Government Efficiency and Network Theory 108
Science News reports on a study relating (in a loose way) the efficiency of a national government with the size of its cabinet. Researchers in Vienna found that the development level of countries, as a proxy for the efficiency of their governments, is in general lower for countries with more members in the national cabinets. They then went on to model cabinet members as nodes in a network and found support for the observed correlation. There was even specific evidence for the decades-old observation of English historian Cyril Northcote Parkinson that decision-making is severely impaired in committees of more than 20 people. The US is getting close to Parkinson's cutoff, at 17.
Well, that explains... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and the corruption of course.
Re:Well, that explains... (Score:5, Insightful)
Efficiency, ultra-violence, ultra-realism and secret prison camps. Gee, where does this all lead?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slavery is a good deal more efficient than negotiating with unions.
Actually, unions are more efficient. In general, it is more efficient to get the worker to voluntarily do things than to impose those conditions upon the worker. This is why the north was more developed than the south; the US was more developed than the USSR; the Renaissance occurred after the bubonic plague and its inroads on serfdom.
Slavery sounds like it should be more efficient, because theoretically the master can demand anything from the slave. However, in practice, the cost of enforcement demande
Re: (Score:2)
National governments (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:National governments (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This is particularly true... (Score:5, Informative)
Not so. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:National governments (Score:4, Interesting)
The big problem with this is that it's assuming the government has significant control over literacy, wealth and life expectancy. Literacy and life expectancy are strongly related to wealth, and wealth is related to a bunch of geographical factors. I didn't read the study, but did it compare a country only to its neighbors/other countries on its continent? Because it should have. Also, is there any way to separate causation and correlation here?
Perhaps Weak Country -> Weak Government -> Political Mayhem -> Large Committees of People With Divergent Opinions.
P.S. Be suspicious of any political/social science research done by physicists.
Re: (Score:2)
sounds like something I should model (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.democracygame.com/ [democracygame.com]
It already represents ministers as nodes in a neural network.
Can't say it surprises me in the least tbh.
Re: (Score:1)
http://www.democracygame.com/ [democracygame.com]
What, no Linux version? Does it at least run well under Wine?
Re: (Score:2)
What, no Linux version? Does it at least run well under Wine?
It's a shame because it sounds like a quite interesting concept.
If you, or the author, want to help the wine compatibility issues, look at http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=application&iId=6868 [winehq.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Cheers!
Re: (Score:2)
The Legion (Score:1, Funny)
Government inefficiency is good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Is that why Geordi constantly needed to reverse the polarity, the components probably being russian?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Government inefficiency is good. (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, no, it's the opposite, when they say "Yes", they mean "No".
No, wait, it's "Yes" when they say "Yes".
Anyway, in soviet Russia, unlike you, we men do perfectly understand women.
Re: (Score:2)
Since extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, I would like to present exhibit A:
Vodka Kreskova commercial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvIGy9w0K4s [youtube.com]
In Medvedev's Russia (Score:2)
(trust me, that one works at more than one level)
Re:Government inefficiency is good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Dictatorships don't tend to get more done, they just try to do less. Perhaps that is efficient in some sense but not, I think, in a particularly useful one.
You are right though, for governmental systems that are somewhat more answerable to the public inefficiency is one thing that stops governments doing too many things the people aren't interested in as there tend to be enough things the people are interested in to keep them fairly occupied.
Re:Government inefficiency is good. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think the number of priorities has much to do with efficiency (by any measure) in the long run. Authoritarian regimes can get a lot done in a very short period, and history has proven that time and again (I think we all remember reading about all the kings that inherited a disaster and had built an empire by the time they died in school). The trouble is that they're extremely sensitive to corruption, internal power struggles, and simple human vanity. When the strong leader dies, those who inherit his power often do tremendous damage simply bickering with each other over who gets to rule exactly what. And then when the next great ruler steps up and takes control we find that they first go throughout the country destroying a great many things in order to rebuild them in their own likeness. And in both cases we find that the bottom rung officials are corrupt as all hell since they're not accountable to anyone but their own superiors, who are often at great distance and too indifferent to bother listening to the people's complaints.
Eats, shoots and leaves. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
france, germany -> both given lots of money to rebuild
japan -> given even more money because somebody made them glow
russia -> not given any money, in fact some historians think that America wanted to stay out of WWII as long as possible as they liked the fact that Russia was getting crushed.
Russia was almost ruined by the end of WWII to turn it round and become a supper power isnt easy (irrespective of their failures as a
Re:Government inefficiency is good. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Best with those fine vermicelli egg noodles, with poppy seeds. My favorite!
Re: (Score:2)
The funny part is the excuse they used to get into the war.
Japan attacks the US, so they send troops over to Europe.
When the war was ending, they declared the Japanese conflict a separate war.
So how again did the Japanese attacking the US justify sending troops to Europe?
(Sarcasm)Politics are great!!!(/Sarcasm)
Wasnt it because we still had a navy, and your sort of got blown to crap,
The people who want power are the people who want to exploit it.
No sane person would really want to deal with the problems of everyone under the office in question.
They are in it for the benefits they can get out of it. (Which usually screws you in the process)
There are a number of people who are forced into leadership positions and find that they do well.
However, these people are few and far between. (and are often constantly looking for an excuse to get out)
reprasentative democracy is the form of goverment that sucks the least tho, not electing people sucks slightly more as nothing gets done.
Re: (Score:2)
And now kids, let's ask why Soviet losses were quite so high during "The Great Patriotic War". The answer? Koba's little purges leading up to and during the war.
Re: (Score:1)
Dictatorships can be stable and quasi-effective (Score:2)
Authoritarian regimes can get a lot done in a very short period...Stalin, for example, built Russia back up from the brink of disaster...He did that AND he oppressed the people he ruled over....When the strong leader dies, those who inherit his power often do tremendous damage simply bickering with each other over who gets to rule exactly what.
This concept is explored in The J Curve - A New Way to Understand Why Nations Rise and Fall [wikipedia.org], which graphs the openness of the nation on the X-axis, and national s
Re: (Score:2)
Deliberate Decision Making vs Inefficiency (Score:2)
I would argue that it's good for a government to take time to study complex issues to make sensible, deliberate decisions. Inefficiency merely slows that process and creates the appearance of deliberation to mask debilitation.
The US government is based on an evolutionary process of change. It's not designed to make fundamental changes quickly or capriciously.
Earmarks notwithstanding. Just who's looking at their ears anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hours will pass by, dumb and dull.
If there are instead just ten,
There's a chance of a result.
The work is skillfully and quickly done
Only if there's a committee of one.
Just what I came to say (Score:2)
Ideally you have one that can react to a crisis (natural disaster or invasion) but is very, very slow to get anything else done. The less meddling the bettter.
I'ds actually like it if the government was required to spend 50% of its time debating and repealing existing law, instead of just layering on more and more.
Re: (Score:2)
I only want a government with a high % of right decisions no matter how few of them they make.
A 1 man cabinet will make lots of decisions very fast, but will not get any right except for stuff he knows about, but a cabinet with 20 members will probably take its time but each member will contribute their expertise.
I think the problem is simply c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. I don't believe the alternative to poor government (inefficiency) need be worse government (such as dictatorship). Also, dictatorships traditionally have not been terribly efficient at much other than enriching the dictator and his friends.
2. While well-considered policies take time to figure out, I see little evidence that the slowness that bureaucracies promote has had any corresponding positive effect on quality or sanity. On the contrary - these bloated organizations see
Don't forget the nature of the beast. (Score:2)
All the laws, procedures, beuracracies, Miranda Rights, etc, are there in an attempt to limit the ways and frequency that the force is used.
When a people feel that voting and other means of redress are ineffective, then the best one can hope for is that the gov't is inefficient. Low voter turnout reflects the dis
Re: (Score:1)
Franklin (Score:2)
Yes but it's confounded. (Score:3, Insightful)
being manipulated... countries get the cabinets they choose
(sort of).
More complex problems (to begin with) -?-> larger cabinet.
Parkinson's Cutoff? (Score:5, Funny)
I hope my karma is high enough to withstand this beating. Hmm, I don't recall.
Power shift (Score:5, Interesting)
Around 20 members, people start making prepared statements rather than using meetings as think tanks. Real work is no longer done in cabinet meetings.
Since this new study indicates that the government and the nation is less efficient if the cabinet is large, it's an interesting extension of Parkinson's work.
Many of Parkinson's articles were humorous and he strongly hinted that he had no actual numbers to back up his claims. It's a little surprising to see that the real world aligns with his claims.
Re:Power shift (Score:4, Insightful)
Simplified, for every two or three productive persons, you need an additional non-productive person for bureaucratic purposes. This is also true for the bureaucrats themselves, so the more the bureaucracy grows, the more bureaucracy is needed to govern it.
This rule also appears to apply to efficiency, because efficiency will drop with added bureaucracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Power shift (Score:5, Funny)
Re:URL chosen by committee (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Dictator is the most efficient in decision making. (Score:1)
And politicians in a 'democratic' system knows this as well. It's not unusual to delegate one person(I'm even not talking about an elected one) the sole decision making power on extremely important issues.
Network Theory? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Where that stands for "Carry Sufficent Money for Access / Complete Debacle".
Correlation does not imply causation (Score:2)
Sure, homeland security would be a worthy sub-cabinet level post, but was the homeland security position made into a cabinet position for PR or for truly getting things done?
Re:Correlation does not imply causation (Score:5, Funny)
Some posts are created to amuse, some to inform, some to troll, and some posts are created to designate a 'goal' area in a sporting competition. I hope that you think this post belongs in the first category.
More seriously, I expect that politicians will always create sufficient jobs (of which cabinet posts are just one type) to give their friends the money/power that they want, without much concern for efficiency or effectiveness. How do you think "Brownie" got his job as head of FEMA?
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
So, by multiplying subordinates, an administrator can increase his standing. But this also increases his workload because he has to manage the extra staff.
If an administrator can't, for some reason, do his own work he will meddle in someone else's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. The department itself should not exist at all, nor the rest of the alphabet soup it finds itself in. "Home Security" as it should be done is provided for in the Second Amendment with local training programs for handling, markmanship, gunsmithing and martial arts would be as much "organizing" as needed and that by the members of the local community.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty th
Government efficiency? (Score:2, Informative)
Belgium (Score:1, Informative)
if you want to read the whole report, i found the original url here :
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.2202
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.2202v1
the only problem i see is that they missed out on the *actual* membership, for example Belgium is ranked as 15 but this doesnt explain the shabby decisionmaking in Belgium until you also count in the regional govs which should put it around 50 give or take.
Umm...HISTORIAN..???? (Score:2, Informative)
Though he was a history professor, and did some studies, Parkinson's primary claim to fame is not as a historian. He was a writer who wrote historical fiction with a sideline in humorous articles and books.
This whole study sounds as if it has been taken completely from the (comic) Parkinson proposal which is wiki'ed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_Inefficiency
News just in (Score:4, Funny)
Better coverage (Score:5, Informative)
It also contains a link to the original paper: [arxiv.org]http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.2202 [arxiv.org]
Hold on a second! (Score:2, Funny)
Wait.
You mean more politicians ='s LESS efficiency!?
Let's just replace the politicians with scientists. Problem SOLVED.
A Cabinet in name only (US) (Score:5, Informative)
Our Cabinet is one in name only. The President has authority over all executive branch decisions, and no Cabinet head can go against his wishes. He can remove them at his leisure and appoint new ones. Although the Senate confirms appointments, it usually does so regardless of whether Senators agree with the policies of the nominee. Instead, it is expected that as long as the nominee isn't scandalous or completely incompetent, he or she will be confirmed.
Moreover, our Cabinet doesn't really have meetings anymore. It just isn't the case that the heads of the Departments of Veterans Affairs, the Treasury, and the Interor sit around with the President and discuss policy. The executive branch really does its business in smaller groups, many of them wholly distinct form the Cabinet (the National Security Council, for example).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, the constitu mentions the cabinet as sorta an expected thing the prez would have, and that the members are appointed by prez with "the advise and consent" of the Senate. The actual internal relationship isn't described in great detail, but is left up to the
Re: (Score:2)
And now you're going to make me read the high-numbered amendments to check whether the practice has been cemented in the constitution (I think it has), which would make it a case of the cabinet gaining authority ove
Big government is not efficient? (Score:2)
I, for one, welcome our new Libertarian overlords (Score:4, Insightful)
I have an idea. Can I be the looting businessman this time, and you all will be cheerleading Libertarians?
Pretty please?
With sugar on top?
Re: (Score:1)
While I feel politically agnostic, I find libertarian ideals appealing. Nowhere have I read anything associating libertarianism with Laissez-faire Capitalism. It seems that there is no substitute for self-involvement when it comes to governing bodies. When you let others make decisions for you, its possible for those results to not be in your favor.
Re: (Score:2)
While I feel politically agnostic, I find libertarian ideals appealing. Nowhere have I read anything associating libertarianism with Laissez-faire Capitalism
Glad you put that to bed.
Re: (Score:2)
Go read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine". The scary thing about this book is that to prove her thesis, all she had to do was document quotes from various neo-cons who had publicly stated that such looting was the goal (it was part of the prospectus if you will). Including the GP's observations about the looting of Russia. The only thing I would add is that Russia was one of the few places that was not looted by foreigners - Yeltsin was ver
Re: (Score:1)
Government efficiency? (Score:1)
Rule of thumb (Score:3, Funny)
The intelligence of a committee is equal to the intelligence of the dumbest member of the committee divided by the number of people on it.
As Will Rogers said... (Score:2)
The LAST thing the USA needs now is an efficient presidency.
I want my gubbermint to run slowly enuf that we the people have time to get outraged, organized, wake up the couch potatoes and cure their apathy, and get the rest of the political system moving (legally) against the prezdint's ideers.
bad social science (Score:2)
Saying that countries with large cabinets are less politically developed isn't that interesting or even true (Canada has a federal minister of sports and recreation!). What needs to be looked into is _why_ less developed countries have large
impaired decision making (Score:1)
Size of cabinet (Score:1)
This is an incredibly complex (and wrong) explanation for a simple phenomena.
In most 3rd World (at least African) countries, the state is used as an instrument to employ the ruling party and its members. For this the cabinet is fairly effective - it is usually appointed by the ruling party's president (a
Fallacy in the "17" (Score:1)