Interesting Financial Post bit on how the Government (in Canada) is basically clueless about how to measure Public Sector Productivity. Here's the Link. Quick thoughts: - Interesting to note that certain Public Sector standards (like stringent fairness in hiring) inhibit the Government's ability to operate with the sort of ruthless, bottom-line driven efficiency of the Private Sector. This is intuitive, but I guess that had never been clear to me. - For the most part high-ranking civil servants in the various ministries set their own benchmarks, and are then judged by whether or not they meet them. How stupid is that? If I eat 3 cheetos, I'm productive. Woo hoo productivity achieved! - If the Government isn't taking productivity seriously in their own backyard, then they really need to shut up about private sector productivity (or at least, be prepared to deal with people calling them out for their posturing). Comments like those made by Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney (who called corporate Canada cheap because they don't invest enough in R&D) is pretty hollow if all you've done to address the exact same issue in the public sector is convene a sub-committee (yawn).
It's not just the Canadian government. From the White House... So do you support allowing taxpayers to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to?
Seems a little obvious to me. Its not always an easy proposition to measure output. Fairness in hiring may ensure that economics rents aren't secured. But why would the public sector be attempting to achieve such inefficiency? Agency costs are just as problematic for the private sector. Depends on your political economic stance. If you believe in a heterodox view where capitalism is inherently unstable, then government waste is useful (and can't be compared to the private competitive sector and the impact of market competition)
Public sector productivity has no meaning. Thne public sector creates no wealth. It is a net spender of wealth. Productivity only matters when you produce something.
This makes zero economic sense. We know government creates value. We know that there isn't complete crowing-out even when producing more mundane goods.
Public sector's job is to return taxes back to the payer in the form of services. Public sector doesn't produce , it services .
First, its often difficult to separate goods and services (which explains why they're lumped together). Second, the provision of 'public goods' by government gives the game away somewhat. The clue is in the vocab!
You said value. I said wealth. The government produces nothing. It is a net spender of wealth. Public sector productivity is an oxymoron.
Flows add to the stock. This is just repetition of your original error. You've allowed a dogma to cloud your ability to craft a valid economic argument
And you have just been confused the whole time. I will repeat. Government is a net spender of wealth. Work on it for a while.
Lets say a government program is supposed to assure minority children get the same education as gifted childred. There is no way a normal child would match the gifted child (that is why they are gifted), so bringing minority children to the gifted level is clearly not achieveable. So, would success occur if the gifted were dumbed down to the same level of achievement as the minority (equality achieved)? Or, would success occur when the voters slapped government up side the head and asked why they came up with such a stupid program? Economic rents are defined as money spend above the minimum required. It seems unlikely that 10 people would have exactly the same minimum wage they would work for. So "fairness in hiring" creates economic rents.
Policy would typically be focused on ensuring equslity in value added ztand, if there is evidence of some earlier discriminatory practice, some correction in funding (with that typiucal reflecting positive externality or merit good crrieria) Payment above a reservation wage isn't rent. Indeed, payment according toreservation wages would be inconistent with economic efficiency
Basic economics. Reservation wages, due to job search frictions, are set below the 'deserved wage' (i.e. wages consistent with supply/demand criteria). Such underpayment is inefficient as its an example of the consequences of dynamic monopsony. No. Managerial overpayment will be the norm. This could be due, for example, to a principal-agent problem
What is your source for this statement? All management? The lead on a production line, a supervisor over several technicians, the engineer that has been manager for 6 months to prove herself, then finally got the title, but no pay raise?
