Government Spending Benchmarking

ballooba

Is there any system for comparing the value for money achieved by the governments of different countries?

The level of service from the government in this country has not gone up in line with the level of growth in the economy. In my view anyway.

The only experience I have ever had selling to them was a domain name to a government agency.

A former private sector employee who was working with that agency said later that they were disgusted with what I got.

They paid 100 times what it cost. :eek:

[edited to fix typos]

NewDubliner

ballooba wrote:

Is there any system for comparing the value for money achieved by the governements of different countries?

No.
Value for money is not a goal of our government.

ballooba

NewDubliner wrote:

No.
Value for money is not a goal of our government.

Evidently not if you condider projects like PPARS, Port Tunnel, Luas, Thornton Hall, etc.

I think it should be though. Are we supposed to just keep blindly paying them taxes without caring where our money is going.

Firetrap

That's true. Anything the government ever spends money on seems to go way over budget. It's like when they hear a government agency is involved, they think of a number and triple it.

ballooba

Or in the case of Thornton Hall, the government just comes out and offers a multiple of what it's worth anyway.

NewDubliner

allie_e17 wrote:

That's true. Anything the government ever spends money on seems to go way over budget. It's like when they hear a government agency is involved, they think of a number and triple it.

Nobody knows what the budget is for 'decentralisation'. The cost is unknown and there's no way to measure the benefit.

ballooba

NewDubliner wrote:

Nobody knows what the budget is for 'decentralisation'. The cost is unknown and there's no way to measure the benefit.

Are you suggesting that there should be no budget for decentralisation?

Sounds a bit strange to me. Are you a civil servant?

cooker3

Well government spending is inherantly inefficient and not just this country, any country is the same.

When civil service is involved and ministers which are more interested in how a project is is viewed by public and not if it's cost effective then it will be always like that.

I highly doubt it would matter if Fianna Fail were booted out, no matter who replaced them I imagine it would be the same.

NewDubliner

ballooba wrote:

Are you suggesting that there should be no budget for decentralisation?

There is a open, blank chequebook, but no budget in the sense of costings or measurable value for money.

ballooba wrote:

Are you a civil servant?

I'm a taxpayer & it's our money that's being wasted.

ballooba

NewDubliner wrote:

There is a open, blank chequebook, but no budget in the sense of costings or measurable value for money.

Are your merely stating how things are? or are you suggesting that this is the way things should work?

NewDubliner wrote:

I'm a taxpayer & it's our money that's being wasted.

Doesn't really answer the question.

NewDubliner

ballooba wrote:

Are your merely stating how things are? or are you suggesting that this is the way things should work?

It's how things are and I don't think it's how things should work.

ballooba

Glad we cleared that up.

I found a few documents. But the statistics are old. They are from the OECD.

We seem to be about average in terms of Public Sector Employment Vs Total Employment. The figures for Public Sector Pay Vs GDP are out of whack though.

ballooba

cooker3 wrote:

Well government spending is inherantly inefficient and not just this country, any country is the same.

That's what the public sector would like you to believe.

cooker3 wrote:

I highly doubt it would matter if Fianna Fail were booted out, no matter who replaced them I imagine it would be the same.

Fine Gael claim they will be able to do better. That's the message on all the posters in my loclality anyway.

"I'll sack the wasters of taxpayers money."

Judt

Well, first off government spending is inneficent in every country on earth, simply due to the scale of things – no government is 100% efficient with its money.

However on a set of scales, Ireland is perhaps not as well off as we should be for a halfway organised first world country – though we do have good examples as well as bad, though admittedly far more bad than good.

I think it’s a multitude of factors contributing to this – political, yes, but one also has to take a hard look at things such as the civil servants, who remain constant as governments come and go and who have great power to demand decent working conditions and pay rises whilst the system they are, ultimately, responsible for handling does not work.

There are other factors as well – if you were a contractor with a government project, would you honestly not try to screw them for every penny? The people delivering the services also have a role to play – it’s the Star Wars Syndrome. When first they began shooting Return of the Jedi the production team used a different no-name picture because they knew from experience that everyone they went to for supplies and services would jack their prices up – “Because it was Star Wars.”

The government is a political institution which comes and goes, and is responsible for the system – and ultimately changing it. The civil service is a constant which doesn’t get held to enough accountability in these matters – a cynic might say “Because they can grind the country to a halt if they disagree with something being pushed on them.” Not 100% true, but anyways, another debate.

Thirdly, those delivering the services have to be held to fairer contracts – so that, for example, if they run over time and over budget because of poor planning, they can cover the cost. If the motorway gets held up because there’s a castle in the way then you just have to grind your teeth and gesticulate wildly.

ballooba

Judt wrote:

There are other factors as well – if you were a contractor with a government project, would you honestly not try to screw them for every penny? The people delivering the services also have a role to play – it’s the Star Wars Syndrome. When first they began shooting Return of the Jedi the production team used a different no-name picture because they knew from experience that everyone they went to for supplies and services would jack their prices up – “Because it was Star Wars.”

That is not true. In my experience and from what I have heard from others, the government pretty much come to you and say "Name your price, we'll try to match it."

In my case, why didn't they just go with a different name?

However, in the case of Thornton Hall, they just offered a multiple of market value off hand.

The fact is that Civil Servants know that they don't have to account for spending.

The Civil Service attitude to spenbing may be a legacy from previous governments. They have however completely lost the run of themselves since the economy got a bit better.

Civil Service contracts have always been plum like the jobs there, because there was no work, now there is loads of work but those on public contracts are still raking it in.

NewDubliner

ballooba wrote:

The fact is that Civil Servants know that they don't have to account for spending.

That's not a fact.

Have you ever heard of the 'Auditor and Comptroller General?

Most money is wasted on projects where political interests are allowed over-ride common sense.

The_Minister

ballooba wrote:

Fine Gael claim they will be able to do better. That's the message on all the posters in my loclality anyway.

"I'll sack the wasters of taxpayers money."

We seem to meet alot don't we?:D
I won't write a big long reply to this, I'll just leave you with a thought. If you reply, then I will too.

Do you think that a party that is going into government with a party that gets most of its funding from trade unions, is going to be allowed hold mass-firings? At best you'd have to spend billions on giant compensation packages, or at worst, have hundreds of cases dragged before the Labour Courts. Is it not better (albeit unpalatable), to use the current government's policy (technically the HSE's) of natural wastage?

ballooba

NewDubliner wrote:

That's not a fact.

Have you ever heard of the 'Auditor and Comptroller General?

Most money is wasted on projects where political interests are allowed over-ride common sense.

I've never heard the 'Auditor Comptroller General' make much noise about waste in the public service before. What exactly have they done in relation to Thornton Hall? Not much.

ballooba

The_Minister wrote:

We seem to meet alot don't we?:D
I won't write a big long reply to this, I'll just leave you with a thought. If you reply, then I will too.

Is that a promise?

The_Minister wrote:

Do you think that a party that is going into government with a party that gets most of its funding from trade unions, is going to be allowed hold mass-firings?

Labour would be a minority partner in a FG/Lab/Green government so they would have to give some concession here. It's unlikely that it would take mass firings to sort out public spending. Not all civil servants are bad, as I mentioned in my example above.

The_Minister wrote:

At best you'd have to spend billions on giant compensation packages, or at worst, have hundreds of cases dragged before the Labour Courts. Is it not better (albeit unpalatable), to use the current government's policy (technically the HSE's) of natural wastage?

The above is neither an example from the HSE nor one of 'natural wastage'. Thornton Hall was not 'natural wastage' either. It is just waste, plain and simple.

NewDubliner

ballooba wrote:

I've never heard the 'Auditor Comptroller General' make much noise about waste in the public service before. What exactly have they done in relation to Thornton Hall? Not much.

It's in his 2005 report.

1: The C & AG can only highlight waste after it has occurred.

2: It's up to the government to act on the reports.

ballooba

NewDubliner wrote:

It's in his 2005 report.

1: The C & AG can only highlight waste after it has occurred.

2: It's up to the government to act on the reports.

I was aware that it was mentioned in his annual report.

Point 2 only serves to highlight that they are in effect unaccountable.

NewDubliner

ballooba wrote:

I was aware that it was mentioned in his annual report.

Point 2 only serves to highlight that they are in effect unaccountable.

Who, the politicians who took the decision or the civil servants who implemented it?

The_Minister

ballooba wrote:

Is that a promise?

For you? Of course;)

ballooba wrote:

Labour would be a minority partner in a FG/Lab/Green government so they would have to give some concession here. It's unlikely that it would take mass firings to sort out public spending. Not all civil servants are bad, as I mentioned in my example above.

I'm not saying that all civil servents are bad, but I have relatives who work in the civil service, and one of them told me about a situation where there were four managers minding the same area of responsibility, where one would have done, and two would have been ideal. Large scale layoffs would be nessacery because, being a public institution, there are many people in there that are lazy and inefficient, who use up resources just by being there. A bloated institution is an inefficient institution.
Labour would have to make some policy concessions, but they would never consent to moves that would alienate a huge proportion of their voters. All those new work practices, the restructuring, the unions would be up in arms, unless it was agreed as part of the Partnership process, in which case our we would have to pay dearly.

ballooba wrote:

The above is neither an example from the HSE nor one of 'natural wastage'. Thornton Hall was not 'natural wastage' either. It is just waste, plain and simple.

IMO, it is the daily, slow wastage in the grindings of the apparatus that wastes more money rather than the one-off big headline-grabbing mistakes. You do have to acknowledge Judt's "Star Wars" idea though. If you are ever expecting value for money, like you would see in the private sector, then don't hold your breath, no government has ever gotten that.

Judt

NewDubliner wrote:

Who, the politicians who took the decision or the civil servants who implemented it?

Both. Whilst politicians are the elected representatives, the civil service are the constant administrators. As most politicians have said afterwards, Yes, Minister was not too far from the mark. Both parties share responsibility - perhaps different levels on different projects, but you cannot escape from the fact that politicians conjure up many wasting schemes, and civil servants manage many. Attempting to shift the blame doesn't actually get us anywhere.

NewDubliner

Judt wrote:

but you cannot escape from the fact that politicians conjure up many wasting schemes, and civil servants manage many.

Should the Civil Service have the power to block money-wasting schemes?

from, Irish Independent Wednesday December 27th 2006.

Extra staff committed to bolster government overseas aid
The Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern has confirmed that extra staff will be recruited to ensure that the Irish tax payer gets good value for the money spent by the government on overseas aid.

More staff, why?

The_Minister

NewDubliner wrote:

Should the Civil Service have the power to block money-wasting schemes?

Unelected beaurocrats overuling elected officials? That's not good.

ballooba

NewDubliner wrote:

Who, the politicians who took the decision or the civil servants who implemented it?

Both. The civil servants because the politicians don't make them accountable. The politicians in turn should be accountable to the people who elected them, but in this country it doesn't happen.

ballooba

NewDubliner wrote:

Should the Civil Service have the power to block money-wasting schemes?

See above. Politicians are supposed to be accountable to the people. I genuinely believe that Bertie Ahern could pop a squat on O'Connell Street and soil the tricolour and get away with it. Within a week it would have been forgotten or people would grow to admire him for it.

ballooba

The_Minister wrote:

IMO, it is the daily, slow wastage in the grindings of the apparatus that wastes more money rather than the one-off big headline-grabbing mistakes. You do have to acknowledge Judt's "Star Wars" idea though. If you are ever expecting value for money, like you would see in the private sector, then don't hold your breath, no government has ever gotten that.

Yes, but my point is that it's not like Star Wars where the vendors are milking the studios. There is no incentive for Civil Servants to get value for money. Most of the time they go out and offer a multiple of market value like with Thornton Hall or like in my case they are just completely inept at negotiating.

NewDubliner

ballooba wrote:

There is no incentive for Civil Servants to get value for money. Most of the time they go out and offer a multiple of market value like with Thornton Hall or like in my case they are just completely inept at negotiating.

What incentive would you suggest? Some kind of profit sharing scheme perhaps?

NewDubliner

ballooba wrote:

There is no incentive for Civil Servants to get value for money. Most of the time they go out and offer a multiple of market value like with Thornton Hall or like in my case they are just completely inept at negotiating.

What incentive would you suggest? Some kind of profit sharing scheme perhaps?

What about the minister who's responsible?