4 ms·

The problem is incentive. No one in the government has any incentive to do anything. In fact not rocking the boat is far safer than doing something new, which i

The problem is incentive. No one in the government has any incentive to do anything. In fact not rocking the boat is far safer than doing something new, which is risky. While I do wish the government would shrink heavily, another idea I have is to pay department heads a percentage of every dollar saved each year. As it stands, agencies want to increase their budget and headcount every year as that leads to prestige. If 10 cents of every dollar saved went straight to the head of the department, you would magically see millions and millions cut each year as they install better software, streamline, etc.

ip26 6y ago
Rather than efficiency, I suspect you would simply see everything dissolved. Mayor closes up shop on the spot, walks away with $1.5B, and the city no longer has a government. https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2018/03/etowah_sheriff_pocketed_over_7.html https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2018/03/etowah_sheriff_po...
jariel 6y ago
" another idea I have is to pay department heads a percentage of every dollar saved each year." We can't reasonably measure how much money is 'saved' because there would have to be some rational benchmark agains which there would be 'savings'. What you would be inducing is merely 'less spending'. The 'spending' is not the problem, it's the efficiency. We want governments to spend wherein the can be a high ROI on that spend, but not where there is less obviously. As the article hints, if SF had an amazing new subway system for it's squandered billions, that would probably be a net win. In other words what we want is 'surplus' to be generated from government spending, the 'more surplus for the dollar', the better. Because most government services are free, we don't have any direct way of measuring said surpluses (we don't in the private sector either, but assuming any degree of market efficiency than price can be a proxy for surplus). So either we have to 'guess' at the value of services created (easier for subways than for say, having 'judges'), or create some kind of direct measurement. Or perhaps levels of spending and baseline measures of output could be measured, and then held to account against other cities in the region/country and have cities more comparably 'benchmark' against one another. And finally, just transparency: if people see how much money is going where and it's popularized, published, widely disseminated, it can have a populist effect.

ip26 6y ago

Rather than efficiency, I suspect you would simply see everything dissolved. Mayor closes up shop on the spot, walks away with $1.5B, and the city no longer has a government. https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2018/03/etowah_sheriff_pocketed_over_7.html https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2018/03/etowah_sheriff_po...

jariel 6y ago

" another idea I have is to pay department heads a percentage of every dollar saved each year." We can't reasonably measure how much money is 'saved' because there would have to be some rational benchmark agains which there would be 'savings'. What you would be inducing is merely 'less spending'. The 'spending' is not the problem, it's the efficiency. We want governments to spend wherein the can be a high ROI on that spend, but not where there is less obviously. As the article hints, if SF had an amazing new subway system for it's squandered billions, that would probably be a net win. In other words what we want is 'surplus' to be generated from government spending, the 'more surplus for the dollar', the better. Because most government services are free, we don't have any direct way of measuring said surpluses (we don't in the private sector either, but assuming any degree of market efficiency than price can be a proxy for surplus). So either we have to 'guess' at the value of services created (easier for subways than for say, having 'judges'), or create some kind of direct measurement. Or perhaps levels of spending and baseline measures of output could be measured, and then held to account against other cities in the region/country and have cities more comparably 'benchmark' against one another. And finally, just transparency: if people see how much money is going where and it's popularized, published, widely disseminated, it can have a populist effect.