There isn't a clear paradigm/ideology which provides a rationale for such planning and gives a clear measure of how effectively it is being carried out - i.e. to demonstrate how much value is being added by the process
Erm... do EDF, TGV, Airbus ring a bell? Why do you think that there is such a large side-dish of French-bashing in the promotion of neoliberalism? France is the inconvenient proof that strategic behavior by the State over the long run works.
It's a pity that the French elites have been to a much too large extent brought into the fold by their neoliberal cousins, and have forgotten how to defend their model, but the model is still there, and still works. And people in France know it. And foreign investors know it.
Why do you think I spend so much time debunking the myth of declining France? Because it has direct relevance. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Having worked in a major, rapidly globalising, private sector company for most of my life I am all too aware of the huge structural problems with the management systems that are developing there, and yet they are of a different order and kind to those in large public sector organisations.
The neo-lib myth of the entrepreneur entirely subject to the vagaries of the market place has about a much relevance to today's gloabalising corporations as the "log cabin to White House" myth of American Politics. You are mistaking the ideology for the reality if you think that neo-lib economics has any great understanding of how a large corporation is actually managed.
The difficulties of managing a large global business, most of the internal components and services of which have no direct exposure to any marketplace, are not all that different in kind to managing a large state organisation, but the response has been altogether more dynamic in the private sector. The notion that we can go back to 1940's style state bureaucracy to provide an alternative paradigm to neo-lib economics is reactionary, not progressive, and shows know understanding of the transformation in organisational systems that has taken place in the last 50 years - almost regardless of the economic sectors in which they are embedded.
(As an aside, there are many dimensions to globalisation - far and away more than just the focus on free movement of capital referred to earlier - and organisational development theory is only beginning to address them.) "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
The difficulties of managing a large global business, most of the internal components and services of which have no direct exposure to any marketplace, are not all that different in kind to managing a large state organisation, but the response has been altogether more dynamic in the private sector.
For example?
In my experience - even at the top end of the public service - there is huge resistance to any precise targets being set, never mind objective monitoring as to whether they have been achieved. The notion of accountability has more to do with not rocking the boat rather than with the quality and quantity of services delivered to the general public. The objective is often to achieve growth in budget allocation rather than improved quality and quantity of service.
Things are changing, but very very unevenly and slowly, and there is little structural incentive for that change to take place - not least because very few Government Ministers have a clue about running a large organisation, and can be easily sidelines or hoodwinked if they ask awkward questions. Many civil servants have nothing but contempt for their ministers and have made thwarting them into an art form. It is very easy to sabotage a politicians career if he is expected to take personal responsibility for all Departmental decisions - even those he was never properly informed about. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
precisely articulated and measurable targets
The problem, of course, with measurable targets is that very often the things that are important to performance, especially when profit isn't the bottom line, are difficult to measure. So you set targets by what can be measured, even if they're at best tangential to fulfilling the actual aims of the organisation.
A couple of examples come to mind. One is the charge that people have been alleged to be kept waiting in ambulances before being admitted to Accidents and Emergencies in order not to violate a government-imposed target that all patients should progress to a certain stage within 4 hours of admission. The other example is that, after focusing on the number of pupuls excluded from schools for 6 school days or longer, policies have been adopted that discourage schools from excluding pupils for that length of time (by making it a monetary cost for the school), as well as having Local Authority officials do their best to avoid long-term exclusions whether or not the underlying issues are addressed. The same thing happens with permanent exclusions: it is possible for the Local Authority to negotiate a voluntary transfer of a student from one school to another as a way to avert a permanent exclusion. The end effect, the pupil moving school, is the same as it would have otherwise been, but it doesn't show up on permanent exclusion statistics. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
that's cynical ;-) Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
Read any analysis of private sector charging by health economists (some of Enthoven's early work will do) and you'll see that private health care does not do half of the measurement that you are ascribing to them.
Funny how it is impossible to measure health care quality and efficiencies in the public sector - but no difficulty in charging for it in the private!
It's easy to set price. Cost-plus works fine for the purpose of the health care provider. Determining value, on the other hand, is a much stickier issue.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
From a value perspective, cost-plus is nonsense. A simple antibiotic treatment for a lung infection saves your life. It costs - at worst - € 100 and a couple of doctor's visits.
I don't know the price tag for a major cosmetic operation, but I would be very surprised if it is less than two orders of magnitude greater.
Without going too far into the value of purely cosmetic operations, I hope that we can at least agree that curing a patient of TB is more valuable than a facelift?
Further, the comparison of costs across suppliers assume a roughly comparable product and that customers are able to shop between suppliers. In many cases this is simply an invalid frame of reference. Not only is major surgery (nevermind emergency care!) a sufficiently rare event for most people that the marketplace won't work [1], there is also the issue that many aspects of pre- and post-treatment care are not (easily) comparable across facilities.
Applying the kind of metrics that you suggest to medical care is like trying to figure out the mass of the Earth by counting the number of pebbles on a beach. It's not the right way to do it. In fact, it's not even a wrong way to do it.
And don't get me started on the moral hazard of reducing citizens to "consumers" and medical professionals to "suppliers."
Don't get me wrong; I'm all for transparency and accountability. But making up insane measurements just to measure something isn't accountability. It's accountabilityness, to Colbertize a bit.
- Jake
[1] Recall that the marketplace is only self-correcting if the burnt hand can teach - if each person breaks his leg at most once or twice during a lifetime, there is no way he can amass the level of experience with the different providers of health care to make an informed choice on his own. If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
And a lot of that relied on simple things: a willingness to entrust the State with strategic planning, the attendent prestige of working for the State you're not just a bureaucrat, you're part of the elite of the country), and the ability of the government to hire the top brains in the country, via the selective Grandes Ecoles, which are specifically created to train competent administrators and engineers, and instill in them a very real sense of duty.
And it's not something from the 40s. EDF's nuclear programme was decided in the mid-70s and implemented throughout the 80s and 90s. Ditto with the TGV.
Now the people that could renew that spirit work for banks - because they're the places with money, prestige and power. Is that a good thing? Is it an irreversible one? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Now the people that could renew that spirit work for banks - because they're the places with money, prestige and power. Is that a good thing? Is it an irreversible one?
Now that idealism and endeavour, that ambition and infrastructure, must become EU and worldwide and much bolder and more ambition to transcend the "greed is good" philosophies of the Chicago school.
We're on the same side of this debate -I'm just trying to goad you into being much more positive and offensive in your approach - instead of always playing defense against the idiocies of the neo-libs. THAT'S TOO EASY FOR YOU NOW. Populations and movements are inspired not by withering critiques of what is, but by dynamic visions of what can be. The EU is one such exemplar, the UN, International court of Justice are others.
We need to be much bolder in confronting our leaders with the idiocies of the current conventional wisdom. Bush/Chaney/Blair should be indicted before the courts. Rendition flights stopped. Sanctions applied for human rights violations whether in Gitmo or Tibet. Mugabe ousted by UN intervention if necessary. MBeki challenged for his complicity. The UK told it can't join the Euro until it gets its financial services sector in order.
In short we have to make the EU/Euro such a success that the Anglo disease will be obvious for all to see. But we also have to tackle the idiocies of the public sector in many countries which will prevent popular acceptance of that model ever becoming more universal. This requires that we articulate a new model of management efficiency and accountability for that sector - yes, built on the successes to date - but also learning from the failures. Otherwise Berlusconi will keep on coming back..... "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
The notion that we can go back to 1940's style state bureaucracy
Isn't that a strawman?
to provide an alternative paradigm to neo-lib economics
Didn't you just argue that we would be mistaken in thinking that neo-lib economics had anything to do with the running of a globalising corporation? So why would we need an alternative?
the transformation in organisational systems
Is there any reason why this should be exclusive to the private sector?
Neo - liberalism appeals to the values of the small entrepreneur - who is often subject to fierce market disciplines and bitterly resents regulatory costs and perceived unfairness and inefficiencies. Large global corporations give lip services to competition, but in reality are dedicated to destroying it, by fair means or foul. They need some regulation to be able to operate and often have the power to ensure it reinforces their position and makes life difficult for new entrants or weaker rivals.
However they have also been much more effective at playing of nation states against each other and maximising their advantage. International regulation is a bit like trade unionism, which offsets the weakness of an individual vis a vis a large business through collective bargaining. It is only through a large number of states controlling access to key markets acting collectively that they have any chance of regulating global firms effectively.
There is absolutely no reason why the transformation of organisational systems should be exclusive to the private sector, and every reason why it shouldn't be. But vested interests aren't the exclusive preserve of the private sector, and we lack an informed political culture capable of ensuring the necessary, and in this case real, reforms take place so that public sector organisations can rival the private in inefficiency and effectiveness, but with respect to a much more socially and environmentally responsible set of goals. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Migeru was arguing that Keynesianism didn't fail, the neolibs didn't succeed, and the obviously solution was to go back to Keynesianism. My answer is a Yes, but... the world has changed,
And Mig and Jerome point out that Keynesianism still hasn't failed. If Keynesianism weren't viable, the economic systems that France, Denmark, Germany, Sweden and several other countries currently have could simply not exist. Thus, we can conclude that Keynes still works. Q.e.d.
