Saturday, March 15, 2008

Performance & Civil Service

I admit a large degree of ignorance on the subject since all I know is second hand… but…One of the biggest problems I see with Government Services is the lack of distinguishing between top performers and poor performers.

I am not sure those in the civil service have proper, regular performance appraisals. There are no `bonuses’ to be paid for superior performance, and often seniority is based primarily on time spent.

I would imagine this only leads to bitterness. Is someone in the civil service really incentivized to work hard?

This probably supports the idea of not having government institutions if possible. But is this practical…

1) Could everyone receive health credits to `purchase services’ from private hospitals. There would obviously need to be hospitals with different target. The problem with this is the `moral feeling’ that decent health care should be available for everyone. The other problem is believing that this should be the case, doesn’t make it the case.
2) Licensing of Cars etc. would still be necessary for policing… not sure this could be privatised.
3) No Government Schools, just issue children with `vouchers’ for only private schools?
Etc.

Most examples leave the feeling government services are needed to make sure everyone has access. However, often the access is poor.

What is the bear minimum Government that you would need?

17 comments:

TLT said...

I worked in the civil service - it was horrible. There are regular performance appraisals and there are bonuses but they are quite small and it is perceived that they are awarded unfairly.

Problems that I could see: the structures were too rigid to allow inovation, most people didn't actually care about the job they were doing, people thought they were being paid too little (despite doing no work and having no pressure), everyone believed they were the object of racial prejudice (whether black, white or coloured), the sense that you could never get fired no matter what, that there was low turnover of people higher up the ladder so no space to move up, the perception that even if you worked hard you wouldn't get the job because of your skin colour, or conversely that because of your skin colour you must get the job, the belief that people owe you something even if you don't work hard, an authoritarian type management style that doesn't allow creativity and responsibility, and at the same time a lack of discipline, poor leadership, poor education levels, a feeling that you're not accountable for your work.

Sounds like a lot problems doesn't it? I suppose they could be ranked or generalized.

Greg Torr said...

You need to be clear what exactly you're talking about. Is it,
1) the issue of who provides the service (i.e. government or private sector); overall amount of funding by government remains the same (e.g. via vouchers)
2) the issue of whether government should be funding these services at all?

You are clearly aware of the distinction between the two issues, because you mention credits and vouchers. But then you seem to blur it with comments such as "decent health care should be available to everyone" and "government services are needed to make sure everyone has access". Advocates of private provision would argue that the private sector is better able to provide decent health care. And you can change the second statement to "government funding for services is needed to make sure everyone has access".

Trevor Black said...

I think the issues Tracy brings up are all valid. I sometimes wonder (note the speeling Stu) why Government Services can't be efficient... is it simply because of the lack of a profit motive? I would think that if the Government sector instituted best practice learnt from the Private Sector they could do a far better job.

That being said, I am not so sure they would do it as well as if there was a profit motive.

BUT, not everything is profitable. I do think public goods would suffer.

Greg,

For me, the problem is one of efficiency, not of whether they should be providing it at all.

So yes...

1) Will the Private Sector be more efficient at providing services traditionally provided by government.

2) Government Funding for services is needed to make sure everyone has access.

I am also not an advocate of reducing governments role completely. If you compare a country to a business, it would make no sense for a business to be run `by the invisible hand'...

A central, co-ordinated strategy and prioritisation process is vital. You can't just let the strongest Divisional Managers do their thing at the expense of others.

The Profit drive leads to focussed efficiency, BUT I am not sure it leads to the best `Big Picture'.

Appologies Greg if I am `mixing ideas', but I tend to just write the thoughts as they come out :-)

Stuart said...

Government officials are better in other countries so its obviously possible to do better. But even in the best places there's still irritating quirks. And of course, doing something poitless is still pointless aven if you're doing it well.

The efficiency issue is an empirical one, surely we should be frantically citing examples that back up our predjudices??

We really shouldn't be comparing a country to a business because it's not one. Management issues are not the same.

"A central, co-ordinated strategy and prioritisation process is vital."

It is? Why?

What is the big picture?

I'm totally impressed by your newly improved speeling.

mutt said...

Could you elaborate on the licensing thing?

Trevor Black said...

I just don't buy that parts working with specific focus can be as efficient as co-ordination.

Example: China

Say what you want about stepping on peoples rights etc. Moving hundreds of thousands of people to build a dam (for example) would not be possible without co-ordination, and a central powerful Government.

I still believe the most effective form of governance would be a Benevolent Philosopher Dictator who deligated authority.

This is not possible for many reasons.

Profit is a great motive, and I think capitalism is pretty effective... but the big picture sometimes gets lost... the grand improvements

"We really shouldn't be comparing a country to a business because it's not one." "Management issues are not the same."

If it was one, I wouldn't compare them.

We shouldn't compare an apple to a banana because an apple isn't a banana?

"Management issues are not the same."

Yes, there are differences... but I still think lessons can be learnt and copied from effective businesses.

Trevor Black said...

Licensing... in terms of identification needed for law enforcement.

mutt said...

Whoa. Say what you want? are we saying this kind of stuff is remotely ok? it's a good thing if government cant do things like that.

Pro-market theory doesn't rely on the inevitable corruption of ruling class for it to claim superiority. Markets aggregate information about relative scarcity of resources. centralised authority and control without destrying this information. The shortages that are standard in ALL control economies are not just a result of evil or incompetent governments.

I also like the idea of a benevolent dictator, one that would a lid on all the stupid things democracies want to do.

Analogies are useful when there are structural similarities. the economy as a whole and individual businesses are so different I don't know how constructive such comparisons are (they are often destructive).

You're right about the invisible hand within a company, it wouldn't work.

What is the big picture? what are these grand improvements? that kind of talk scares me. what are some examples?

mutt said...

I meant, could you elaborate on why its needed for law enforcement?

Trevor Black said...

"Whoa. Say what you want? are we saying this kind of stuff is remotely ok? it's a good thing if government cant do things like that."

I guess I think things like that (e.g. we are moving you) are ok if the consequences are good. For example, forcing people to move because we want to build the Gautrain is not a bad thing in my opinion, if they are fairly compensated. If this was just left up to `market forces', someone could just say, No, I am not moving.


" the economy as a whole and individual businesses are so different I don't know how constructive such comparisons are (they are often destructive)."

I disagree. Many of Tracy's concerns have direct parallels in business, and could benefit from business principles.

1) Allowing Innovation
2) Appropriate Financial Incentives
3) Accountability
4) Career Planning & Development
5) Fair Treatment
6) People Management Skills
7) Discipline
8) Continuing Education and Training

I think someone who learns their trade as a business person would do far better in improving government efficiency than someone who grows up make political speeches and then is made minister of a department and suddenly has to be an efficient administrator. I think the comparison is completely valid.

"What is the big picture? what are these grand improvements? that kind of talk scares me. what are some examples?"

The same reasons why a benevolent dictator would be more effective. I still have a feeling that co-ordination of activity works better than hap-hazard activity.

Trevor Black said...

licensing for law enforcement...

Example:

How do you trace a vehicle for speeding fines if it does not have identification?

How do you stop cars that are not road worthy?

mutt said...

Oooooooooooooohhhh...

I seeeee. Saying things like, "If you compare a country to a business, it would make no sense for a business to be run `by the invisible hand'..." it implies that we're comparing business and a country or a whole economy. If you mean government, then thats different. Good business practice would be helpful for government I'm sure.

I honestly had no idea that our world views were so fundamentally differnt.

Trevor Black said...

Well good then, it makes for more interesting discussion.

I am not convinced they are so different. I am also not convinced my world view is all that well defined.

In fact, I know I have far more questions and uncertainties than strong opinions.

mutt said...

This thread is actually a good illustration of how talk of dignity, human rights and other hooray words don't get us that far in discussions.

In my view forced relocations are a massive human rights violation, and refusing to sell your house to the for a "reasonable" price is the right way to go, with only a hearty "fuck you" for the government.

I'm no fan of the Gautrain.

Police can just stop speeding cars and cars that are not roadworthy. I don't get the problem....

Trevor Black said...

How easy is it to stop a car speeding past you at 300km an hour?

People are more scared of the cameras.

As to property rights... that is another question I would like to work out.

Why does sticking a post in the ground and claiming the land to be yours make it so?

I get that you should be able to rent land.

Anonymous said...

Tracy will love that. Who's land should it be? The "peoples"? If the land is considered theirs or not has a pretty profound effect on peoples live and the general level of prosperity. Taking extra loans out on the house investing in inproving the property and adding value.

There are philosophical justifications for privately owned property, though there are of course objections.

Greg Torr said...

This discussion is all over the place, so these comments are in a similar vein...

I haven't given enough thought to the forced removal thing. At the very least, the compensation system should be EXTREMELY skewed to the person being forced off e.g. three, four, five times market value. But maybe Stuart's right and it shouldn't be allowed at all.

I agree government could be improved by adopting practices that have worked successfully in business (e.g. incentivisation). More use of market mechanisms would help a lot too.

However, that's a different issue from the question of the extent to which government should be involved in the economy (providing goods and services such as education, electricity etc).

I think there is only a limited class of goods and services, with specific characteristics, that government should provide (e.g. national security, legal framework). For the rest, they should leave it to the private sector. They are perfectly welcome to give money to people to pay for these services. This is just redistribution of income. I favour giving people maximum possible freedom to do what they want with this money e.g. if the govt gives them R10,000 for healthcare, don't force them spend it on healthcare. So, basically, I favour an unconditional income grant for everyone. But the details can be debated. It's not quite as important as the issue of who provides the goods and services.

Trevor, you appear to be flirting with communism, what with advocating state control of the economy, and questioning property rights.

When it comes to law enforcement, I favour the "catching people once they've done something wrong" method, rather than the "clamp down on everyone, so no-one has the opportunity to do anything wrong" method. The latter entails too much curtailment of freedom. Obviously there are limits e.g. some curtailment of freedom is necessary to prevent large-scale terrorism.