Question

do you see bureaucracy in America today as efficient or inefficient? Why? What do you think the government can do to improve public service delivery

Answer 1

Between 1952 and 1972 public payroll expenses increased more than fourfold, from $35 billion to $150 billion. The 330 per cent rise over that time exceeds the 247 per cent growth in private-sector employee compensation ($161bn to $557bn). In 1952, the average private-employee gained 5 per cent more than his government counterpart. By 1972 10 per cent had fallen behind. Government bureaucracy growth was followed by a decline in its efficiency rate.

Government systems are so organized that there is never an opportunity to fix whatever problem is being dealt with but to make sure it gets escalated, and that more money is needed to combat it. For example, in the so-called "War on Poverty," schemes were not intended to offer money to the poor, no matter what the benefits of this may have been, but instead to give money to people who were supposed to provide "services" to the poor. The result was that the only deprivation that was addressed under such legislation was that of its own workers. Today, several thousands of well-organized individuals and organizations have a vested interest in getting many otherwise futile and expensive services into place.

If we're looking at medical care, housing, employment or daycare, the expectation of those who advocate ex-pensive government services is still that government is better prepared to deal with the issue effectively. The notion of social services to help people improve themselves has simply come to an end in itself. Today, we seem content to put whole groups of citizens on welfare or any other sort of public service, with little concern for their long-term well-being or the welfare of society as a whole.

Sadly, those who set up the War on Poverty were involved in destroying it. If pover‐ty ever came to an end, their work will be like this. For nearly all these government schemes, the benefits are negative—because, if they were good, those who do the work would be unemployed before too long. That's why, as mentioned earlier, the number of employees at the Agriculture Department is rising every year, while the number of farmers is decreasing. The myth of redressing bureaucratic inefficiency will come to a fast conclusion. The inefficiency is inherent in public undertakings. When this concept is recognized, it can easily be seen that the only method of reorganizing government that will be successful is to will government itself. Whatever the bureaucratic reformers may tell us, the bureaucrats' inefficiency is no accident.