5 ms·

> sometimes you need to refactor the root inefficiency rather than patch the symptom. This is also my view on a lot of fintech. However... if the incumbents a

by buro9 10y ago

> sometimes you need to refactor the root inefficiency rather than patch the symptom. This is also my view on a lot of fintech. However... if the incumbents aren't doing something, then eating away at the edges may eventually either overcome the incumbents or force them into change. I don't think Stripe could replace what govts do, but I can certainly see that Stripe being successful will put them at the table to influence or direct the which the way govts do things.

philipov 10y ago
If innovation is motivated by competition, then the government having a monopoly in governmental services means they never need to innovate, unless they receive some competition. Because barriers to emigration are so high, countries don't have to compete with each other for quality of governance, and so it turns out that only the private sector can do it.
- robin_reala 10y ago
  If innovation is motivated by competition Your implication is that competition has to be with external agents. It’s perfectly possible to compete with the status quo. The private sector has a profit motive at its core: make more money for shareholders. The public sector also has a profit motive: save more money and be more effective for tax-payers. They’re both examples of efficiency, two sides of the same coin.
  - philipov 10y ago
    I don't think the public sector has the motive you claim they do. I think that in practice, the actual motivation of each department of government on every scale is to draw more funding to their own budget in a massive power struggle for slices of the societal pie. There aren't shareholders in the private sense, but the profit motive is still to grow revenues/power and get them assigned to yourself. Taxpayers don't want efficient use of funds either. From the point of view of a taxpayer, the most effective use of funds is to have them all benefit yourself. Everyone wants to maximize the piece of the pie that is assigned to them. Politicians use this as an excuse to grow the scope of government, regardless of what side you vote for. As a result, the voting apparatus does not serve to optimize government efficiency.
    - robin_reala 10y ago
      All I can say is that from within my department, and from a lower-than-senior-civil-servant level, the ground looks very different. It’s not for nothing that we have our design principles[1] that have ‘user needs’ and ‘do less’ as points 1 and 2. We absolutely need to have funding to do that, but specifically at GDS we’re part of the UK Cabinet Office’s Efficiency and Reform Group - a primary mission for us is to do more with less on a pan-government scale. To argue your second point, tax payers want an easy life. If we can cut minutes or hours off your interactions with government year on year then you’ll be happier, regardless of whether your overall burden goes up or down. [1] https://www.gov.uk/design-principles https://www.gov.uk/design-principles
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - dba7dba 10y ago
    From my experience public sector has little motivation for any kind of competition.

by buro9 10y ago

philipov 10y ago

If innovation is motivated by competition, then the government having a monopoly in governmental services means they never need to innovate, unless they receive some competition. Because barriers to emigration are so high, countries don't have to compete with each other for quality of governance, and so it turns out that only the private sector can do it.

robin_reala 10y ago
If innovation is motivated by competition Your implication is that competition has to be with external agents. It’s perfectly possible to compete with the status quo. The private sector has a profit motive at its core: make more money for shareholders. The public sector also has a profit motive: save more money and be more effective for tax-payers. They’re both examples of efficiency, two sides of the same coin.
- philipov 10y ago
  I don't think the public sector has the motive you claim they do. I think that in practice, the actual motivation of each department of government on every scale is to draw more funding to their own budget in a massive power struggle for slices of the societal pie. There aren't shareholders in the private sense, but the profit motive is still to grow revenues/power and get them assigned to yourself. Taxpayers don't want efficient use of funds either. From the point of view of a taxpayer, the most effective use of funds is to have them all benefit yourself. Everyone wants to maximize the piece of the pie that is assigned to them. Politicians use this as an excuse to grow the scope of government, regardless of what side you vote for. As a result, the voting apparatus does not serve to optimize government efficiency.
  - robin_reala 10y ago
    All I can say is that from within my department, and from a lower-than-senior-civil-servant level, the ground looks very different. It’s not for nothing that we have our design principles[1] that have ‘user needs’ and ‘do less’ as points 1 and 2. We absolutely need to have funding to do that, but specifically at GDS we’re part of the UK Cabinet Office’s Efficiency and Reform Group - a primary mission for us is to do more with less on a pan-government scale. To argue your second point, tax payers want an easy life. If we can cut minutes or hours off your interactions with government year on year then you’ll be happier, regardless of whether your overall burden goes up or down. [1] https://www.gov.uk/design-principles https://www.gov.uk/design-principles
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- dba7dba 10y ago
  From my experience public sector has little motivation for any kind of competition.