Slashdot Mirror
Government Efficiency and Network Theory
Science News reports on a study relating (in a loose way) the efficiency of a national government with the size of its cabinet. Researchers in Vienna found that the development level of countries, as a proxy for the efficiency of their governments, is in general lower for countries with more members in the national cabinets. They then went on to model cabinet members as nodes in a network and found support for the observed correlation. There was even specific evidence for the decades-old observation of English historian Cyril Northcote Parkinson that decision-making is severely impaired in committees of more than 20 people. The US is getting close to Parkinson's cutoff, at 17.
The study actually finds a correlation between a countries HDI (human development index) and the size of its cabinet.
nice study.
if you want to read the whole report, i found the original url here :
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.2202
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.2202v1
the only problem i see is that they missed out on the *actual* membership, for example Belgium is ranked as 15 but this doesnt explain the shabby decisionmaking in Belgium until you also count in the regional govs which should put it around 50 give or take.
I have several of C N Parkinson's books, including a signed first edition of 'Parkinson's Law', from which this example is taken.
Though he was a history professor, and did some studies, Parkinson's primary claim to fame is not as a historian. He was a writer who wrote historical fiction with a sideline in humorous articles and books.
This whole study sounds as if it has been taken completely from the (comic) Parkinson proposal which is wiki'ed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_Inefficiency
This article cover the news better: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/33926
It also contains a link to the original paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.2202
Best Regards,
Durval Menezes.
I have never met a computer that didn't like me.
The number of Cabinet members and Cabinet-level departments is much less important in the US than in parliamentary systems.
Our Cabinet is one in name only. The President has authority over all executive branch decisions, and no Cabinet head can go against his wishes. He can remove them at his leisure and appoint new ones. Although the Senate confirms appointments, it usually does so regardless of whether Senators agree with the policies of the nominee. Instead, it is expected that as long as the nominee isn't scandalous or completely incompetent, he or she will be confirmed.
Moreover, our Cabinet doesn't really have meetings anymore. It just isn't the case that the heads of the Departments of Veterans Affairs, the Treasury, and the Interor sit around with the President and discuss policy. The executive branch really does its business in smaller groups, many of them wholly distinct form the Cabinet (the National Security Council, for example).
Make cheese not war 8:)
... as Japan does not have a president.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
According to Parkinson (again) administrators exist to make work for each other. They are also judged by the number of staff they have.
So, by multiplying subordinates, an administrator can increase his standing. But this also increases his workload because he has to manage the extra staff.
If an administrator can't, for some reason, do his own work he will meddle in someone else's.