Striking the balance between public management and private management of society’s vision

One of the problems administrative agencies face is the need to be legitimate or relevant. There is the urge to justify budgets by creating new programs that hopefully the public will recognize as beneficial hence worth the dollar expenditures.  Administrative agencies may create additional costs in the attempt to be legitimate by replacing the electorate’s visions for a good society with what administrative agencies deem to be better.

For example, a county’s residents may consider the most important attributes of cable television to include affordable rates, no cable blackouts, and excellent customer service.  A local county government, on the other hand, may consider more important a cable company’s ability to wire county government offices for broadband services and provide county government with television studios.  Unbeknownst to most county residents is that the cable company’s cost for providing these services to the county are passed on to the resident as part of the franchise fees that counties are able to extort from the cable provider during license negotiations.

The county government’s argument for these additional “services” is that citizens benefit from the public, educational, and government programming that the county’s new television studios provide (even if a very minute number of residents watch the channels) or that citizens benefit from the cable provided connectivity between county buildings (even if data and communications sent between buildings is primarily for operational reasons).

The county’s television operations could be contracted out to a private sector provider with payment to that provider coming from general funds versus a special cable account funded by the additional “tax” that residents overlook on their cable bills.  Even if county residents were aware of and accepted that part of the “cable vision” of county government to dress up and play TV exec for the benefit of the county, county residents would probably prefer that portion of the vision be managed privately versus in the public space.

Government, whether local, state, or federal, would probably save a lot in resources if it kept in mind that it was created to manage the citizen’s vision of a good society.  Co-opting that vision may increase society’s costs either via dollar expenditure or change in the original vision.  The difficulty for the citizen is keeping tap on government when that vision is tampered with.  Most citizens either do not have the time or do not want to expend discretionary time keeping tabs on their government.  The citizen’s time, the major barrier to her efficacy, enables government to pursue policy that injects imbalance into the public management vs. private management of resources decision.

About Alton Drew

Alton Drew brings a straight forward and insightful brand of political market intelligence. Alton Drew graduated from the Florida State University with a Bachelor of Science in economics and political science (1984); a Master of Public Administration (1993); and a Juris Doctor (1999). You can also follow Alton Drew on Twitter @altondrew.
This entry was posted in consumer welfare, government and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Striking the balance between public management and private management of society’s vision

  1. Kenneth Ciszewski says:

    I recently found out that the city I live in (Overland, MO) is planning on spending money to increase available office space for city officials. There is also an indication that some property the city bought a few years ago (it’s currently assessed at just under $2 million) may need asbestos abatement and other improvements to the tune of up to $16 million!!! This latter property was bought a few years ago, God knows why, and very little has been done with it. Rumor was that the city paid almost $5 million for it, without a business plan for it’s use, or to recoup the money spent. This was an old seminary with some buildings that are easily 50-60 years old. The city has rented the buildings out for a few events, but nothing substantial. Of course, this is the same city a few years ago that told residents it didn’t have money to pay for trash hauling, so now residents pay for it out of pocket. So much for looking out for the citizens! I suspect that $16 million would buy a lot of trash hauling!!! There is no benefit to citizens for any of this!!!

    • Alton Drew says:

      That’s the troubling part, Ken: no business plan. I am at times skeptical about city investments into these building projects, particularly where tax credits are involved to lure businesses in. There should be a return on the investment. In Atlanta, the city has ten tax allocation districts where property taxes collected from those districts are reinvested in that area to spur growth. For that to work you need a revenue driver that attracts consumers. Build it and they will come is not enough.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s