> This is why a competent and well staffed bureaucracy is so important.
Try: "This is why a competent and well staffed science institute is so important."
Bureaucracy not required.
Try: "This is why a competent and well staffed science institute is so important."
Bureaucracy not required.
a couple university students in a van going around releasing flies every 10 miles is not a bureaucracy, nor a stand in for a bureaucracy
I did, and I have previously read an article in (iirc) The Atlantic about the screwfly program when it was working. It was a monumental effort to push screwflies back to the Darien Gap, involving widespread coordination of cattle ranchers and government workers, constant flyovers of planes dropping huge numbers of sterile flies, and a massive breeding program.
Two university students in a van can get about as much done as it sounds like. Some problems require coordination, government involvement, and yes, the organization — i.e., bureaucracy — that implies.
(Edit: it was The Atlantic, not The New Yorker. Comment further down has the link, but here it is: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/05/flesh-ea...)
Sounds just like "enterprise" IT to me, tbh.
This is why some people are optimistic about recent efforts at doing the same in government bureaucracy. It's possible to trend upwards.
Honestly the main problem is the fed gov has terrible pr.
Everything I know how to do is complicated and people don't understand why it's complicated. Everything else is obviously excess bureaucracy and could be done with a LLM running on a ZX80.
It is incredibly challenging to create orgs that reliably stay on-mission over many years.
As for the terrible salaries and mountains of political crap, that's the real issue here. But these are changeable and shouldn't just be accepted as inevitable as is so often done by defenders of government bureaucracy.
Do they?
The first two results on Google for "government vs private efficiency" are https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/publicati... and https://www.epsu.org/article/public-and-private-sector-effic..., which both suggest that it is a myth that companies are inherently more efficient than government.
It's also worth mentioning that governments and companies inherently must operate differently. Governments are not set up to recoup investment; in fact, proponents of small government (as opposed to no government) generally recognize that the role of government is to assist in preventing "tragedy of the commons" by funding initiatives and programs that fundamentally do not make sense for a single market player to address. I.e. government helps when there isn't a good path for a single market player to see a good/reliable economic and market-competitive return from their investment.
Yeah, if you examine only utilities and monopolies they are not more efficient than the government. That's not a surprise because they don't face competition and are heavily politically controlled.
EDIT: s/accept/consider
Not anymore. Great many now believe that there should be no commons, that everything should be owned by someone and leased back to those who use it. Such people see it as the duty of government to efficiently disperse the commons to the highest bidders. Those bidders will then "protect" their asset by ensuring it is put to the highest economic use.
Have you… never worked for a large company? They’re incredibly inefficient! And also, the staff cost a whole lot more.
Of the ones that survive[1], some may be more efficient, but whether they remain efficient, effective and extant in the long term is not a given.
Wait a couple of years, and then maybe.
Now, the problem is that if you alienate your neighbours they stop wanting to play nice. Also, bureaucracies do not work when you fire civil servants indiscriminately. It’s not the bureaucracy doing this, it’s the guy who told you that the country would work better without it.
Plenty of evidence has been piling up with regarding to it.
Feel free to down-vote, does not make your Nanny State any more efficient. :D
You should read more about economics. I can give you resources.
What do you think the optimal system would be in that specific case? If you could design it, how would it look? It doesn't have to be realistic, but like an ideal system of justice. Are there any precedents you think are ideal or is there something you have in mind that would make it work better?
If you haven't thought about the consequences of tearing down parts of the system and what will replace those parts, than I think the entirety of your conclusions about this matter should be disregarded and I think most everyone reading this would agree.
First we would have to determine what you and I mean by bureaucracy. It does sound good, who does not like organization? Problem is, if you ever worked for the Government, or dealt with them in some meaningful way, you should have realized it is not so.
I truly hope you will not be caught up in the meat machine of the Government.
Oh my, people complaining about bureaucracy!
Bureaucracy, as per Weber, is nothing but the rational and impersonal administration of resources and exists in any sufficiently large institution, private or public. It is in fact so efficient that it is omnipresent to the point of being the defining feature of modernity, having replaced familial, personal or arbitrary rule.
Whether it's the old aristocracies of Europe replaced by the Prussian state, workshops replaced by Fordist factories, Guanxi in China replaced by modern administration, all of that is simply introduction of formal management and organization, i.e. bureaucracy.