MARKETS AND THE LIMITATION OF POWER. Kids, in the John Kay article that I linked to yesterday, he identifies three elements in the success of markets as compared to centralized systems: (1) allocation of resources through prices; (2) innovation; and (3) diffusing economic and political power. Kay says that points (2) and (3) are relatively neglected. I touched on (2) yesterday. With respect to (3), Kay says that market economies are better at disposing of failed ideas, pointing out that “Honest feedback is not welcome in large bureaucracies.” I will add three related points.First, two (or more) private bureaucracies give a choice. Imagine if you could go to a competing Department of Motor Vehicles (to use the standard example). Second, sometimes inefficient bureaucracies go out of business. Third, a private bureaucracy can be sued for damages.
Categories
Archives
Recent Comments
- “A COMFORT BLANKET FOR THE SMUG”? (1)
- Nick: Further informing my perspective was that in the writings of classical Romans the middle-aged authors opined...
- ARE PEOPLE LESS VIOLENT? (COMMENT). (2)
- Dick Weisfelder: My prior comment was just in the context of sports. Whether or not from Pinker, I have seen the...
- erik: It seems doubtful that human nature has changed. The most likely explanation would be that modern culture gives...
- HOW BANKS PREPARED FOR A U.S. DEFAULT. (2)
- GREECE’S ADVANTAGE IN THE CHICKEN GAME. (2)
- Nick: That makes sense. It reminds me of the stories Pater Familias would tell me about how in Boston the person with...
- Dick Weisfelder: Greece seems to me to be playing a game that Karl Deutsch called “underdog.” While one...
- FOOTBALL PLAYERS DELIBERATELY CAUSING CONCUSSIONS? (3)
- Nick: It was my understanding that boxing gloves were to protect the puncher’s hands and not the...
- Dick Weisfelder: Remember the Roman arenas? Bare knuckled boxing? Such injuries were taken as natural and accepted in...
- Mary Jane Schaefer: This isn’t about football. Or even sportsmanship. Well, it is about sportsmanship. But what...
- A 25 % CHANCE OF A EURO DEFAULT? (1)
- Nick: The fact that this has gone on for so long is pretty perplexing. The Economist is referring back to articles it...
- DECIDING WHAT KIND OF PATIENT YOU ARE. (1)
- Dick Weisfelder: One can be very open to new technology, but also risk averse. The recent debates about how to...
- “A COMFORT BLANKET FOR THE SMUG”? (1)
Meta
Fourth, managers of private bureaucracies are frequently self-serving. They tell their shareholders and boards of directors that they have to provide the best salaries and benefits to keep the best people (themselves). This race to the top is poorly correlated with corporate performance. What Kay says about “large bureaucracies” applies equally well to large private bureaucracies.
The vaunted “shareholder democracy” is not particularly effectual at assuring sound management, since the “shareholders” are themselves most often large institutions beset with the same orthodoxies as the managers they suppoedly regulate.
Dealing with a bureaucrat is much the same, whether the bureaucracy is private or public. My personal experience is that private bureaucracies are harder to deal with. I could give examples … .
Shareholder democracy is loathed by regulators and judges. Nonprofits sometimes even set up contested elections for directorships by nominating more candidates than there are vacancies. Federal securities law essentially prevents contested elections for directorships unless a sell-funded group tries for a takeover.
Pingback: PRINCIPALS AND AGENTS (COMMENT). | Pater Familias