Venial behaviour in the New Zealand public sector @JordNZ
22 Feb 2017 Leave a comment
in economics of bureaucracy, politics - New Zealand
One of the things I noticed after coming to New Zealand was the petty veniality in government departments.
I noticed it in the first week when I discovered employers pay for farewells. No chance in Australia. We take them out for lunch, and we have a wipe round to pay for their lunch. If it was a retirement function, such as for a long serving employee, the senior staff would pay for it out of their own pocket. The taxpayer never ever paid.
Then I noticed that public servants would charge lunches with each other to their government credit card. They would buy wine.
It got worse when I noticed who went on overseas trips. When it was a more exotic location, a much more senior manager felt the need to represent his country. I thought most overseas travel was a waste of time so we actively avoided it and never proposed a trip.
Enthusiasm in the minister’s office for going to a rather boring International meeting picked up no end when they discovered it was in Istanbul.
Then to my astonishment, I found that government employees would take holidays at the end of their business travel. If you tried that in Australia, you would be fired. It would never be considered.
If you were on an interstate secondment, you are entitled to take leave equal to the amount of time you accrued while on that secondment.
Clearly, it would give an appearance of bias when you are writing the business case if you could get it business class air ticket to the other side of the world and then take a long holiday on the way back.
New Zealand seems to employ a lot of contractors as policy analysts. I have never heard of such things in Australia. If you could not recruit and retain enough analysts to work through peaks and troughs in the workload, you were not a very good manager. If it was a real crisis, you found someone who was not busy from within the organisation and had them seconded to your team.
In more than a few places, these contractors seemed to be good friends of the manager. These contractors can be hired so quickly and in such number that a new manager has no time to talk to his existing staff about what they do, what they might do or what skill sets they might have.
I was talking to a British colleague once about how he would always refuse any attempts by people to buy him lunch or a beer. Like me, he would be up the back eating his own sandwiches while the senior executives tucked into 3 course lunches provided by various lobby groups.
Until I came to New Zealand, the taxpayer had never bought me lunch, a beer, or an air ticket. I was very careful to refusal offers of hospitality from outsiders. If an offer was made, I thought they were up to something.
THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT WON’T CHANGE THE CLIMATE
17 Feb 2017 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, environmental economics, global warming, Public Choice Tags: climate alarmism, climate treaties, free riding, international public goods
“Two incompatible sacred values in American universities” Jon Haidt, Hayek Lecture Series”
07 Feb 2017 Leave a comment
in constitutional political economy, Public Choice Tags: moral psychology, political psychology
Cohabitation after the French presidential and parliamentary elections
06 Feb 2017 Leave a comment
in constitutional political economy, politics, Public Choice Tags: France
The run-off in the next French presidential election in May is likely to be between an independent who was formerly a socialist party economy minister and the National Front candidate. Over 80% of French vote for other parties so these parties are likely to still do well in the parliamentary election that will occur in June.
This leads to what was supposed to have been solved by making the presidential and parliamentary terms the same 5 years which is cohabitation.
The French system is a semi-presidential system. The president is directly elected but the Prime Minister must have the confidence of the National Assembly.
When the prime minister comes from the same party as the president, the French president reigns supreme and chooses his own Prime Minister from within his party. The French Constitution naturally is silent on the ability of the president to dismiss the prime minister.
There were several periods where the president and prime minister were from different parties. This was known as cohabitation. They occurred with the Mitterrand-Chirac Period (1986-1988), Mitterrand-Balladur Period (1993-1995) and Chirac-Jospin Period (1997-2002).
Each of these periods, the president largely confined himself to foreign affairs and defence with the Prime Minister running the internal affairs of the country. The Prime Minister or other ministers must countersign almost all of the official acts of the French president.
When a French president who was cohabitating with a political opponent refused to sign official decrees and other documents, the Prime Minister can always pass an act of Parliament.
It is important for the National Front candidate to note that in times of cohabitation, many argue that the French system becomes a Parliamentary system with the president having few powers.
It is the Prime Minister, not the President, who under Article 21 of the constitution “directs the action of government,” under Article 20 “shall determine and conduct the policy of the Nation, ” and also “ensures the execution of laws,” and “proposes constitutional amendments to the president.” The Prime Minister’s government can legislate through decrees, ordinances, and regulations, and, under Article 38 of the constitution, may ask the National Assembly to delegate power to issue decrees in areas normally under the legislature’s jurisdiction.
Short of dissolving parliament and calling for new elections, the president is left with little power to influence public policy. The main independent power of the French president is to dissolve parliament at his own initiative. There is no requirement for the Prime Minister to countersign.
The National Front has two seats in the outgoing French National Assembly. In the 2-round system of French Parliamentary elections, there is a run-off between the candidates who receive more than 12.5% of the vote on a first past the post basis.
That system will apply again in the forthcoming Parliamentary elections in July making it very difficult for the National Front to break through to a parliamentary majority even with a presidential win.
Candidates who advance to the second round have the option of withdrawing and 3rd placed candidates often do for tactical reasons. The parties of the mainstream left have a long-standing agreement whereby they do not stand against one another in the second round. The less-well-placed automatically withdraws.
The National Front ran for president over the years as a way of raising its profile. Winning the presidency is of no moment unless there is success also in the parliamentary elections.
A newly elected National Front presidential cannot dismiss the socialist prime minister. The National Front may boast its current two seats to be a minor coalition partner after the parliamentary elections.
Listen up deplorables, you’re a racist scumbag unless you vote for Bernie still isn’t a winning political message
01 Feb 2017 Leave a comment
in economics, politics - USA, Public Choice Tags: 2016 presidential election, political psychology
Recent Comments