The Atlantic Institute for Market Studies once did an analysis of transfer payments to the Maritime provinces, and concluded that the bulk of those transfers were captured by government employees. This allows bureaucrats there to enjoy remuneration roughly 30-35% higher than their counterparts in, say, Ontario.
The bureaucracy is a bigger problem than most people understand. And it's so entrenched that it would take the Canadian version of Trump to get it under control.
I'm trying to think of a government employee in the US at any level - city, county, state, federal - that doesn't fit this, and I'm coming up short. I work in mental health and can comfortably say that every job offered for my license pays better in the public sector than the private sector, and not by a small margin.
Granted, I have a lot more liberty (and give more to my employees too) but I'm an anecdote. Most therapists don't have that luxury, they work just as much as their government-employed colleagues and for 2/3 the salary.
I'm gonna have to do some gnawing on this one for sure. For some business sectors (investing, manufacturing, e.g.) that don't translate because government doesn't do those things, the comparison doesn't work. But the apples-to-apples jobs (and the ones private doesn't do; police, fire, mail) are absolutely better in .gov than in private land.
With respect to investing, the department of the treasury does employ accountants, economists, and financial experts however I imagine the top end equivalents in the private sector make significantly more. Not sure about average salaries though.
Manufacturing would appear to be an outlier however the government does contract (military, construction, etc.) and I imagine those deals pay significantly better than strictly private ventures since costs overruns appear to be the norm rather than the exception.
As a first step, switch all government employee AND MP pensions from defined benefits to defined contribution plans. No one in the private sector has defined benefits plans any more because they are UNAFFORDABLE.
Excellent article. As an American I cannot speak to Canada’s bureaucracies with any real knowledge. However, in the U.S., bureaucrats and rank-in-file government employees (in general—there are always exceptions) show up to get paid, not to provide any real assistance or value to anyone. Why should they care? The nature of government employment is monopoly. Without competition, what is their incentive to serve consumers?
While we're both overgeneralizing (I'm sure there are some bureaucrats who work very hard), the fact remains that they have jobs with little accountability and only minor downsides associated with screwing up.
If something can be privatized it should be (not the military).
“However, unlike the aristocrats, the bureaucrats work for us, the citizenry, that’s why they are called “public servants.””
Really?!!!
Ever hear of “Public choice theory”?—individuals involved in politics, like politicians and voters, are primarily motivated by self-interest, similar to how they behave in market transactions.
This theory applies equally well to bureaucrats.
“Core Assumptions:
Self-Interest: Public Choice Theory posits that bureaucrats, like other individuals, are motivated by self-interest and seek to maximize their utility. This includes factors such as career advancement, power, prestige, and budget maximization for their respective agencies.
Rationality: Bureaucrats are assumed to be rational actors who make decisions based on weighing the costs and benefits of various options, with the goal of achieving their personal objectives.
Application to Bureaucrats:
Budget Maximization: A key area of focus in Public Choice Theory regarding bureaucrats is the idea of "bureaucratic empire-building." This suggests that bureaucrats may strive to increase the size and scope of their departments or agencies, even if it's not the most efficient allocation of resources. This is driven by the potential for increased power, higher salaries, and better career prospects associated with larger organizations.
Rent-Seeking: Bureaucrats may engage in rent-seeking behavior, which involves using their position and influence to secure economic advantages for themselves or their close associates. This can take various forms, such as favoring certain contractors or businesses, potentially leading to corruption and inefficiency.
Prioritizing Personal Goals over Public Interest: Public Choice Theory suggests that while bureaucrats may have a sense of public service, their self-interest can sometimes lead them to prioritize personal goals or the goals of their agency over the broader public good. For instance, a bureaucrat might resist reforms that reduce their department's authority or budget, even if such reforms would benefit the public.
Principal-Agent Problem: This theory also applies the concept of the principal-agent problem to the relationship between the elected officials (principals) who create agencies and the bureaucrats (agents) who are responsible for implementing policy. Public Choice Theory suggests that bureaucrats, as agents, may not always act in the best interests of their principals if those interests conflict with their own.” (Credit:AI)
At least aristocrats had a code—Noblesse oblige: “the idea that someone with power and influence should use their social position to help other people.” (Cambridge Dictionary)
Your average bureaucrat has no code, unless it’s “I get paid whether or not I help you”.
PS—I know that not all bureaucrats are evil but the vast majority are useless. The problem is they have no incentive to be otherwise.
It should be clear to anyone who read this where I stand with respect to the bureaucracy. I called them entitled and pointed out incompetence. The quotes around public servant should make it very clear that the term was meant sarcastically.
"Noblesse oblige" is the aristocratic version of "public servant," a myth designed to make those it applies to look better than they are.
My whole point of "they work for us" is that we can, in theory, elect a government to reduce the size of the bureaucracy.
The Atlantic Institute for Market Studies once did an analysis of transfer payments to the Maritime provinces, and concluded that the bulk of those transfers were captured by government employees. This allows bureaucrats there to enjoy remuneration roughly 30-35% higher than their counterparts in, say, Ontario.
The bureaucracy is a bigger problem than most people understand. And it's so entrenched that it would take the Canadian version of Trump to get it under control.
I’m wishing for a Canadian version of Milei.
I'm trying to think of a government employee in the US at any level - city, county, state, federal - that doesn't fit this, and I'm coming up short. I work in mental health and can comfortably say that every job offered for my license pays better in the public sector than the private sector, and not by a small margin.
Granted, I have a lot more liberty (and give more to my employees too) but I'm an anecdote. Most therapists don't have that luxury, they work just as much as their government-employed colleagues and for 2/3 the salary.
I'm gonna have to do some gnawing on this one for sure. For some business sectors (investing, manufacturing, e.g.) that don't translate because government doesn't do those things, the comparison doesn't work. But the apples-to-apples jobs (and the ones private doesn't do; police, fire, mail) are absolutely better in .gov than in private land.
With respect to investing, the department of the treasury does employ accountants, economists, and financial experts however I imagine the top end equivalents in the private sector make significantly more. Not sure about average salaries though.
Manufacturing would appear to be an outlier however the government does contract (military, construction, etc.) and I imagine those deals pay significantly better than strictly private ventures since costs overruns appear to be the norm rather than the exception.
Thanks for the comment.
the us army runs it own munitions plants for some stuff, like artillery rounds, and they have a bunch of plants: https://www.jmc.army.mil/About.aspx?id=About
These are great suggestions Phillip. We’ll have them in the UK too please!
Thanks!
As a first step, switch all government employee AND MP pensions from defined benefits to defined contribution plans. No one in the private sector has defined benefits plans any more because they are UNAFFORDABLE.
Yes!
Excellent article. As an American I cannot speak to Canada’s bureaucracies with any real knowledge. However, in the U.S., bureaucrats and rank-in-file government employees (in general—there are always exceptions) show up to get paid, not to provide any real assistance or value to anyone. Why should they care? The nature of government employment is monopoly. Without competition, what is their incentive to serve consumers?
Thanks for the comment.
While we're both overgeneralizing (I'm sure there are some bureaucrats who work very hard), the fact remains that they have jobs with little accountability and only minor downsides associated with screwing up.
If something can be privatized it should be (not the military).
This is very familiar in Bermuda, because the first thing to disappear in The Bermuda Triangle is accountability.
“However, unlike the aristocrats, the bureaucrats work for us, the citizenry, that’s why they are called “public servants.””
Really?!!!
Ever hear of “Public choice theory”?—individuals involved in politics, like politicians and voters, are primarily motivated by self-interest, similar to how they behave in market transactions.
This theory applies equally well to bureaucrats.
“Core Assumptions:
Self-Interest: Public Choice Theory posits that bureaucrats, like other individuals, are motivated by self-interest and seek to maximize their utility. This includes factors such as career advancement, power, prestige, and budget maximization for their respective agencies.
Rationality: Bureaucrats are assumed to be rational actors who make decisions based on weighing the costs and benefits of various options, with the goal of achieving their personal objectives.
Application to Bureaucrats:
Budget Maximization: A key area of focus in Public Choice Theory regarding bureaucrats is the idea of "bureaucratic empire-building." This suggests that bureaucrats may strive to increase the size and scope of their departments or agencies, even if it's not the most efficient allocation of resources. This is driven by the potential for increased power, higher salaries, and better career prospects associated with larger organizations.
Rent-Seeking: Bureaucrats may engage in rent-seeking behavior, which involves using their position and influence to secure economic advantages for themselves or their close associates. This can take various forms, such as favoring certain contractors or businesses, potentially leading to corruption and inefficiency.
Prioritizing Personal Goals over Public Interest: Public Choice Theory suggests that while bureaucrats may have a sense of public service, their self-interest can sometimes lead them to prioritize personal goals or the goals of their agency over the broader public good. For instance, a bureaucrat might resist reforms that reduce their department's authority or budget, even if such reforms would benefit the public.
Principal-Agent Problem: This theory also applies the concept of the principal-agent problem to the relationship between the elected officials (principals) who create agencies and the bureaucrats (agents) who are responsible for implementing policy. Public Choice Theory suggests that bureaucrats, as agents, may not always act in the best interests of their principals if those interests conflict with their own.” (Credit:AI)
At least aristocrats had a code—Noblesse oblige: “the idea that someone with power and influence should use their social position to help other people.” (Cambridge Dictionary)
Your average bureaucrat has no code, unless it’s “I get paid whether or not I help you”.
PS—I know that not all bureaucrats are evil but the vast majority are useless. The problem is they have no incentive to be otherwise.
It should be clear to anyone who read this where I stand with respect to the bureaucracy. I called them entitled and pointed out incompetence. The quotes around public servant should make it very clear that the term was meant sarcastically.
"Noblesse oblige" is the aristocratic version of "public servant," a myth designed to make those it applies to look better than they are.
My whole point of "they work for us" is that we can, in theory, elect a government to reduce the size of the bureaucracy.
tying anything to a single number, such as, gdp growth, including any of its variants, is counterproductive.