Bureaucratic Productivity

Not content with spraying taxpayer’s cash around like a drunken fleet ashore, our Lord and Masters are actually making us even poorer:

The efficiency of the benefits system has plummeted under Labour, according to official figures.

Productivity
in the welfare system – run by the Department for Work and Pensions –
dropped by 25pc in the five years to 2003, the Office for National
Statistics said.

It is the latest sign that the
increase in public spending is not being matched by similar increases
in the state sector’s performance.

Leave aside the effects of the tax wedge (all taxes distort behaviour, the larger the amount collected the larger the distortion), of the insane waste of some of the spending and concentrate just on labour productivity for a moment. 

It is a truism that average wages in an economy are, in the long term, determined by average productivity in that economy. If manufacturing, say, becomes more productive then that effect raises wages across the economy as manufacturers are able to bid up wages at the expense of other areas of the economy. Thus the average rises for all.

This leads to all sorts of interesting effects such at the Baumol Effect, which leads to, other things being equal, services becoming more expensive relative to manufactures…the productivity of manufacturing tends to rise faster than that of services but the wage level is determined by both together, not each separately.

But what does it mean if a sector of the economy actually has falling productivity? The whole system goes into reverse. Lower average productivty across the economy means, other things being equal, lower wages across the economy.

So there you have it. The startling incompetence of the bureaucracy, the lowering of productivity in the sector, is making us all poorer, dragging down everybody’s wages.

Aren’t we lucky little boys and girls to be ruled by such wise and omniscient masters?

One response

  1. Anyone who passes on as truth anything they read in the Telegraph about public spending is either a fool or is being deliberately misleading. A few points:
    (a) ‘productivity’ as measured by ONS subsequently improved 15 per cent, making up much of the fall. Funny that you didn’t have room to mention this.
    (b) What neither you nor the Telegraph bother to find out is that according to ONS “The decline in productivity between 1998 and 2001 is largely due to a fall in the number of people receiving Jobseeker’s Allowance leading to a fall in output while the volume of inputs grew steadily”. So productivity fell because more people got off benefits. What a disaster – I think I can feel my wages contracting as we speak!
    (c) ‘productivity’ as measured by ONS measures only the quantity of output, not the quality. In fact, ONS say that “There is some suggestion that both the accuracy and timeliness of SSA has improved. If so, this would to some extent offset falling productivity measured …”
    (d) ‘inputs’, ie staff costs, are likely to fall substantially in future since ONS plan to lay off 30,000 people. This will no doubt increase ‘productivity’.
    (e) ‘inputs’ were also higher in recent years because DWP invested in new IT systems to speed up its processes. According to you, this is a bad thing.
    That’s all from this ONS article, not that you’re interested in evidence unmediated by the Telegraph of course: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/nojournal/1596.pdf

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading