Academic Ideas to Working Policies Differences in the Public Sector
I do read Dan Zetland’s site the One-Handed Economist from time to time. He does post interesting commentaries which Angry Bear reposts. This happens to be one of the ones I find to be interesting.
Soft money versus hard money? What are the differences between either and especially when it comes to physical labor?
From academic ideas to working policies
– Daniel Zetland
Academics and bureaucrats work in a “soft money” world (SMW) where funds are allocated in negotiations, job performance depends more on intrinsic motivation, and where job security often depends on past events and/or distant decisions.
Entrepreneurs, hourly workers and (some) salaried workers live in a “hard money” world (HMW) where tomorrow’s security depends on actions today. They “eat what they kill,” face immediate feedback on good or bad performance, and negotiate their job security on an ongoing basis.
In the SMW you can talk about frameworks, theories, “the triple helix” and pursue ideological and disciplinary purity. You don’t need to listen to others. Neither is there a need to cooperate. You don’t need to get anything done… as long as you comply with your funder’s contractual standards. Imagine a group of economists debating optimal trade policy, or imagine bureaucrats on a junket to learn about sustainability.
In the HMW, you do whatever works, where-ever it’s needed. You do not care about disciplines, you care about results. Your partners are with you for the wins, but they will leave if you abuse them. Contracts do not matter as much as ongoing mutual benefits. Imagine a group of restaurant workers feeding a changing roster of picky customers, or imagine a football team competing to win.
The HMW can be stressful and precarious, but you know when you’re ahead or behind. Feedback is fast; success is rewarded; failure demands change.
The SMW can be secure and considered, but it might also feel like you’re drowning in a vat of molasses. “Urgent” means next week; “important” means the next funding cycle. It’s hard to know if you’ve succeeded or failed, and you often don’t know who’s responsible for either.
These worlds can obviously learn from each other. It’s good to have some stability in the HMW, e.g., replacing “employment at will” with a one-year contract or strong unemployment benefits. It’s good to evaluate performance in the SMW, e.g., program sunsets, performance evaluations and/or outsourcing.
Policy design and implementation usually takes place in the SMW, which can lead to missed budgets, targets and/or deadlines. These failures harm the citizens the policies are designed to help. They impoverish the taxpayers whose funds pay for armies of bureaucrats or soldiers.
That’s why citizens need to play a role. I’ve written of citizen assemblies, participatory budgeting, and freedom to live in another country.
I’ve also written about forcing bureaurats to work in the private sector, which would also help the private sector benefit from bureaucratic insights.
For academics, I will make an additional recommendation: that they be forced “invited” to implement their ideas by exiting the Ivory Tower and working in the trenches with the practitioner-bureaucrats who are so easy to dismiss yet so essential to the prosperity that citizens enjoy, not just in rich countries but also in poorer countries where care and expertise can get lost in the complexities of poverty.
In the process, academics would learn to improve their ideas, just as bureaucrats and citizens would gain new ideas and potential insights from the academics.
These possibilities have always existed, but they have mostly resulted from luck, pushy individuals or crisis (Archimedes helped defend Siracusa against the Romans in 212 BCE).
I’m advocating that these “engagements” be obligatory for academics and — just to make sure someone picks up the phone — bureaucrats. The HMW is full of people questing for angles, innovations, or a leg up. People there don’t need any encouragement to innovate. The SMW is full if people and ideas floating past each other, like ships in the night. They need encouragement, and that’s why I’d recommend that their contracts include a requirement to “spend” 20 percent of their time working with others to implement ideas or improve policies.