Why "cutbacks" - why not chase Public Sector efficiency ?

[cyberianpan]

The government is framing everything in terms of cutbacks and implying that we are going to have reduced public services. We're all aware that some bad practices & inefficiencies have built up over the years in most areas of the public service. Stories of where efficiencies were achieved but new duties created from thin air for staff with nothing to do etc.

There's always been vested interests against serious efficiency and there's a natural human resistance to change. However now is the time that these changes can be got through ? Blunt cutbacks are just lazy.

What is needed is increased efficiency and if staff are surplus well then some redundancies or get them to agree to genuinely new duties - e.g. say if some clerical workers in Agriculture are found to be surplus move them to Social Welfare Dole processing (which is expanding !!).

This is a once in a lifetime chance to reform the Public Service - will the government squander that also ?

cYp

[PhoenixIreland]

Isn't looking at public sector reform as a universal silver bullet to every economic problem just as lazy?

I do agree that cutbacks are short sighted, they just stop the bleeding they don't do anything to heal the injury causing it.
We need a totally new economic plan, to build our economy on a more stable foundation, not another glorified ponzi scheme as it was the last decade.
If we start planning properly now, investing in education and infastructure and finding a niche in the global economy that few or no other countries have, we could be on a very stable foundation in 5-10 years, Irish govts have never had much long term perspective though.

We need some figures here not just rethoric.

How many public servants are (genuinely) surplus to requirements? How much would sacking them save (taking into account the Social Welfare we'd be paying them)

Public sector is more longterm than cutbacks but still is only part of whats needed.

[cyberianpan]

Isn't looking at public sector reform as a universal silver bullet to every economic problem just as lazy?


We need some figures here not just rethoric.

How many public servants are (genuinely) surplus to requirements? How much would sacking them save (taking into account the Social Welfare we'd be paying them)

Broadly agree but would point out that it's not as simple as identifying someone as "surplus". What is needed to to examine the whole process and service provided and see if it can be made more efficient (lean and mean).

That's hard work but I do know that for example the Department of Social Welfare are trying/piloting such change. And Cowen seems to imply that not all the cutbacks will happen in 2009. I think we have time to try for some serious reform here - a win win.

cYp

[Factorem]

We need to reduce the tentacles of government, I believe, in the spirit of libertarianism

There are so many areas of society where they simply should not be getting involved. For example: all the useless airy-fairy quangos and all the useless ITs around the country.

[cyberianpan]

We need to reduce the tentacles of government, I believe, in the spirit of libertarianism

There are so many areas of society where they simply should not be getting involved. For example: all the useless airy-fairy quangos and all the useless ITs around the country.

Indeed but we've to carefully identify which are needed

But back to my original point:

1) Lazy politician listens to Sir Humphrey:
And a cutback of 10% will mean a 10% reduction in service

2) Cute politician listens to the young turk in the Department
Let me off and do these 6 improvement projects, I think we can shave 8% and deliver better service ... then you can cut off the extra 2% and we'll end up with same amount of service but for 10% less

Scenario 2 is riskier - and will take political courage...

cYp

[Bobert]

Would you say, cYp, that Scenario 2 would be a courageous decision?

[cyberianpan]

It would and some public servants are up for it

cYp

[Bobert]

You will remember though, that the reason it would be a courageous decision for the minister who makes it...

[ArtyQueing]

Indeed but we've to carefully identify which are needed

But back to my original point:

1) Lazy politician listens to Sir Humphrey:
And a cutback of 10% will mean a 10% reduction in service

2) Cute politician listens to the young turk in the Department
Let me off and do these 6 improvement projects, I think we can shave 8% and deliver better service ... then you can cut off the extra 2% and we'll end up with same amount of service but for 10% less

Scenario 2 is riskier - and will take political courage...

cYp

Won't happen then - will it?

[cyberianpan]

Won't happen then - will it?

Not so sure...

Cowen doesn't have much courage ... Lenihan actually does ... will be interesting to watch him, imho he's doing well and improving....

But he'll have to take a big risk with this one and to gain on efficiency will have to bring in the dreaded "consultants" / external expertise.

cYp