<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#" xmlns:ent="http://www.purl.org/NET/ENT/1.0/" version="1.0">
 <title>Russ Nelson</title>
 <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blog.russnelson.com/economics/governments-vs-contractors" />
<!-- <modified></modified> -->
 <!-- optional elements -->
 <tagline></tagline>
 <generator name="pyblosxom 0.8rc1">http://roughingit.subtlehints..net/pyblosxom</generator>
 <entry>
  <title>Governments vs. Contractors</title>
  <summary></summary>
  <author>
   <name></name>
   <url>http://blog.russnelson.com</url>
  </author>
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blog.russnelson.com/2007/02/08#governments-vs-contractors" />  <id>http://blog.russnelson.com/2007/02/08#governments-vs-contractors</id>
  <created>2007-02-08T06:47:05Z</created>
  <issued>2007-02-08T06:47:05Z</issued>
  <modified>2007-02-08T06:47:05Z</modified>
  <content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en-us">
   
&lt;p&gt;Matt Yglesias writes a somewhat confused blog posting about &quot;The
Trouble With Contracting.&quot;  He opines that governments are less
efficient than the private sector.  He lays the blame on just one
aspect of the private sector: that badly run companies go out of
business.  Then he notes that when governments buy their services
through badly run companies, they don&apos;t necessarily go out of
business.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;He is totally missing the reason why badly run companies go out of
business.  They fail because other companies out-compete them.
Competition is what you get when multiple vendors try to cooperate
with the customer more than anyone else.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If, as Matt suggests, companies are not chosen to maximize
cooperation, then buying services through contractors is not likely to
be any more efficient.  He&apos;s quite right even though he doesn&apos;t
understand why he&apos;s right.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;But the real problem is not whether governments hire employees, or
hire contractors.  The real problem is when governments hire anybody.
Governments don&apos;t have the flexibility to provide many different
levels of service to different groups.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Compare, for example, restaurants to schools.  Restaurants are
subject to very little government control.  They have to find an
acceptable location if the community restricts business locations via
zoning.  They have to maintain certain standards of cleanliness and
food preparation.  Other than that, they can sell anything anytime
anywhere in any quantity and combination to any customers.  Schools
have one curriculum for all students in a single grade.  All students
are expected to learn all material at the same rate at the same age at
the same time of day.  A tiny bit of flexibility is provided for
special education students -- but even then the goal would be for them
to learn the standard curriculum (aka mainstreaming).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;School choice will have very little affect on any of this (or so I
predict).  &quot;He who pays the piper calls the tune.&quot;  Initially parents
will be able to choose from a substantial range of schooling.  Over
time, taxpayers will rebel against, say, pagan schooling, or math-only
schooling, or athletic schooling, and more and more restrictions will
be placed on them.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;That, in a nutshell, is the case against government provision of
services.  The private sector might be more efficient, but efficiency
isn&apos;t really the goal.  The goal is for everyone to get what they
want, not for everyone to get what everyone wants.  A free market
provides the first; governments provide the second.&lt;/p&gt;



  </content> 
 </entry>
</feed>