between the system and the environment lies in the difference in complexity. The complexity within the system is reduced through the establishment and adherence to rules. Substantive rational decision-making leads to new options by going beyond the rules, thus increasing complexity.

In decision theory, Herbert A. Simon distinguishes the decision-making domain into two categories: "programmed decision" and "nonprogrammed decision" (Simon, 1977:46). These correspond to "formal rational decision-making" and "substantive rational decision-making," respectively. Both "established rules" and information processing "programs" are logically interpreted and consist of formal and abstract propositions that do not contain internal contradictions. A "program" is defined as "a detailed prescription or strategy that governs a system's response to a complex problem environment" (Simon, 1977:46). Decision-making is programmed to the extent that it is repetitive and routine. "The set of procedural rules is, by definition, nothing other than the program itself" (Simon, 1977:47).

In bureaucratic management, management rules are established to address recurring problems, eliminating the need to devise solutions and experiment every time a problem arises. Conversely, procedures are not structured and rules are not established when problems are unpredictable, infrequent, or severe. In such cases, rules are not formulated or programmed, and judgment and response based on the specific situation at hand are required.

One aspect of problem-solving in organizational management is the transformation of "nonprogrammed decision-making" into "programmed decision-making" (Simon, 1977:70;78;81), which involves the formalization of decision-making, the standardization of tasks, the creation of manuals, and the bureaucratization of organizational management. The development of information technology has pursued the possibility of programming the domain of nonprogrammed decision-making (Simon, 1977:81), expanding the scope of adaptation for "bureaucracy." Programmation has evolved from mechanization to automation of program execution, with computer-controlled manufacturing machinery and AI/IoT automating entire factories. Information technology expands the processing domain, increases processing speed, and extends the scope of adaptation for bureaucratization. This leads to the standardization of tasks, factory automation, and the replacement and unmanned operation of labor by AI. Bureaucratization is a response based on standardized programs, not an innovative one. The challenge lies in the relationship between "innovation" and "network organizations."