Accountability? There is No Accountability in Government Programs! How Dare You!
Most of us think we understand the phenomenon of "Poverty in America", but then most of us are wrong about that. Mping at Fat Knowledge blog, provides a good look at the topic of poverty in america, and what he uncovers is most interesting.
One of the main problems in getting government bureaucrats to provide a service for society, is that the bureaucrats never want to stop providing the service! That would require them to get a different job, learn new skills, perhaps move to a different part of town--or a different town altogether! What an inconvenience!
The bureaucratic mentality is devoted to never being held accountable for the failure of your project, and above all--never succeed if success means your project will be terminated!
The entire effort to combat poverty--from government bureaucrats to private charities to church charities to large foundations to corporate outreaches to private philanthropists--in all its forms, it suffers from a lack of accountability.
Retailers can be boycotted and sued. Individuals in businesses and professions can lose their licenses, can be sued, or can be boycotted. Even an elected official can be unelected--impeached, recalled, or defeated in the next election. Contrast that type of accountability with the lack of accountability of government bureaucrats, tenured academics, functionaries at large foundations and quasi-governmental organisations, etc.
It becomes clear that all the efforts to "eradicate" poverty suffer from lack of accountability. Occasionally one hears about charities that spend a few cents on the dollar to eradicate poverty, and the balance on extravagant salaries and benefits for staff and board directors. That is an under-reported phenomenon. Lack of accountability and oversight of large governmental and quasi-governmental programs leads to understandable skepticism and resistance on the part of much of the general public. That antagonism of the public toward large dysfunctional bureaucracies will only get worse in North America, as the governments there more closely approximate the fossilized incompetence of the unwieldy European Union apparatus, and the socialistic monstrosities of many individual European countries.
....Although 13% of Americans are poor in any given year, closer to 5% spend most of their years in poverty and less than 2% spend all of their time in poverty. Poverty in the US is very transitory.There is much more at the Source.
Instead of looking at who is poor, maybe we should be looking at who becomes poor each year and who leaves poverty.
....Statistics show that in order to avoid becoming poor in the United States, you must do three things: graduate from high school, marry after the age of twenty, and marry before having your first child. Only 8 percent of those who do these three things become poor as adults, whereas 79 percent of poor adults have failed to do these three things.
....You can take a look at the Census Bureau's definition of poverty yourself to see if you agree. Food stamps, housing subsidies and the earned income tax credit are all ignored in the calculation. If you ask me, those should all be added back in. I am sure it would reduce the level of poverty, but I am not sure by how much.
One of the main problems in getting government bureaucrats to provide a service for society, is that the bureaucrats never want to stop providing the service! That would require them to get a different job, learn new skills, perhaps move to a different part of town--or a different town altogether! What an inconvenience!
The bureaucratic mentality is devoted to never being held accountable for the failure of your project, and above all--never succeed if success means your project will be terminated!
The entire effort to combat poverty--from government bureaucrats to private charities to church charities to large foundations to corporate outreaches to private philanthropists--in all its forms, it suffers from a lack of accountability.
Retailers can be boycotted and sued. Individuals in businesses and professions can lose their licenses, can be sued, or can be boycotted. Even an elected official can be unelected--impeached, recalled, or defeated in the next election. Contrast that type of accountability with the lack of accountability of government bureaucrats, tenured academics, functionaries at large foundations and quasi-governmental organisations, etc.
It becomes clear that all the efforts to "eradicate" poverty suffer from lack of accountability. Occasionally one hears about charities that spend a few cents on the dollar to eradicate poverty, and the balance on extravagant salaries and benefits for staff and board directors. That is an under-reported phenomenon. Lack of accountability and oversight of large governmental and quasi-governmental programs leads to understandable skepticism and resistance on the part of much of the general public. That antagonism of the public toward large dysfunctional bureaucracies will only get worse in North America, as the governments there more closely approximate the fossilized incompetence of the unwieldy European Union apparatus, and the socialistic monstrosities of many individual European countries.
posted by al fin at 9:50 am
2 Comments:
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the accountability of those entities that are working to lessen poverty? I read this article in the Economist which had some interesting ideas, although I don't know if they would directly apply in this case.
As for NPOs like United Way and churches, aren't they accountable to those who choose to give donations? If those who give donations don't like what is happening (or think there is a more productive place to donate their money) they will stop giving.
As for large foundations like Gates, it seems that they are only accountable to the person who made the money. If that person dies, then I am not sure who they are accountable to. But, what would you rather happen to rich people's money when they die? Give it to their kids? Give it to the government?
As for the problems you lay out with bureaucrats, I agree, but I don't see this as something special for anti-poverty issues. I worked at a large corporation where there were lots of fools that did nothing but collect a paycheck. Due to the bureaucracy it was impossible to fire them, so they stuck around. And the consultants were great and never completely solving a problem so that they would no longer be needed.
I am all for better accountability and more effective ways of helping the poor, so if you have suggestions lets here them.
Yet, sadly you are right about the fact that a lot of people in large organisations loaf, while others do the work. Always keep in mind that in the private sector if too many people in an organisation loaf--the business fails. In government, almost everyone loafs and people accept the waste and inefficiency because there is no competitor government.
Regarding large foundations such as Gates' etc., large charitable foundations exist because of tax shelters and breaks. If foundations had to demonstrate results for their charitable spending to get the tax break, there would be far less frivolous and corrupt spending on the part of foundations and charities.
The billionaires who are risking large chunks of their fortunes on honestly developing renewable energies, industries for penetrating outer space, and other disruptive technologies are doing more for the human race than all the Gates, Buffetts, Ted Turners, Rock Concerts, etc. put together.
As for tenured professors and schoolteachers, and academic theorists who teach the next generations of teachers and who propagate poverty through their dysfunctional ideological polemics and classroom tyranny, the huge monolithic bureaucracy supporting ineffectual teaching that extends poverty into future generations, is too big. No one can touch it.
The same thing goes for government bureaucracy. It simply gets bigger as each new program is added to the monster. Margaret Thatcher performed a miracle for the UK in the 70s/80s by privatising much of the nationalised bureaucracy, but that type of re-birth will not happen anywhere else in this era. The public is a flock of sheep that only sees the required hardship in the needed metamorphosis--never the hardship in following the path of eternal accretion.
Lack of accountability in governments, particularly welfare states, has a momentum that cannot be altered without monumental will on the part of the citizens. There is no sign of that.
This comment was edited and proofread from an earlier comment.
Post a Comment
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell
<< Home