An essay, No Business of Government by Donald Savoie in the Globe and Mail Monday, questioned the current tendency of governments to attempt to follow business practices.
Governments have stopped forming policy based on the evidence based findings and recommendations of the specialists hired into the public service to provide advice and direction.
Instead the politicians themselves have taken over, making decisions based on what will keep them in power. “Today,” Savoie writes, “... Google searches, focus groups, public opinion surveys and a well-connected lobbyist can provide any policy answer that politicians wish to hear.”
We see this all the time: government sponsored public meetings and forums, government websites that encourage the public to “tell us what you think.” They all provide the illusion that governments are fulfilling their public trust to be democratic, an effort that makes them worthy of re-election.
Of course, only a handful of people attend those public meetings or respond to the government’s surveys, and even if the opinions of that oft mentioned public majority could somehow be collected, it would reveal no clear policy direction on social programs, environmental programs, labour, industry, etc., etc.
Not that the government’s hired experts are always right, of course but they have a much better chance of creating coherent, effective policy than the ministers themselves, who dance from one portfolio to the next and come up with new policy directions just to show that they are actually doing something.
Of course, it should be apparent that adopting corporate business practices is inappropriate for government simply because businesses exist to enrich their owner/shareholders by making a profit and governments exist to enrich the lives of their citizens by providing services.
The two are not the same. An error in logic occurs when people say that government should adopt the same practices that businesses use to increase profit, just cut spending. Unfortunately, cuts in spending almost always result in reductions in services, which is the prime function of governments.
Since cutting spending and expanding or even maintaining services are usually not compatible, ministers are faced with a problem. They have to fight in caucus for a larger share of the shrinking fiscal pie and maintain or even expand the number of people their ministry employs.
The end result is that those ministers in favour with the premier or prime minister expand their ministry and those out of favour fight to maintain what they have.
Without profit as the bottom line, accountability, as it is known in the corporate world, isn’t possible.
That brings us back to the experts hired by the government to provide insight into policy decisions. They are the ones who can come up with the measures, often complex, that can truly determine whether government programs and services are effective.
They should be relied on, not opinion polls.
– Jim Holtz is columnist for the WEEKENDER and a former reporter for the Grand Forks Gazette