Hi everyone. My first post. I’ve been lurking for a while and have been an armchair economist for the past few years I really appreciate the contributions Mises.org has done for the field and would say that what they’re doing is heroic.
I’ve been finding few, if any, examples of government departments or agencies admitting that they are no longer needed or have volunteered to reduce in size due to lack of efficacy as opposed to revenue cuts etc. Though post-war military reduction comes to mind, my inquiry is more directed towards government inefficacy rather than lack of necessity, but specifically when the agency admits to it. Any examples would be appreciated.
Lack of efficacy as compared to what? How is efficacy defined here and by whom?
I guess it could be as basic as a department head admitting the agency is unnecessary but your next point does underline why it is so rare to see. I can see why my phrasing may have been a bit vague, as from my perspective - and I’m sure many here - that state efficacy and necessity is laughable. I suppose “efficacy” in this respect is regarded to approaching stated goals.
Though post-war military reduction comes to mind, my inquiry is more directed towards government inefficacy rather than lack of necessity, but specifically when the agency admits to it. Any examples would be appreciated.
This requirement goes against basic human action/motives."
Please forgive the awkward formatting - trying to properly figure out the quotes and preview function.
A monopolist can state subpar (relative to what?) goals and can give justifiable (according to whom?) excuses for never reaching them. Monopolists talk, competition walks. Without competition, it’s all talk and no walk.
A government (monopolist) producer of cars (i.e. Department of Cars, DoC) could state goals (in terms of quantity, performance, and fuel efficiency) but there would exist no alternatives against which they could be compared. DoC could also justify only meeting 60% of their goals (due to their budget being too low to cover the high costs of steel, labor, and energy). Then what? Would that be good enough reason to close DoC and allow the free market to satisfy the demand for transportation?
Right, and while I don’t think there are many bureaucrats that can grasp that overall, it may be a plus for those of a free market perspective if a bureaucrat was ever on record for admitting an agency-wide failing in similar regards, inadvertently or not. I do see how they can come up with any excuses they want, but I’m more interested in an example of an agency volunteering its own reduction.
Stated bureaucratic goals are regularly not being met – more as a rule than as an exception. So much so that not meeting them is considered par for the course. The rare bureaucrat admiting to such (obvious) reality would not be too big of a deal, IMO. Everybody would understand how tough the agency’s job (goals) must have been and would probably conclude that it’s doing a “heckuva job” given the circumstances.
I don’t see the point of your quixotic search. The non-existance of this entity (a bureucrat volunteering his own elimination) proves nothing. The unlikely exception would only be confirming the rule.
Nice to have you with us! If you ever want to have a PM chat with someone then feel free to send me a message!
At any rate I really doubt that you’ll find many instances of this happening. Bureaucrats work at their jobs consistently and are therefore immersed in their work in a structure that, as anyone who has interacted with a bureaucrat knows, kills free thinking. Furthermore no one is likely to ever offer their own job up for removal unless they have an equal or better job available to replace it with. So it’d have to be an incredibly useless department for those working there to even think about offering this, and even then the fact is that they aren’t going to want to offer up their jobs.
