Final answer:
Granting independence to a bureaucratic agency can lead to less accountability and potential communication inefficiencies, but it does not imply staff replacement with every election or guaranteed loyalty to Congress over the president.
Step-by-step explanation:
The tradeoff of granting independence to a bureaucratic agency is primarily a concern of accountability for its actions. When agencies have significant independence, they may operate with less oversight from elected officials, potentially leading to actions that are less aligned with the preferences of elected bodies like Congress or the executive reflected by the president. Theoretically, a fully autonomous bureaucracy could prioritize its own processes and goals over political considerations, which might result in a perceived lack of responsiveness to changing political climates or public needs.
Another aspect of this tradeoff includes communication and efficiency. There is a potential risk that an independent agency may become less efficient due to possible communication gaps between itself, other parts of the government, and the public. Without the same degree of direct oversight and interaction, an independent agency might not adapt quickly to new directives or feedback. Additionally, staff continuity can be a concern. While independent agencies do not have staff completely replaced with each election, they do face challenges in maintaining institutional knowledge and experience over time.
Finally, independence does not necessarily equate to loyalty to one branch over another. The balance of power and allegiance can be complex, depending on the structure and mission of the agency, as well as the political context.