Following up on the last post, I think the politics of the Harper government are also interesting. I’ve been reading Harperland by Lawrence Martin and it is quite revealing about the temperament of the government.
Honestly though, the thing that keeps coming back into my mind is something John Ralston Saul said a while back, about how people who are motivated are the ones that drive change. You get the impression that Harper and the Conservatives, are bound and determined to do whatever it takes to implement their agenda. The problem is that our institutions are not designed for someone who doesn’t play nice with the rules.
The normal constraints of behaviour are not being followed, and they are undermining all the checks on executive power that do exist. You can see that it comes from a deep seated hatred for the existing arrangements. It is interesting to watch them undermine institutions and attack their legitimacy.
The scary thing , is that they seem to be getting away with it, and it’s going to be interesting to see what happens in the future, both in terms of whether it ends up hurting them, but also whether some of the constraints are permanently damaged. Will a future government be able to go back to the way things used to be? Will this force a more codified regime to be put into place? I think this may be the answer, as having clear rules can prevent abuses. It may provide an opportunity to do some actual thinking about the mechanics of how our parliament works. One might hope that this might be in the interests of the Conservatives who after all did come in on a “transparency” agenda, but they seem to be so short sighted these days that it’s unlikely.
In some ways it would be good for the Conservatives to have a majority, as it would give them some breathing space, hopefully make them less paranoid, and provide the time the Liberals need to rebuild. The danger is the long term damage the conservatives could do to the country. A recent Walrus article to me highlighted some of the increasing gulf between those who viewed Canada the way the Liberals do and those who see it the way the Conservatives do. [link]
In many ways this reflects the “small” Canada that Jeffrey Simpson wrote about in a recent article. For me it’s highlighted in the fact that you have negotiations with the EU, a block of 27 countries, where Canada brings more people to the table, from each and every nook and cranny of the country than the Europeans.
One thing I would actually like to see if there is a majority is a shake-up of the “machinery of government”. Not too popular, and quite disruptive, I think it could be a moment of confidence building between a Conservative government and the public service. They could rebuild government in a way that suits them, and could provide opportunities for the public service to better respond to their agenda. Particularly on the economic competitiveness side it might be worth rethinking the role of some departments, such as Industry Canada and HRSDC. It could be part of a big redesign, but again it creates turmoil.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Who is Accountable? Where does Power lie?
Something else that’s been on my mind recently has been the book, Power Where is it?, By Donald Savoie, and I‘ve been meaning to write on this for a while now, but in light of recent events surrounding the funding of Kairos, it seems like a good occasion to opine on the subject.
The title is a good starting point for looking into this and Savoie’s best argued point is that there is a confusion in the public, in the bureaucracy, and in the private sector about where Power lies today.
Part of this is seemingly deliberate in the case of The Minister of International Cooperation and her lack of transparency about who inserted the “not” in the briefing note, but also in the case of the Minister of Industry, and his overturning of CRTC decisions . Who in the end is making these decisions?
Savoie obviously has considerable access within the federal bureaucracy and has a good understanding of both its institutional design and its daily rhythms. Sometimes his points ring tellingly true, but his analysis seems to have a rose coloured glasses look. He points to an idyllic past and everything done today seems to come up short.
He writes for example that " The more diverse the purpose of an organization, the less it cna generate power and impose it externally and gain submission from within." and later, "Networks, however, can never be as effective and decisive as hierarchy..."
For me as someone who is interested in understanding the impact of web 2.0
technologies and the possibilities that collaborative technologies offer, his lack of understanding of the potential promise here is astounding. Obviously the boosters of web 2.0 like Clay Shirky and of their application to government like David Eaves and Nick Charney would begin by throwing out the Wikipedia example, followed by a number of other success stories, of the power of networks. While different, I think Savoie's analysis misses the mark here. There is potentially a lot of insight here available for those looking into potential solutions.
In talking to a group of public servants working on a collaborative project of the side of their desk however the difficult tension between the network model and the hierarchical model is evident. In fact I think that we need some elements of both if we are to move forward successful. Therefore my concern with Savoie’s take on this was not only that it flies in the face of the evidence, but it makes it that much harder to move forward. It truly showed his age and his backward looking lens. Rather than providing potential solutions, he laments the fact that we have moved on from his golden age of the 1960s.
Despite this significant criticism he offers valid points and points to the troubling role of the Clerk of the Privy Council, and what I see as the politicization of the role. I remember reading an account of the huge cuts to the federal public service in the 1990s, and the disappointment felt by some about the lack of anyone around the table willing to defend the public service. I know the stakes may not be as high, but I was disappointed that there did not seem to be any defence of the institution following the Census debacle last summer. I think an email sent to public servants to remind them of our role and the fact that we are valued, would have gone a long way in quelling the grumblings I saw.
The recent shocking revelations that a Deputy Minister could sign a document which would later be altered, points to an incredibly broken system. Who is accountable in such a situation?
The title is a good starting point for looking into this and Savoie’s best argued point is that there is a confusion in the public, in the bureaucracy, and in the private sector about where Power lies today.
Part of this is seemingly deliberate in the case of The Minister of International Cooperation and her lack of transparency about who inserted the “not” in the briefing note, but also in the case of the Minister of Industry, and his overturning of CRTC decisions . Who in the end is making these decisions?
Savoie obviously has considerable access within the federal bureaucracy and has a good understanding of both its institutional design and its daily rhythms. Sometimes his points ring tellingly true, but his analysis seems to have a rose coloured glasses look. He points to an idyllic past and everything done today seems to come up short.
He writes for example that " The more diverse the purpose of an organization, the less it cna generate power and impose it externally and gain submission from within." and later, "Networks, however, can never be as effective and decisive as hierarchy..."
For me as someone who is interested in understanding the impact of web 2.0
technologies and the possibilities that collaborative technologies offer, his lack of understanding of the potential promise here is astounding. Obviously the boosters of web 2.0 like Clay Shirky and of their application to government like David Eaves and Nick Charney would begin by throwing out the Wikipedia example, followed by a number of other success stories, of the power of networks. While different, I think Savoie's analysis misses the mark here. There is potentially a lot of insight here available for those looking into potential solutions.
In talking to a group of public servants working on a collaborative project of the side of their desk however the difficult tension between the network model and the hierarchical model is evident. In fact I think that we need some elements of both if we are to move forward successful. Therefore my concern with Savoie’s take on this was not only that it flies in the face of the evidence, but it makes it that much harder to move forward. It truly showed his age and his backward looking lens. Rather than providing potential solutions, he laments the fact that we have moved on from his golden age of the 1960s.
Despite this significant criticism he offers valid points and points to the troubling role of the Clerk of the Privy Council, and what I see as the politicization of the role. I remember reading an account of the huge cuts to the federal public service in the 1990s, and the disappointment felt by some about the lack of anyone around the table willing to defend the public service. I know the stakes may not be as high, but I was disappointed that there did not seem to be any defence of the institution following the Census debacle last summer. I think an email sent to public servants to remind them of our role and the fact that we are valued, would have gone a long way in quelling the grumblings I saw.
The recent shocking revelations that a Deputy Minister could sign a document which would later be altered, points to an incredibly broken system. Who is accountable in such a situation?
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
CRTC UBB decision
There’s been a lot of talk recently about the UBB decision by the CRTC. Comments by David Eaves on his blog made me rethink my position on the decision and the issues at play. First of all, it made me realize that it’s a complicated issue and that there are a lot of moving parts, which makes me appreciate some of the difficult situation the CRTC is in.
The larger point however is that consumers don’t like user based billing type of pricing. This is n part because it’s more volatile, and expressly because of the link to behaviour. It’s difficult and costly to monitor your use of these types of services.
The problem is that as the confusion around the UBB decision highlights, is often people don’t have any idea how much of a given service they will need. How many GB of internet do you use each month? Only the heavy users who break the caps are likely to even come close to knowing the answer. I have no idea, despite the fact that I pay every month for the service, and I can easily go online and find out the answer. Ideally if we moved to a purely UBB system, I would pay less for internet, as I use probably way less than the average person, while the heavier users will pay more.
However overall this is one thing I agree with economists on, is that this type of transparency is more efficient. It internalizes the costs of your behaviour. To the extent that access to the internet is a scarce resource, the most efficient way of allocating it is to price it. This will allocate it to those get the most value out of it the resource.
The link I made was to water pricing, which is an area I once wrote a paper on, and the argument is the same. To the extent that water is a finite resource (which increasingly it is being realized it is), the best way to allocate rights to it is to price it.
There were two really insightful comments however in the commentary I’ve read:
First, was the fact that in fact public policy should not be discouraging use of the internet, through higher prices. Canada in fact already had high prices. I wouldn’t go so far as some in claiming that the big telcos, Bell, Rogers, Shaw actually want you to use the Internet less, but it was insightful commentary. This point was made by during an episode of TVO (which I highly recommend) on UBB, found here
Second, was a comment here about the attempt by the big companies to impose the cell phone business model onto the Internet. The model everyone hates because it’s so complicated and crazy. In this kind of convoluted world, the companies are able to manipulate people into paying for minutes they will never use, for extras that aren’t necessary and complicates life for consumers while inflating company profits.
It speaks to one big issue, consumers don’t like complexity or volatility, hence why I like many others love having a fixed cap system, or even better unlimited internet. I wonder if there is a lot of research into these types of issues by behavioural economists.
In my classes on sustainable energy policy we talked about utilities and the difficult market structure that exists for these industries. Deregulation in the power and natural gas industries have led to difficulties for both consumers and producers in places like California and the U.K.
Big questions like how to encourage competition in a market with a natural monopoly are not easy, and to my mind it speaks to why having an independent place for these technical discussions can be useful, even if in the end the government or Minister feels they got it wrong.
The larger point however is that consumers don’t like user based billing type of pricing. This is n part because it’s more volatile, and expressly because of the link to behaviour. It’s difficult and costly to monitor your use of these types of services.
The problem is that as the confusion around the UBB decision highlights, is often people don’t have any idea how much of a given service they will need. How many GB of internet do you use each month? Only the heavy users who break the caps are likely to even come close to knowing the answer. I have no idea, despite the fact that I pay every month for the service, and I can easily go online and find out the answer. Ideally if we moved to a purely UBB system, I would pay less for internet, as I use probably way less than the average person, while the heavier users will pay more.
However overall this is one thing I agree with economists on, is that this type of transparency is more efficient. It internalizes the costs of your behaviour. To the extent that access to the internet is a scarce resource, the most efficient way of allocating it is to price it. This will allocate it to those get the most value out of it the resource.
The link I made was to water pricing, which is an area I once wrote a paper on, and the argument is the same. To the extent that water is a finite resource (which increasingly it is being realized it is), the best way to allocate rights to it is to price it.
There were two really insightful comments however in the commentary I’ve read:
First, was the fact that in fact public policy should not be discouraging use of the internet, through higher prices. Canada in fact already had high prices. I wouldn’t go so far as some in claiming that the big telcos, Bell, Rogers, Shaw actually want you to use the Internet less, but it was insightful commentary. This point was made by during an episode of TVO (which I highly recommend) on UBB, found here
Second, was a comment here about the attempt by the big companies to impose the cell phone business model onto the Internet. The model everyone hates because it’s so complicated and crazy. In this kind of convoluted world, the companies are able to manipulate people into paying for minutes they will never use, for extras that aren’t necessary and complicates life for consumers while inflating company profits.
It speaks to one big issue, consumers don’t like complexity or volatility, hence why I like many others love having a fixed cap system, or even better unlimited internet. I wonder if there is a lot of research into these types of issues by behavioural economists.
In my classes on sustainable energy policy we talked about utilities and the difficult market structure that exists for these industries. Deregulation in the power and natural gas industries have led to difficulties for both consumers and producers in places like California and the U.K.
Big questions like how to encourage competition in a market with a natural monopoly are not easy, and to my mind it speaks to why having an independent place for these technical discussions can be useful, even if in the end the government or Minister feels they got it wrong.
First Post
Hello everyone, this is a second blog for me (see the original ), and my intention is to take some thinking I've been doing on the state of Canada, and the world and take some time to post some longer posts on public policy issues.
The title I struggled with, but it comes from a song Proud to be CanadianI like by the arrogant worms, which opens with the line "Our fair country Canada", it also comes from the title of John Ralston Saul's book, called A Fair Country
First topic, up next, the CRTC decision on UBB.
The title I struggled with, but it comes from a song Proud to be CanadianI like by the arrogant worms, which opens with the line "Our fair country Canada", it also comes from the title of John Ralston Saul's book, called A Fair Country
First topic, up next, the CRTC decision on UBB.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)