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.

Comments

Better coverage

[durval]

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

Re:National governments

[edittard]

The Japanese diet, for instance, is much more powerful than the president and his cabinet.

I apologise to rice and raw fish. Seems I underestimated them!

Re:Government inefficiency is good.

[n dot l]

Efficient in the sense that they don't bother working much on a whole heap of areas and just concentrate on oppression. Well, yes and no. Stalin, for example, built Russia back up from the brink of disaster (Soviet losses were staggeringly large during WWII) and into a nation the rest of the world feared for nearly half a century. This was no small task - it involved the reconstruction of the cities the Germans had razed, modernizing many others, rebuilding his military, development of the USSR's nuclear weapons program, etc. That was no small task. He did that and he oppressed the people he ruled over.

I don't think the number of priorities has much to do with efficiency (by any measure) in the long run. Authoritarian regimes can get a lot done in a very short period, and history has proven that time and again (I think we all remember reading about all the kings that inherited a disaster and had built an empire by the time they died in school). The trouble is that they're extremely sensitive to corruption, internal power struggles, and simple human vanity. When the strong leader dies, those who inherit his power often do tremendous damage simply bickering with each other over who gets to rule exactly what. And then when the next great ruler steps up and takes control we find that they first go throughout the country destroying a great many things in order to rebuild them in their own likeness. And in both cases we find that the bottom rung officials are corrupt as all hell since they're not accountable to anyone but their own superiors, who are often at great distance and too indifferent to bother listening to the people's complaints.

Re:Government inefficiency is good.

[Thanshin]

Isn't everything the opposite in Soviet Russia? Yes, in soviet Russia, when women say "No", they mean "No".

Wait, no, it's the opposite, when they say "Yes", they mean "No".

No, wait, it's "Yes" when they say "Yes".

Anyway, in soviet Russia, unlike you, we men do perfectly understand women.

Re:Well, that explains...

[ShieldW0lf]

Slavery is a good deal more efficient than negotiating with unions. An Emperor is a good deal more efficient than Democracy. Do we want to live in a perfectly efficient world? No. We do not. 99% of the foolish, arrogant ideas held by those in positions of authority should be prevented from ever being pursued in a serious fashion.

Efficiency, ultra-violence, ultra-realism and secret prison camps. Gee, where does this all lead?