Publication of IJGHMI
Temporal Governance in Neoliberal Bureaucracies: Deadlines, Delays, and the Politics of Time
Author : Dr. Natasha K. Singh
Open Access | Volume 2 Issue 3 | Jul–Sep 2025
https://doi.org/10.63665/IJGHMI_Y2F3A004
How to Cite :
Dr. Natasha K. Singh, "Temporal Governance in Neoliberal Bureaucracies: Deadlines, Delays, and the Politics of Time", International Journal of Global Humanities and Management Insights [IJGHMI], Volume 2, Issue 3 (Jul–Sep 2025), pp. 33–41.
Abstract
Abstract - This article explores the complex temporal management of neoliberal bureaucracies, i.e., how time—by means of deadlines, delays, and timetabling—is a political and regulatory instrument. Situated within governmental debates, biopolitical debates, and sociological debates on time, the article claims that neoliberal bureaucracies manage social and economic life in terms of temporal discipline and generate efficiency and inequality. Deadlines are not just administrative devices but instruments of power, influencing behaviour, creating responsibility, and inscribing power relations. But delays and slippages expose contradictions in these time regimes, making visible the political and ethical stakes of bureaucratic time. A set of case studies—pandemic health bureaucracies, welfare provision, and public administration in times of austerity—the paper shows how differential temporal impacts fall on employees, clients, and subordinated groups, with a tendency to reproduce current hierarchies. The discussion highlights the twofold character of time mechanisms: on the one hand, as providers of efficiency and predictability, and on the other hand, as arenas of negotiation, resistance, and contest. By accentuating the politics of time, this paper offers a profound insight into the manner in which neoliberal bureaucracies deal with temporal power, and hence shape institutional outcomes and everyday life. The conclusions highlight the significance of studying temporal orders as core to the practice of modern governance and as key sites for prospective reform and ethical consideration.
Keywords
Keywords - Temporal governance, Neoliberal bureaucracy, Deadlines and delays, Time discipline, Bureaucratic authority, Politics of time, Governmentality, Institutional temporality
Conclution
Control over time in neoliberal bureaucracies is a complex phenomenon that goes beyond the straightforward management of time. As this essay has demonstrated, methods like deadlines, scheduling, pacing, and delays are not technical means of organizing organizational processes, but also power mechanisms, mechanisms of social control, and moral judgment. Time here is both message and medium: it organizes institutional processes, signals individual action, and constitutes hierarchies of authority and access. By governing temporal flows, bureaucracies internalize organizational values, govern workers and clients, and inscribe more general social disparities into the very cadence of everyday life. Deadlines are instruments of temporal control par excellence, imposing conformity, quantifying effectiveness, and generating predictable institutional consequences. Performance measuring against deadlines commodifies time as a quantifiable asset, celebrating timeliness and efficiency and punishing tardiness. Delays and drag effects, however, reveal the boundaries of institutional power, lay bare structural injustices, and open up opportunities for resistance, negotiation, and ethical deliberation. These lags are employed in order to illustrate how time management is inherently entangled with power, differentially shaping experiences for individuals situated along diverse points along bureaucratic structures. Marginalized groups wait, are limited in access, and are subject to delays, and therefore there must be a focus on productivity and efficiency along with temporal justice. Theoretical understanding is complemented by Foucault's theories of governmentality and biopolitics, which shed light on the cunning means through which temporal governance is carried out. Time is inscribed as a method of regulation, normalizing the conduct and internalizing discipline in the absence of coercion. In neoliberal bureaucracies, market-based imperatives are mixed up with temporal rationality in order to yield a culture of institution values in terms of responsibility, speed, and efficiency. Such temporal moralization puts temporal governance at the border of technical, ethical, and political issues, with organizational performance implications as well as social equity implications. The sociology of time also theorizes that time structures are socially constructed, felt unevenly, and politically charged, which mediate perceptions of legitimacy, justice, and possibility. The case studies at hand—public administration under austerity, healthcare systems under pandemics, and welfare services—demonstrate the empirical expression of temporal governance. In these contexts, temporal mechanisms are invoked to coordinate work, monitor behaviour, and discipline institutional aims. At the same time, they generate asymmetries that impact differentially on workers, consumers, and subordinated groups. These illustrations illustrate how temporal governance is a ubiquitous and powerful force, one which transcends procedure to shape social relations, ethical politics, and political orders. Generally, seeing temporal governance as a core characteristic of neoliberal bureaucracy offers acute insights into the ways in which institutions order, regulate, and disciplinaries human action and social processes. Time is not flat; it is a weapon of power, a field of moral contestation, and a vehicle for the reproduction or diminishment of inequality. This research brings to the fore implementing temporally just practices to bureaucratic everyday operations, suggesting the necessity of flexible, fair, and inclusive scheduling, deadline, and pacing practices. In highlighting the politics of time, the article enriches our understanding of governance in the here and now, where the beat of bureaucratic life becomes central to institutional functioning as well as social living.
References
[1] E.P. Thompson. (1967). Time, work-discipline, and industrial capitalism. Past & Present, 38, 56–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/past/38.1.56 [2] Barbara Adam. (1990). Time and social theory. Polity Press. [3] Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). University of Chicago Press. [4] Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–78. Palgrave Macmillan. [5] Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford University Press. [6] Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2011). Audit culture revisited: Rankings, ratings, and the reassembling of governance. Current Anthropology, 52(S3), S111–S122. https://doi.org/10.1086/657241 [7] Ball, S. J. (2012). Global education policy and management: The audit, standards, and performativity. Routledge. [8] Ezzamel, M., & Willmott, H. (1998). Accounting for teamwork: A critical study of group-based systems of organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 276–314. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553 [9] Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics (2nd ed.). Verso. [10] Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public management reform: A comparative analysis—into the age of austerity (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. [11] Ghoshal, S., & Moran, P. (1996). Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 13–47. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9602161577 [12] Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Stanford University Press. [13] Green, F., & Heywood, J. (2012). Performance pays and worker motivation in the public sector: Evidence from the UK. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(3), 597–622. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur001 [14] Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary ed.). Russell Sage Foundation. [15] Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. [16] Hochschild, A. R. (2012). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling (3rd ed.). University of California Press. [17] Ezzamel, M., Robson, K., & Stapleton, P. (2012). Accounting and time: Understanding the temporal dynamics of organizational control. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(8), 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2012.08.004 [18] Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. S. (2004). Accounting for flexibility and efficiency: A field study of management control systems in a retail organization. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21(2), 271–301. https://doi.org/10.1506/VLBM-K73U-KF2T-MY7P [19] O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2016). Sustainability accounting and accountability. Routledge. [20] Star, S. L. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioural Scientist, 43(3), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027649921955326