Also great when you want national resources managed by policy and not by cronyism. I get the modern trope that bureaucracy = bad, the whole point I'm trying to make is: the concept was first proposed as an idea of improvement in administration in the 1800s.

One half of people think that bureaucracy is bad because it's in the way of the work they are trying to get done.

The other half think it's bad because they can't steal everything that's not nailed down.

And sometimes stealing everything that's not nailed down is the way work gets done, i.e. disruption. Trying to manage this out based on some anodyne rules out of a committee makes for a perfectly harmonious but completely static, risk-averse organization of little potential.

It's like trying to censor speech. You get rid of "bad" speech but you also get no interesting speech. Is it really worth it?