Are corporations run more efficiently than government agencies?

[undeterred]

[lastknowngood]

1. NO I have worked in both areas as well as contractor for the

government. Government employees are much more efficient and much more dedicated to their job.

[porphyrian]

2. Not as a rule necessarily, but some are. - n/t

[Solo_in_MD]

3. Depends on the size, but presumptively so by most means of measurement

[Rosemary2205]

4. Far as I can tell

both just use a different means of keeping all the wealth at the very top. Corps use dividends and government uses Halliburton type contracts.

[dogman]

5. They have a decided advantage.

They can, and many do, ignore the welfare of the people.

[tularetom]

6. Government agencies are not supposed to be "efficient"

In a democracy, government is supposed to be "fair". Obviously, to be fair costs something, usually in terms of efficiency. Private corporations, on the other hand, must be "efficient" or they will cease to exist. However, government, in fulfillment of its charge to be fair, provides breaks for inefficient corporations and allows them to continue to compete. All in all I'd say government agencies do a better job of being "fair" than private enterprise does at being "efficient".

[Kerrytravelers]

7. Efficiency isn't always in the best interest of the people.

Neither is the bottom line. Example- health care and education.

[Odin2005]

16. Exactly, "efficiency" is a corporatist euphemisn for squeazing thier employees dry,.

[leftofthedial]

8. No

that is a RW "libertarian" lie

[mdmc]

9. strong oversight uber-alles

The govt. agencies generally can compete, and beat, private providers.

[seabeyond]

10. i use to think so. i am not seeing it today. i am extremely disappointed

in the corporation today. they are far different than they were in the 80's and earlier. today i would not support any corporation taking over and being implemented in any federally funded enterprise. i have lost all faith in the corporate world.

[Wapsie B]

11. Therein hides another conservative lie,

that privatizing a government agency will result in greater efficiency and a savings to the taxpayer. There's this implication that once an agency is taken over by a private contractor that this expenditure just falls off the books.

Yeah there is still a concentration of wealth at the top with government, but at least there employees are compensated more fairly as a rule, along with having benefits.Conservatives cannot stand this. There are undoubtedly private contractors who treat their workers well. But there are many instances where people are hired for the bottom $$ and giving those at the top a much higher paycheck than they would as part of a government agency. A repug's dream.

[undeterred]

14. I think Bush has inadvertently proven how inefficient

and greedy the "private sector" can be. I have friends who went to Business School and they were all educated to believe (as Bush) was, that government is inherently inefficient. Bush is supposed to be a "manager" type of politician, but to him its all cronyism. He is incapable of distinguishing competence from incompetence, whether its baseball or emergency management. While many executives would lose their jobs for making so many hiring mistakes, he just keeps making the same kind of mistakes over and over again, with no consequences.

[greendog]

12. Are corporations efficient?

There are corporations that ship bottles of water thousands of miles to be sold at a price higher than gasoline.

Municipal governments pipe water into almost every building within their jurisdictions at a price so cheap you can water your lawn with it.

[Odin2005]

17. That's why, as I stated "efficency" is a euphemism for maximizing profit.

[devilgrrl]

13. Pfft! Not the one I work, not by a long shot.

However, if the "Peter Principal" is an indication of efficiency, then it rules supreme.

[Odin2005]

15. It's a myth based on the religious creed of free market fundimentalists

It's based on the misguided notion that compitition in a free market forces businesses to "streamline thier bureaucracy." Of course that nation has been proven wrong, but then again the free market theologians don't care about evidence, the free market fundies' god, Austrian economist Fredrich Hayek (the moron that thought that welfare states lead to Stalinism), even attacked empiricism in economics.

[greendog]

18. Every time a corporation copycats a competitors invention,...

...or duplicates a competitors product line, they have to create the infrastructure and bureaucracy to go along with it.

A few years ago I was a long haul truck driver. I remember picking up a load of paper (the type used for newspaper advert supplements) in Alabama. after delivering the load to Quebec I picked up a load of the same kind of paper in Quebec and hauled it to Mississippi (less than 150 miles from the original loads shipping point).

After doing things like that over and over for four years I came to the conclusion that a scary percentage of our economy is based on waste.

[annabanana]

26. Ah yes. . the "Free Market Radicals" - they are

unhealthy for the Body Politic.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

19. Two words, well, five actually, middle management and special

projects managers. That group sure knows how to save, save, save you $$.

[Jack Rabbit]

20. No

I've been in the US Army, worked as a contractor on government projects and in private industry.

Government employees are at least as good as people in private industry and the leadership in the government is far superior to that in private industry, especially Fortune 500 companies. Government employees are concerned about a quality product or service (of course, the government is usually the consumer) while top level private management is concerned with the bottom line and doesn't care about quality or good service. They figure if they produce it, the public will buy it; this is because with capital and wealth being more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the public has less and less choice. They make money with pure grandiosity, not by doing anything to earn it.

One of the major failings of large institutions, whether public or private, is simply the fact that they are large institutions run on a top-down paradigm. Upper level management is remote, aloof and unresponsive. They have little day-to-day connection with the end product, those who produce it or the consumers who use it.

I've often said the world would be a better place without General Motors, but that could be extended to any institution, public or private, suffering from this kind of elephantiasis.

[indypaul]

21. Two different entities,

two different missions requires two different yardsticks for
any measurement or comparison. There is NO one-size fits all.
The lack of accountability in either only accelerates their
failure. Case in point Enron and the current administration,

[Conan_The_Barbarian]

22. Wrong Question

Dictionary.com defintion: performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable.

Anyone that gives a yes or no answer to that question is a fool. If you answer yes or no you are dealing in terms of absolutism meaning all that needs to be done to break your argument is provide a single example that indicates the opposite of your answer. Can governments run more efficently than Corporations? Do Governments run more effiently than Corporations and the two inverses of these questions are both very different. One we ask if it is possible. Theoretically if the beings in control of either are omniscient, and 100% rational they'll run equally efficently. So if the government has more rational and more omniscient workers and managers than a corporation it will likely run more efficently meaning Governments can be more efficent than corporations. Now we address do they run more efficently? If we made a list ranking the most and least efficent governments and the most and least efficent Corporations, assuming our critereon for measuring efficency was objective and absolute (unlikely). If you answered yes than the least efficent Government must be more efficent than the most efficent corporation. Is the inverse true? No, than that means both yes and no are wrong.

So lets begin picking this question.

Each have fundamentally different goals and responsibilities. Google's goal is to provide a vast array of internet information databasing services, and to maximize its profits. It does so very well providing internet uses with high quality products and making a killing while doing so. If I then used the current Russian government in comparison which is plagued by mindboggling corruption what would you conclude? Which of these two organizations would you entrust with providing internet information and databasing services? The Russian Government or Google?

It would seem to me neither Government or Corporations are inherently more efficent than the other. I think the variable we need to consider is not the entities themselves but the people who run them. If we stripped our military of all personal but continued to supply tanks, ammo, and planes etc to the military and then decided to invade a country it would be done with 0% efficency, meaning it just wouldn't get done. Just like if Google fired all of its employees and everyone else just retired. Google won't take care of itself it takes people to run.

We should also ask, what kind of governments, and which governments? What kind of Corporations, and which Corporations?

We should consider the people who run them. Everyone has a different individual take on human nature, it is quite difficult to pinpoint universal themes of humanity that aren't rather obivous, and even still there always manage to be exceptions. So I think it comes down to the incentives system, as all humans respond to incentives. However humans being individuals respond differently to the seemingly infinite incentives. So lets assume humans are rational in that they do what it is they percieve to be in their best interest. Mind you what they perceive might not actually be what is. Everyone is motivated differently because they place different values on everything. Because we're dealing with Billions of individuals we'd could never catalogue each person and map out their value system and identify what incentives they respond strongly to. We are instead forced to make generalizations.

So we need to ask whether Governments or Corporations provide more universal set of motivational incentives.

The Question is infinitly complex, you could go on like this for a long time trying to pick apart every aspect of the question and try to develop a conceptual framework to do it any kind of justice. So many different components to consider!

[havocmom]

23. Depends on who is heading up the government/appointing agency heads

bushco has put in inept but loyal people or bright people intent on destroying agencies so the public will clamor for more privatization.

Privatization is NOT more efficient. Adds more layers of people sucking up the money and requires more layers in government to make sure the books are legit. Example: The Army used to do most of its own supply logistics. Halliburton and/or subsidiaries do that now and there are billions unaccounted for ALONG WITH a war being fought for no discernible reason than to have troops to support by private companies who require troops to protect them while they are running supplies to the troops that they need to protect them while they are running supplies to the troops that protect them while they are running supplies to the troops that protect them....

What a racket. The folks who have conditioned much of the population to deride public agencies, and the people who work for them, are doing it not for efficiency, but for profit! Those private companies are engaged in the evil alchemy of turning blood into gold. The workers they hire in Iraq don't pay taxes on the $$ they earn over there, do they? Swell way to take $$ from the US Treasury and make damn sure none of it gets replaced via payroll taxes!

And as far as government services v private business- There is much which is best accomplished communally. Private doesn't concern itself with what is not profitable. Government must provide for the common needs. BIG difference in area of focus.

[MGKrebs]

24. Oversight and scrutiny is another thing to keep in mind,

besides the other excellent points made.

Businesses hire P.R. firms to sugar coat everything they do. The only bad news we get is if some scandal comes to light. Otherwise, business operations are boring. Governments on the other hand, have tons of oversight and scrutiny. Many public officials as well as outside groups consider it their responsibility to oversee and scrutinize everything that government does. Any little error or scrap of waste is magnified as yet another example of waste or fraud.

[TahitiNut]

25. Do they "make the trains run on time"??

:rofl:

No.

[mdmc]

27. lol

:D

[bobbolink]

28. HAH! If you consider *HUGE* amounts of money lost to CEOs

with their golden parachutes, and much $$$$ down the drain to stockholders, then... yeah, it's "efficient".

That whole meme is a Raygun holdover, and it's past time to get to the truth!

[SoCalDem]

29. If by efficiently, you mean

efficiently pumping billions into the bank accounts of the upper crusties, YES!

[baldguy]

30. As a means of providing goods &services to the general public,

The private sector is no more efficient - and no more inefficient - than public sector.

If you want people to be satisfied with the service they receive, then you you need a very low ratio of workers to clients. If you want to save money, then you need a high ratio of workers to clients. It makes no difference is its a corporation or a govt agency.

[kineneb]

31. No. Hubby worked for WorldCom,

until the giant layoff on 1 May 2002.

"Efficient" is not a word he would have used to describe their operations.