4 ms·

When running a government department there's no way to become more powerful except by getting more people. If you run your department efficiently you don't get

by mavhc 6y ago

When running a government department there's no way to become more powerful except by getting more people. If you run your department efficiently you don't get to expand and take over other markets, instead you'd lose employees under your command and get a smaller budget, the incentives are wrong

andrew_v4 6y ago
This is spot on. I have worked as a consultant doing reviews of a handful of diverse government departments, and leadership's priorities were always identical: justify headcount increases. Every one will have a presentation about the changing nature of their work, new legislation, the decline in staff vs some past golden age etc etc that shows they need more people. As you say, its 100% a function of the incentives. This is a general flaw with "command" economies where resources are based on who can argue for them best as opposed to demand for the outputs. There is a lot that can be done in terms of SLAs for operational departments and discretion to the operational side on how money gets spent, to try and come closer to a market driven system, but there is no political will for it.
- bombcar 6y ago
  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law#Formula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law#Formula for an example of this.
RobertoG 6y ago
I can only assume that you guys have not worked for big private companies. What you are saying is typical of almost any big organization, public or private.
- djbebs 6y ago
  The only difference is that in companies the people being harmed are the owners of the company, and they are the ones with the power to do something about it, either by firing the CEO, or divesting of the c9mpany and investing in its rivals. In government we all get harmed, and the only way to exit the situation is by abandoning ones homeland.
  - RobertoG 6y ago
    I suppose that's true for some countries, but in most countries you can do something about it, even if it takes a lot of work. You can vote different, join transparency organizations and so on. Small stock owners have not more power than voters, even less in some cases.
    - dominotw 6y ago
      > You can vote different Why would someone vote the same if system is clearly corrupt. Wouldn't this imply that this guy wouldn't have gotten away had people voted "different". Its peoples fault for indirectly voting for this? > Small stock owners have not more power than voters, even less in some cases. I usually simply sell the stocks of company that i no longer believe in. Thats how i vote. What do you mean by have no power. Its not mandatory for me to own certain stocks like it is mandatory for some ppl to go to a govt hospital.
      - RobertoG 6y ago
        ">>Why would someone vote the same if system is clearly corrupt." Because the system is not "clearly corrupt", it's just a human organization and it's always going to be some corruption and inefficiency (public or private). You just have to strive to improve it. ">>What do you mean by have no power. Its not mandatory for me to own certain stocks like it is mandatory for some ppl to go to a govt hospital. " In your analogy, selling stocks is basically leaving the country, that's something that you can do also normally, but probably is better to try to improve it. I believe, that big stockholders practice something called activist investment, where they push for changes. I don't think there is any country in the world where is mandatory to go to the hospital, but there is some where not hospital is available to part of the population.
        dominotw 6y ago
        > You just have to strive to improve it. You didn't address this in my previous comment and repeated it here. You are implying that this guy getting away for 15 yrs wouldn't have happened had people voted "different" and its their fault for not "striving" enough? > I don't think there is any country in the world where is mandatory to go to the hospital, but there is some where not hospital is available to part of the population. I clearly said "for some people" in my comment. Not sure why you are repeating what i just said in my own comment. "it is mandatory for some ppl to go to a govt hospital." > In your analogy, selling stocks is basically leaving the country, This is not an analogy at all. For starters, I can move my money from bad company to a good company. Almost no one in bad countries is allowed to pack up and leave to a better country. Millions of ppl would move to USA in a heartbeat if that was the case. > better to try to improve it Ugh. You keep saying this. Are you seriously suggesting that this is the result of people not joining "transparency organizations" (whatever that means). This is such weird circular logic that can never be dis proven. System is not working because we aren't trying hard enough to make it work.
- mavhc 6y ago
  Once you are large enough to control the government then you are the government, you can eliminate competition and thus have no incentive to be efficient.

by mavhc 6y ago

andrew_v4 6y ago

This is spot on. I have worked as a consultant doing reviews of a handful of diverse government departments, and leadership's priorities were always identical: justify headcount increases. Every one will have a presentation about the changing nature of their work, new legislation, the decline in staff vs some past golden age etc etc that shows they need more people. As you say, its 100% a function of the incentives. This is a general flaw with "command" economies where resources are based on who can argue for them best as opposed to demand for the outputs. There is a lot that can be done in terms of SLAs for operational departments and discretion to the operational side on how money gets spent, to try and come closer to a market driven system, but there is no political will for it.

bombcar 6y ago
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law#Formula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law#Formula for an example of this.

RobertoG 6y ago

I can only assume that you guys have not worked for big private companies. What you are saying is typical of almost any big organization, public or private.

djbebs 6y ago
The only difference is that in companies the people being harmed are the owners of the company, and they are the ones with the power to do something about it, either by firing the CEO, or divesting of the c9mpany and investing in its rivals. In government we all get harmed, and the only way to exit the situation is by abandoning ones homeland.
- RobertoG 6y ago
  I suppose that's true for some countries, but in most countries you can do something about it, even if it takes a lot of work. You can vote different, join transparency organizations and so on. Small stock owners have not more power than voters, even less in some cases.
  - dominotw 6y ago
    > You can vote different Why would someone vote the same if system is clearly corrupt. Wouldn't this imply that this guy wouldn't have gotten away had people voted "different". Its peoples fault for indirectly voting for this? > Small stock owners have not more power than voters, even less in some cases. I usually simply sell the stocks of company that i no longer believe in. Thats how i vote. What do you mean by have no power. Its not mandatory for me to own certain stocks like it is mandatory for some ppl to go to a govt hospital.
    - RobertoG 6y ago
      ">>Why would someone vote the same if system is clearly corrupt." Because the system is not "clearly corrupt", it's just a human organization and it's always going to be some corruption and inefficiency (public or private). You just have to strive to improve it. ">>What do you mean by have no power. Its not mandatory for me to own certain stocks like it is mandatory for some ppl to go to a govt hospital. " In your analogy, selling stocks is basically leaving the country, that's something that you can do also normally, but probably is better to try to improve it. I believe, that big stockholders practice something called activist investment, where they push for changes. I don't think there is any country in the world where is mandatory to go to the hospital, but there is some where not hospital is available to part of the population.
      - dominotw 6y ago
        > You just have to strive to improve it. You didn't address this in my previous comment and repeated it here. You are implying that this guy getting away for 15 yrs wouldn't have happened had people voted "different" and its their fault for not "striving" enough? > I don't think there is any country in the world where is mandatory to go to the hospital, but there is some where not hospital is available to part of the population. I clearly said "for some people" in my comment. Not sure why you are repeating what i just said in my own comment. "it is mandatory for some ppl to go to a govt hospital." > In your analogy, selling stocks is basically leaving the country, This is not an analogy at all. For starters, I can move my money from bad company to a good company. Almost no one in bad countries is allowed to pack up and leave to a better country. Millions of ppl would move to USA in a heartbeat if that was the case. > better to try to improve it Ugh. You keep saying this. Are you seriously suggesting that this is the result of people not joining "transparency organizations" (whatever that means). This is such weird circular logic that can never be dis proven. System is not working because we aren't trying hard enough to make it work.
mavhc 6y ago
Once you are large enough to control the government then you are the government, you can eliminate competition and thus have no incentive to be efficient.