Cutting budget expenditure: 'Mission Impossible'? 7

How about this? It appears that Latvia's State Revenue Service (VID) will only work four days a week, including its boss, Mr. Jakans. This follows 31% decrease in VID's budget, as compared with 2008. Naturally, the officials are unanimous in saying this will not affect the effectiveness of VID in collecting taxes…

Iesaki citiem:

Given such measures, how can anyone still harbor doubts that the government will achieve the budget deficit target of 7 percent of GDP??!

But my main objective in this post is not to mock the Latvian government. That would be too easy. About a month ago Danske Bank's Lars Christensen wrote Repše's plan to cut by 40% is "Mission Impossible". Is it? After all, we do see private firms implementing sometimes savage cuts in their operating costs and then moving on. However, the public sector is fundamentally different from the private sector because the bureacrats have what I would call a 'monopoly of technical expertise'.

Let me explain using a simple example. Suppose you want to renovate your apartment but you're really no expert in construction. So you contract the renovation to a construction brigade. Clearly, your interests (pay less) are in conflict with the interests of the workers (earn more). Not being an expert yourself, you don't know what the 'true' cost of renovation is, but you understand that construction workers have every reason (and opportunity) to overcharge. A familiar setting, isn't it? What should you do? It makes sense to get a second opinion. It’s easy to call another brigade and ask them to name their price. And maybe a third one, and so on. Naturally, the construction people are fully aware of your options, and this knowledge disciplines them. If this is the buyers' market, you will expect to pay the price that is reasonably close to the 'true' one, even if you know nothing about construction. The reason is that competing suppliers of services do not have a monopoly on technical expertise.

This is not the case in the public sector. There is no competition among the independent providers of services. The public sector is best thought of as a set of monopoly agencies, providing various services. As a result, the bureacrats often possess a 'monopoly on technical expertise'. How many managers specialize in running the police, the armed forces, hospitals, or collecting taxes? Thus, public sector managers have a natural advantage in over-charging their 'customers' - taxpayers and their political representatives. It’s just very hard to get a ‘second opinion’ on how much it really costs to run the tax colleciton agency.

What are the implications for trying to reduce public sector expenditure? A naive approach would start with assuming that the bureacrats are benevolent servants of the public good and all you have to do is to ask. A more prudent approach, however, would recognize that the world is a brutal place and bureacrats are as self-interested as anyone else. They, too, want to earn more while working less. And their 'monopoly on expertise' makes it easier for them to achieve this. Unfortunately, it seems that the government of Dombrovskis has taken the naive approach. I think they made two big mistakes.

The first mistake was that the government asked the ministries to come up with cost-cutting plans, without really setting any clear performance standards. Given the 'monopoly on expertise', this makes it too easy to reduce the costs by decreasing provision of public services. VID saves by working 4 days a week. Hospitals save by shutting down whole departments and sending doctors on unpaid leave. It also makes it possible for the senior bureacrats to save by laying off large numbers of lower rank employees, while keeping high salaries for the 'inner circle'. Witness the thousands of teachers who will soon be sacked. Given the context, it is not clear what is the wisdom of 'economizing' on the salaries of people who then need to be paid unemployment benefits.

The second, and most serious mistake of Dombrovskis government is to make exceptions. Some ministries must cut the costs by 40%, others - by less. Some areas are not touched at all. Seeing that exceptions are made, bureacrats have incentives to invest in becoming an exception. What exactly they will do depends on their perceptions of what will grant them exceptional status. For example, if they think exceptions are granted to areas where reductions have socially disruptive effects, they will try to reduce spending in a disruptive way. Managers of hospitals will want to shut down hospital wards and visibly decline healthcare to those who seek it. VID will declare it will work less. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. The result would be the chaotic reduction in public spending AND in provision of vital public services, with potentially disastrous effects on the economy and society. And precious time will be wasted as bureacrats will be preoccupied with trying to be an exception, rather than running more efficient units.

I think any program of cutting fiscal spending must begin with a proper awe of the 'monopoly on expertise' that managers of public agencies have. First, whenever possible, reformers should seek independent expert opinions of the operating costs. Perhaps within the ranks of the middle management of the ministries, making discreet promises of promotion. Second, given the economic context, and the 'monopoly on expertise' , the reformers should strive for a clear plan based on uniform reductions in wages in all of the public sector. No negotiations, no exceptions. Third, there should be clear rules regarding uninterrupted provision of public services and provisions for monitoring this. The main aim of this short-run reform should be a nominal reduction in operating costs, while minimizing the impact on provision of services to the economy.

Sounds like a ‘mission impossible’, doesn’t it?

Iesaki citiem:
Creative commons c6ae3e51884b139b45a669ce829ac99646bf0ceb328fc95963f1703a58a032d0 CREATIVE COMMONS LICENCE ĻAUJ RAKSTU PĀRPUBLICĒT BEZ MAKSAS, ATSAUCOTIES UZ AUTORU UN PORTĀLU PROVIDUS.LV, TAČU PUBLIKĀCIJU NEDRĪKST LABOT VAI PAPILDINĀT. AICINĀM ATBALSTĪT PROVIDUS.LV AR ZIEDOJUMU!

Komentāri (7) secība: augoša / dilstoša

Tmp author bdd174d29c18893f8040d1ca0cd30c40b76ac587432bcc3f16557adc2b366733
5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Trauts 01.06.2009 11:59 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2009/car052809...
IMF chitchat

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Juris Kaža 29.05.2009 21:12
In Latvia, there is a monopoly of expertise (?! or idiocy in many cases). But in the EU, where there are many states and freedom of movement, there is actually a choice of governance. Along with better employment opportunities (as soon as the other EU economies recover), Latvians will choose the better governed places to live and raise their families and still be 2 1/2 hours by Ryanair from their nominal homeland. This is what will bring stagnation and marginalization to Latvia as a country, thanks to the behavior of its political elite, up to when Valdis Dombrovskis took over as a "fall guy" for the previous governments.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

JB 28.05.2009 20:29
Well, it used to be two options - shoot first and only then ask questions or vice versa. I'm afraid now we have only the first option, and costs should be cut in the first place. With all adjustments and technical expertise we'll be able to deal afterwards.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Janis Juris 28.05.2009 10:52
Before talking about „mistakes”, the author should himself try to escape the naivete by carefully defining those allmighty „reformers” (or appointers of perfectly loyal reformers, if you wish). All ministers in the government is too wide a definition because a lot of political wrangling takes place there. Dombrovskis and Repse alone, on the oher hand, is too narrow a definiton because they simly don’t have enough power and resources to infiltrate and make decisions on all wages in the ministries. Seems that (contrary to the blog’s author) IMF has recognised this problem and is thus suggesting giving more power to Repse.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Trauts 28.05.2009 10:18
I disagree.
It's dependent on political will. Mr. Repše took decision to allow State Revenue Service work for 4 days. And this decision shows that about 20% of VID's officials are unnecessary. He could actually cut their numbers by 20% leaving salary untouched.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Jānis Birks 27.05.2009 22:06
You are a wise man Mr. Dombrovsky. I would really like to read more about your opinion in the blog and less about what others have said. Keep up the good work!

P.S. I would only disagree with the idea of using middle management by offering promotion - this also creates a lot of unpleasant incentives.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Beibe 27.05.2009 21:52
So true. Ļoti bēdīga patiesība, ka senior officials sevi saudzē un paši arī apgriež apakšas... Bet kurš kaut ko mainīs?

Citi autora darbi
Vjaceslavs 165x152

(Un)real money 45 Autors:Vjačeslavs Dombrovskis

Article research 1e4ac20bb63aee5492853c84556a2de54571efc0425d62b84a0cec8d841f82ac

Is anything wrong with higher education in Latvia? 1 Autors:Vyacheslav Dombrovsky