The old quango chestnut

[With apologies to the blogosphere for my 6 week absence from here. I am sure the words "broadband problems" and "somewhat lazy" say it all]

So, I have been falling back on old, bad habits, and last week was tempted into joining back in with frustratati who pepper opinion pieces on mainstream news sites with their comments. I thought I'd reproduce (and expand a little) on that comment here...

On Friday, Jeff Randall of the Telegraph published an op ed entitled Quangos are a luxury we don't need, and certainly can't afford

Of course, Mr Randall's piece wasn't a serious analysis of the structure of public service management in the UK (and, you know, who can blame him for that) but as I posted in response... "Oh, dear. Daft naivety from Mr Randall." (or a degree of disingenuousness). Jeff uses the example of a current recruitment to the Film Council to expose all that is wrong with the government of the UK and our habit of forming Quangos: "The UK Film Council, a government-backed agency, the role of which is to ensure that "the economic, cultural and educational aspects of film are represented effectively at home and abroad", advertised for a head of diversity"

So I went on to say...

"OK, this diversity job at the Film Council sounds like an expensive luxury but that's one job costing the taxpayer a little over £100k out of the billions spent on quangos: it's entertaining but essentially irrelevant to wider question."

This caused a bit of a stir with one fellow commentator who responded: "Well that makes it alright then. Tell you what, I will jack in my job and breeze along into some quango non-job paying £70k and sit it out until I retire. No-one will notice and I will be essentially irrelevant. You will not mind paying, will you? What sort of planet are you on? You obviously do not work in the productive economy.”

Which rather misses the point: that one pointless job – or even quite few of them – does not undermine the whole point of having quangos. And, really, has this person (presumably in the private sector) never worked somewhere where there are aimless passengers who contribute little or nothing to the company? – I certainly have! Of course, I was being provocative but anyway, here's the meat of my argument....

"So why do we have quangos?

- because (unlike in America) there is a left-right consensus in the UK that "something must be done...." and that that "something" should almost always be done by the government. We - especially our press - BEG for the government to sort out our woes, rather than taking responsibility ourselves and sorting out the problems at a community level

- we can't afford to have all the people who "do the something" for the state on Civil Service t's&c's (although the pensions are now much reduced from what they once were). Quangos (for along time, and under Tory governments as much as Labour) are the third way solution - outsourcing to the private sector is not efficient as high proportion of state investment goes straight to shareholders' pockets

- so we have quangos!

We can have fewer quangos but we will either have to expect less from government or pay more for it.

And, as an aside, this peculiar argument that there is a clear separation of public and private sectors? Do you really live in the UK? The private sector take billions in public finance, through outsourcing of various kinds. The private sector invests in the State through PPS and the like. The private sector includes companies who have virtual monopolies on public services (Thames Water, anyone? owned by.. Macquarries?) Come on, folks! Wake up! Take sniff of reality once in while."

[my comments ended there]

Now, all joking aside, this is really important. Since the Reagan-Thatcher axis (and perhaps long before) we have been sold this axiom: that the private sector is, by nature and design, more cost effective than the State/public sector. Time and again, this has proven not to be the case. There have been successful privatizations in the UK ; there are (still) some State owned organisations to which the State doesn’t seem to have a productive or meaningful relationship (why do we sully ourselves with the Tote, still, I wonder?). Privatising publically owned resources in the UK hasn’t produced a more efficient train service, or better and cleaner water services…etc “The private sector is, by nature and design, more cost effective than the State/public sector” axiom is false ; the private sector CAN produce more cost efficiencies but so can the public sector it’s not the ownership that matters, it’s the quality and aim of the management.

It’s so nice to have one’s opinions confirmed by an apposing argument so I was particularly pleased that another commentator responded to my post saying:

“What is the point in the private sector giving the State funds through taxation only to be given it back through outsourcing? A gives to B and B gives it back to A. How efficient is that? [the radar sweep agrees – we could equally well leave these activities to the State. Or not do them at all. Putting these responsibilities in the hand of the private secotr is not a solution]

Private sector companies that rely on State income for their existence are not much different from being a part of the State itself. [the radar sweep agrees – indeed these private sector companies are not significantly different from Quangos – except that they waste our tax money on their owners/shareholders]

And why is the State deciding what needs to be done? Why not leave it to private individuals to decide? [the radar sweep agrees – why do we leave these things up other people?]

The State has got its fingers into so much of the economy that it is extremely difficult, in a practical sense, to separate out those parts that add or create value, in the true sense, from those which are a drain. [the radar sweep agrees – again, they behave just like quangos. Indeed, it would be equally true to say “The Private Sector has got its fingers into so much of Government that it is extremely difficult, in a practical sense, to separate out those parts [of either] that add or create value, in the true sense, from those which are a drain.”]

That's why the UK economy will continue to flounder and why our children's relative wealth will decline consistently for many years to come.” [the radar sweep does not agree – our future depends on good planning and good execution not on a false public/private dichotomy]

Which [leaving aside their final sentence] takes me back to my point. The problem is not whether it is the public or the private sector that does the work of the quangos – the problem is that we in the UK have become dependent on other people doing things for us and look to the State to be the main actor in the execution of that dependency.