The idea that government should be run like a business is gaining popularity amongst the technocrat. But this betrays a basic misunderstanding of the roles of the private and public sector. We should no more want the government to be run like a business than a business to be run like the government. Those popularizing this notion feel this way because they see business as more efficient. This must be the case, so the logic goes, or the entity in question would lose market share and go bankrupt. Only the fit survive. Meanwhile, government agencies face no backlash. This is why we have long lines to get driver’s licenses, inferior returns on investment from social security such as TAP, etc, etc. Were there a choice on where to be licensed to drive, then such offices would forced to make the customer’s experience a positive one or they would go elsewhere. There are, of course, many businesses that also make the customer’s life very unpleasant because simply being in the private sector does not guarantee effective competition such as the mobile phone provider. And there are government agencies, like police and fire departments, where their dedication to duty has nothing to do with profit. They put their lives on the line every day because they think it’s the right thing to do. But while we might all grant that there are exceptions, the general question still stands: does it make sense to run government like a business? The short answer is no. Bear in mind, first, that “efficiency” in the private sector means profit. Hence, to ask that the government be run like a business is tantamount to asking that the government turn a profit. The problem in a nutshell, is that not everything that is profitable is of social value and not everything of social value is profitable. Reality TV, fashion, sports and etc are all of questionable social value, but each is quite profitable and exists in the private sector. Meanwhile, few would argue that the Army, Navy, Air Force, police department, fire department, libraries, parks, and public schools are of no social value, and yet they could not exist if they were required to be profitable. Imagine maintaining a standing military by selling subscriptions door-to-door: “Hello, my name is Captain Bla Bla and I represent the Army. Are you afraid of foreigners? Would you like guaranteed protection against invasion, pillaging, enslavement, and more? Please see our brochure for our three levels of service.” There would, of course, be a few subscribers, but nothing approaching the level necessary to truly protect a country from attack. To reiterate, the key issue is this: not everything that is profitable is of social value and not everything of social value is profitable. The proper role of government is the latter. Those arguing for a business model for government must necessarily be ready to shut down all government functions that do not earn a profit, regardless of their contribution to our well being. And, if the public sector is being run properly, that should mean every single one. If it’s profitable, they shouldn’t have been doing it in the first place. There is no need for the government to start a chain of hamburger stands, hardware stores, or coffee shops. Rather, they run child protective services, the Libararies, and the Air Force. Profit is the realm of business, while unprofitable but socially useful tasks is the responsibility of government. This is not to say that every government agency is actually performing a useful public service or that it is not wasting resources (by whatever standard). Nor am I arguing that there are not many private sector activities that add greatly to our well being. The point, however, is that saying that government is inefficient because it does not turn a profit is the equivalent of saying that football coach is a poor striker because he doesn’t score enough goals. He’s not supposed to.
Posted on: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:28:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015