5 ms·

I'm looking at moving to Denmark, and as part of my reading I was surprised to learn that public sector employment accounts for 40% of full time jobs. For all

I'm looking at moving to Denmark, and as part of my reading I was surprised to learn that public sector employment accounts for 40% of full time jobs. For all the bad rap it gets about being inefficient, some things really ought to be run by the government, especially when public money is involved. I find it hard to believe that a government run system could be less efficient than one that has to pay off insurance companies, recruiters, and mass marketers, all with what seems like little oversight.

dgzl 8y ago
> I find it hard to believe that a government run system could be less efficient than one that has to pay off insurance companies, recruiters, and mass marketers, all with what seems like little oversight. What makes you think that the government wouldn't also have to work through those hurdles? Government is notoriously inefficient, especially at scale. If government demands a process be done in the public sector, then there is zero competition and little innovation in the process.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Denmarks public and private sector is very efficient and have a yearly 2% effeciency demand to the public sector. But Denmark is also a small and very homogeneous country.
  - zip1234 8y ago
    Just for clarification, are you saying that they need to increase efficiency 2% each year?
    - CamTin 8y ago
      If so, how is that measured, and what are the consequences (to whom) if it isn't met?
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      Yes. It's not implemented 100% and there are exceptions but most parts of the public sector are required to find ways to do more for less every year. Obviously the idea is to use technology or better procedures. This doesn't mean that the public sector doesn't grow just that it has to be more effective with it's money.
- aninhumer 8y ago
  Competition is also inherently inefficient though. It involves having at least two organisations doing the same thing, which likely involves a lot of duplicated effort. It also leads to organisations spending money on things like advertising, which serve little purpose for the consumer, and exist only to improve their position relative to their competitor. Competition can be better in some cases, but I'm increasingly sceptical of the assumption that it's always better, since it has these downsides. And I don't think there's any inherent reason why a government organisation can't innovate, they usually just don't have the resources to risk doing anything they can't be sure will work. I suspect there are plenty of people in most government agencies who have ideas about how to make things more efficient, if only they had a bit of flexibility in their budget to try them. This is largely a political issue, not an organisational one.
  - specialist 8y ago
    Please don’t conflate competition with incentives.
- wpietri 8y ago
  > What makes you think that the government wouldn't also have to work through those hurdles? Fewer conflicting incentives, for one. I'd say that government is more legendarily inefficient, in the sense that it's something people just say without much data to back it. I've done chunks of consulting for both governments and very large companies. I don't think one is particularly more efficient than the other. The problem is more large organizations than their revenue model. One real advantage government has is a sense of mission. I've met plenty of people in public service who really do view it as service to the public. At a large company if you want a bunch of people to row in the same direction you often have to make it personally valuable to them in the sense of explaining why it's better for their careers or their wallets. In government, I've had plenty of luck appealing to a sense of purpose, of doing good for the citizenry and the people being served. If anybody would like to see for themselves, I recommend Code for America's annual conference, which is coming up at the end of the month in Oakland: http://www.cvent.com/events/code-for-america-summit-2018/event-summary-e12d85b157b94d69b80d8911cc641d36.aspx http://www.cvent.com/events/code-for-america-summit-2018/eve... The one time I went I met a lot of people who were excited about the way modern technology let them be radically more user-focused than old bureaucratic and/or computerized solutions allowed.
  - jsgo 8y ago
    anecdotal, but I worked a government contract job (with a union involved, if that matters). In that particular setting, it felt more like a "welfare with dignity" program: the work being performed only required a couple hours of each person's work day leaving excessive time to sit around. If you were a union employee and decided to work more than was necessary, well, that was very frowned upon by your peers. Didn't enjoy it so much, but it paid well and I did it while I was in college. Once I graduated, I moved off to find employment in development. I could've tried to wait for an opening for development at that place, but it had a very interesting dynamic: if you were a union employee, fellow union employees were nice to you (for the most part). If you crossed over to a management position, which application development was... it becomes a very toxic environment. Shame, really, as the people were good people outside of that weird us vs. them mentality. I have looked at the various Code for America endeavors and you're right: it does appear that people who are part of it feel very motivated by mission, so things like that are probably a very strong net good.
- zizek23 8y ago
  This anti government narrative is very simplistic. Any large organization is going to have some amount of inefficiency be it government or private. How does anyone know how inefficient or efficient any large organization is since they are all complex and different? Without transparency and proper methodology identifying areas of inefficiency, drawing sweeping conclusions either way is more an ideological position. Banks have just been bailed out with trillions of dollars, where is the efficiency. The pharma and telecom industry is routinely exposed for price gouging. And the corruption investigations against private educational institutes has recently been dropped by the current administration. These inefficiencies are simply transferred to the public in higher costs.
- specialist 8y ago
  Which corporations are as transparent, responsible, accountable, law abiding as the government of Denmark?
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "Government is notoriously inefficient, especially at scale." No more than any other similarly sized organization.
- ggg9990 8y ago
  > Government is notoriously inefficient, especially at scale. This is simply not true. It’s true for many branches of American government, partly due to the efforts of anti-tax advocates, but there are many highly effective governments worldwide.
eeZah7Ux 8y ago
> a government run system could be less efficient than one that has to pay off insurance companies, recruiters, and mass marketers ...and lawyers. Apparently many software, hardware and medical drug research companies spend more on legal fees than research (!!!). https://gizmodo.com/5949909/apple-and-google-spent-more-money-on-legal-fees-than-rd-last-year-and-google-apparently-thinks-apple-wants-it-that-way https://gizmodo.com/5949909/apple-and-google-spent-more-mone...
- specialist 8y ago
  Open markets require rules, enforcement, a fair and impartial judiciary, etc. Plutocracy, kleptocracy, laissez faire and such may be more efficient, but they’re intrinsically unfair.
- howard941 8y ago
  So as to effectively but inefficiently beat the hell out of or defend against competition by way of patent shenanigans.

dgzl 8y ago

> I find it hard to believe that a government run system could be less efficient than one that has to pay off insurance companies, recruiters, and mass marketers, all with what seems like little oversight. What makes you think that the government wouldn't also have to work through those hurdles? Government is notoriously inefficient, especially at scale. If government demands a process be done in the public sector, then there is zero competition and little innovation in the process.

ThomPete 8y ago
Denmarks public and private sector is very efficient and have a yearly 2% effeciency demand to the public sector. But Denmark is also a small and very homogeneous country.
- zip1234 8y ago
  Just for clarification, are you saying that they need to increase efficiency 2% each year?
  - CamTin 8y ago
    If so, how is that measured, and what are the consequences (to whom) if it isn't met?
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Yes. It's not implemented 100% and there are exceptions but most parts of the public sector are required to find ways to do more for less every year. Obviously the idea is to use technology or better procedures. This doesn't mean that the public sector doesn't grow just that it has to be more effective with it's money.
aninhumer 8y ago
Competition is also inherently inefficient though. It involves having at least two organisations doing the same thing, which likely involves a lot of duplicated effort. It also leads to organisations spending money on things like advertising, which serve little purpose for the consumer, and exist only to improve their position relative to their competitor. Competition can be better in some cases, but I'm increasingly sceptical of the assumption that it's always better, since it has these downsides. And I don't think there's any inherent reason why a government organisation can't innovate, they usually just don't have the resources to risk doing anything they can't be sure will work. I suspect there are plenty of people in most government agencies who have ideas about how to make things more efficient, if only they had a bit of flexibility in their budget to try them. This is largely a political issue, not an organisational one.
- specialist 8y ago
  Please don’t conflate competition with incentives.
wpietri 8y ago
> What makes you think that the government wouldn't also have to work through those hurdles? Fewer conflicting incentives, for one. I'd say that government is more legendarily inefficient, in the sense that it's something people just say without much data to back it. I've done chunks of consulting for both governments and very large companies. I don't think one is particularly more efficient than the other. The problem is more large organizations than their revenue model. One real advantage government has is a sense of mission. I've met plenty of people in public service who really do view it as service to the public. At a large company if you want a bunch of people to row in the same direction you often have to make it personally valuable to them in the sense of explaining why it's better for their careers or their wallets. In government, I've had plenty of luck appealing to a sense of purpose, of doing good for the citizenry and the people being served. If anybody would like to see for themselves, I recommend Code for America's annual conference, which is coming up at the end of the month in Oakland: http://www.cvent.com/events/code-for-america-summit-2018/event-summary-e12d85b157b94d69b80d8911cc641d36.aspx http://www.cvent.com/events/code-for-america-summit-2018/eve... The one time I went I met a lot of people who were excited about the way modern technology let them be radically more user-focused than old bureaucratic and/or computerized solutions allowed.
- jsgo 8y ago
  anecdotal, but I worked a government contract job (with a union involved, if that matters). In that particular setting, it felt more like a "welfare with dignity" program: the work being performed only required a couple hours of each person's work day leaving excessive time to sit around. If you were a union employee and decided to work more than was necessary, well, that was very frowned upon by your peers. Didn't enjoy it so much, but it paid well and I did it while I was in college. Once I graduated, I moved off to find employment in development. I could've tried to wait for an opening for development at that place, but it had a very interesting dynamic: if you were a union employee, fellow union employees were nice to you (for the most part). If you crossed over to a management position, which application development was... it becomes a very toxic environment. Shame, really, as the people were good people outside of that weird us vs. them mentality. I have looked at the various Code for America endeavors and you're right: it does appear that people who are part of it feel very motivated by mission, so things like that are probably a very strong net good.
zizek23 8y ago
This anti government narrative is very simplistic. Any large organization is going to have some amount of inefficiency be it government or private. How does anyone know how inefficient or efficient any large organization is since they are all complex and different? Without transparency and proper methodology identifying areas of inefficiency, drawing sweeping conclusions either way is more an ideological position. Banks have just been bailed out with trillions of dollars, where is the efficiency. The pharma and telecom industry is routinely exposed for price gouging. And the corruption investigations against private educational institutes has recently been dropped by the current administration. These inefficiencies are simply transferred to the public in higher costs.
specialist 8y ago
Which corporations are as transparent, responsible, accountable, law abiding as the government of Denmark?
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"Government is notoriously inefficient, especially at scale." No more than any other similarly sized organization.
ggg9990 8y ago
> Government is notoriously inefficient, especially at scale. This is simply not true. It’s true for many branches of American government, partly due to the efforts of anti-tax advocates, but there are many highly effective governments worldwide.

eeZah7Ux 8y ago

> a government run system could be less efficient than one that has to pay off insurance companies, recruiters, and mass marketers ...and lawyers. Apparently many software, hardware and medical drug research companies spend more on legal fees than research (!!!). https://gizmodo.com/5949909/apple-and-google-spent-more-money-on-legal-fees-than-rd-last-year-and-google-apparently-thinks-apple-wants-it-that-way https://gizmodo.com/5949909/apple-and-google-spent-more-mone...

specialist 8y ago
Open markets require rules, enforcement, a fair and impartial judiciary, etc. Plutocracy, kleptocracy, laissez faire and such may be more efficient, but they’re intrinsically unfair.
howard941 8y ago
So as to effectively but inefficiently beat the hell out of or defend against competition by way of patent shenanigans.