On bureacracy and Katrina

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I'm only posting this because, as editorials go this week, this is a pretty good one. I'm not posting it to criticize, only to inform. And maybe convert a few minds =).

 

Bureaucratic Failure

To understand Katrina's problems, read the 9/11 report.

 

BY DANIEL HENNINGER

Friday, September 2, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

 

Imagination is not a gift usually associated with bureaucracies.--The 9/11 Commission Report

 

The response to Hurricane Katrina suggests we are not very good at it. The stark images of bereft people in New Orleans and Mississippi are said to reveal inadequate preparation by the agents of government--from elected officials to bureaucracies--whose duties include commanding the vast resources and authority of government to provide help when it is most needed.

 

To be sure, the scale of Katrina's force and devastation overwhelms the notion of a rationally organized response. The grim fact remains that disasters are relatively commonplace in the world. Swiss Re, the big reinsurance group, annually publishes a compendium called "Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters" listing the human and economic toll. In 2004, it recorded 116 natural catastrophes, with the Dec. 26 Asian tsunami leaving more than 280,000 dead or missing. Less well-remembered, often the case with Third World disaster, a June monsoon killed 1,845 in Bangladesh and Hurricane Jeanne in September left some 3,000 dead in Haiti, whose flooded city of Gonaives looked like New Orleans.

 

An industry of experts has emerged, dedicated to mitigating disasters, both their imminence and aftermath. Science magazine just dedicated its cover to "Dealing with Disasters." We know quite a lot.

 

Specialists in disaster mitigation hold annual conferences to share knowledge. In January in Japan, the U.N. held the five-day World Conference on Disaster Reduction, with numerous representatives from member states. A week earlier in Mauritius, Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for "a global warning system" for tsunamis and "all other threats." Specialized disaster Web sites exist, such as the Pan American Health Organization's site on Disasters and Humanitarian Assistance." The U.S. oceanographic administration has created the Center for Tsunami Inundation Mapping Efforts, a sophisticated modeling program to help vulnerable nations in the Pacific.

 

So if we're so smart, why are Louisiana and Mississippi sinking beneath water and red tape?

It has been reported in past days how the relief agencies, such as the Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA are struggling; basics such as food distribution are in disarray. On paper anyway, many of these problems had already been addressed. By law, FEMA requires all states, if they are to receive grant money, to file both pre- and post-catastrophe mitigation plans. Experts in Louisiana, and indeed New Orleans, have been drafting one for several years.

 

We know what to do. We have many specialists in the arcane disciplines relevant to understanding natural and man-made disasters. We know what to do, but we are not good at using what we know. Why not?

 

We fail to use well what we know because we rely too much on large public bureaucracies. This was the primary lesson of the 9/11 Commission Report. Large public bureaucracies, whether the FBI and the CIA or FEMA and the Corps of Engineers, don't talk to each other much. They are poorly incentivized, if at all. Budgets, the oxygen of the acronymic planets, make bureaucracy's managers first responders to constant political whim. Real-world problems, as the 9/11 report noted, inevitably seem distant and minor: "Once the danger has fully materialized, evident to all, mobilizing action is easier--but it then may be too late."

 

Homeland Security, a new big bureaucracy, has struggled since 2001 to assemble a feasible plan to respond to another major terror event inside the U.S. The possibility, or likelihood, of a bird-borne flu pandemic is beginning to reach public awareness, but the government is at pains to create a sufficient supply of vaccine or a distribution system for anti-viral medicines. Any bets on which will come first--the flu or the distribution system?

 

Big public bureaucracies are going to get us killed. They already have. One may argue that this is an inevitable result of living in an advanced and complex democracy. Yes, up to a point. An open political system indeed breeds inefficiencies (though possibly the Jeb Bush administration that dealt with the 2004 hurricanes is more competent than Gov. Blanco's team in Louisiana). And perhaps low-lying, self-indulgent New Orleans understood its losing bargain with a devil's fate.

 

But we ought to at least recognize that our increasingly tough First World problems--terrorism, viruses, the rising incidence of powerful natural disasters--are being addressed by a public sector that too often is coming to resemble a Third World that can't execute.

 

I'll go further. We should consider outsourcing some of these functions, for profit, to the private sector. In recent days, offers of help have come from such companies as Anheuser-Busch and Culligan (water), Lilly, Merck and Wyeth (pharmaceuticals), Nissan and GM (cars and trucks), Sprint, Nextel and Qwest (communications gear and phone cards), Johnson & Johnson (toiletries and first aid), Home Depot and Lowe's (manpower). Give contract authority to organize these resources to a project-management firm like Bechtel. Use the bureaucracies as infantry.

 

A public role is unavoidable and political leadership is necessary. But if we're going to live with First World threats, such as the destruction of a major port city, let's deploy the most imaginative First World brains--in the private sector and academia--to mitigate those threats. Laughably implausible? Look at your TV screen. The status quo isn't funny.

 

Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.

[CanadianChris 0]

Excellent editorial. Being a government worker myself, I recognize a lot of these problems, most of which stem from not enough communication and too many regulations. Regulations inhibit creativity.

[Guest Cerebus]

To see this on a micro-level check out the classic book The Peter Principle.

 

BTW, I agreed with everything except the end. I feel that based on the power that large corporations already weild in the private sector, giving them power int he private sector would be a bad idea.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm a Special Education teacher, a field heavily regulated by state and federal regulations. This week I'll be having a meeting with an assistant pricipal, my Sp.Ed. process coordinator, a general education teacher, a mentally retarded girl (or, as I'm supposed to call her "a girl with mental retardation"), and her mother, just so I can switch the MR girl from a general education Civics class to a Sp Ed. Social Studies class. I've spent more time in the weeks since school started on paperwork compliance than on lesson planning.

 

I loves me the bureaucracy.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I agree with this totally. Too many cooks spoil the broth, but I'm not favoring any kind of further bundling. I'd like to see the Homeland Security department get shitcanned, it's rather pointless to establish when it isn't really doing anything new. Just find the most efficient way to work the current system and do it. The Europeans and Asians are getting this right, and it's another way in which we're lagging behind the rest of the world, using 20th Century solutions for 21st Century problems.

[The Czech Republic 0]

There's a lot of government stuff that should be shitcanned, but do you know how hard it is to do? As a libertarian, I've been thinking "we can trim the fat" for a while now, but it's so hard to trim that fat.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Ah. See, I like big government, but not in the manner it's conducted right now.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Republicans can't do this whole big gov't thing, I dunno why they're trying.

[Art Sandusky 0]

You've actually clarified my own feelings on the matter for me. Thanks a lot, really.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Actually, no one seems to handle big government well...

 

One side wants to slash it, but can't, so they just expand the miltary

THe other side just spends way too damn much and balloons our budget.

 

=)

keeping it real

[Dr. Zaius 0]

There's a lot of government stuff that should be shitcanned, but do you know how hard it is to do? As a libertarian, I've been thinking "we can trim the fat" for a while now, but it's so hard to trim that fat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I believe you are correct, the budget can be balanced by trimming "the fat," but the problem is getting everyone to agree on what constitutes "the fat."

[Stephen Joseph 0]

The Fat can be defined as not "the meat"

 

The Meat:

 

The government is charged with rule of law, so keep the military (maybe cut some of it over time), keep your law enforcement departments. And for good measure, the transportation department

 

Social programs, our insanely high military spending and hell, education, well, those we can probably cut

 

Small government = good!

[BruiserKC 0]

The Fat can be defined as not "the meat"

 

The Meat:

 

The government is charged with rule of law, so keep the military (maybe cut some of it over time), keep your law enforcement departments.  And for good measure, the transportation department

 

Social programs, our insanely high military spending and hell, education, well, those we can probably cut

 

Small government = good!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The problem is that some people think that some of those programs are "The Fat"...it's gotten to the point we don't know what the fat is and what the meat is anymore.

 

Irony was that when Reagan and Dubya Junior took office they talked about less government in our lives...yet in the last 25 years we've seen more government growth than any other time in history.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Doesn't suprise this libertarian in the slightest. governments exist to preserve themselves...

 

I can tell you what the fat is and what the meat is.

 

Go to the constitution and bill of rights. There's the meat.

If its not there, its fat.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

My mind can't fathom a private educational system for all.

 

So, for families who can't pay, they go to.. where? Schools that are sponsored by corporations? "This math lesson was brought to you today by COKE. 1 coke + 1 mouth = 2 delicious."

[The Czech Republic 0]

Coke already sponsors high schools. My high school got new scoreboards and other supplies in exchange for Coke advertising and Coke vending machines placed on campus.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

But Coke doesn't pay the teachers salaries, nor do they decide on what is taught in schools.

[Slayer 0]

"Now turn to the next problem. If you have three Pepsis and drink one, how much more refreshed are you? You, the redhead in the Chicago school system?"

 

"Pepsi?"

 

"...partial credit"

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

"Alright everybody. Let's bring out our crayons and learn the alphabet. Now, take your yellow crayon... and make a biiiiiiiiig M."

[Justice 0]

"And in today's history lesson, we'll discuss why the colonies broke away from England and their tyrannical Burger King."

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Like the current edumacational system is doing a good job...

[Slayer 0]

"Coke brought down Nazi Germany"

[teke184 0]

"Coke brought down Nazi Germany"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True, but not the way you think...

 

Hitler committed suicide because he snorted half of Bolivia then took the wrong pill.

[Slayer 0]

I was trying to be ironic in a different way, dammit

[The Czech Republic 0]

On the topic of unorthodox education methods, it always seems like econ classes that bring in local businessmen as advisors/guest speakers do pretty well.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Like the current edumacational system is doing a good job...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would suggest that the top 60% or so of students are quite successful. America produes 40% of the world's research articles, for instance. The bottom 40% or so of students/schools do have problems, but I would argue that these are related to problems of inequality (for example, funding for schools comes partially from local property taxes--rich districts will therefore have well funded schools). Education privatization would probably exacerbate these inequalities.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Then you know nothing of privatized education then. If we incentived them (via tax law) to bring up the lower half, it would work.

 

The current educational system is creating a permanent underclass. Youhave two options. Let it happen, or at least try something different

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

But Coke doesn't pay the teachers salaries, nor do they decide on what is taught in schools.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

via washington.edu

 

One of the most egregious aspects of corporate predation in public schools is the increasing use of corporate logos and brand names in K-12 textbooks. By "sponsoring" educational materials, corporations have been able not only to get "product placement" in these materials, but also to influence the very content of what students are being taught. As a consequence, education is being manipulated by corporate influence to the point where children learn to do math by counting Tootsie Rolls and learn "the value of work" by learning how to run a McDonald's restaurant (in addition to learning how Hershey Bars are part of a nutritionally balanced diet, and how clear-cut logging is actually good for the environment).

 

Even worse examples of this phenomenon include an environmental science curriculum sponsored by Exxon which includes a truly imaginative revisionist history of the 1989 Valdez oil spill (guess how badly Exxon indicts itself), and a social-studies curriculum focusing on Indonesia which somehow never mentions the Suharto dictatorship or the 1975 invasion of East Timor. This last curriculum was developed and sponsored by - guess who - Mobil, Texaco, and Chevron, in cahoots with Lippo Bank and the Indonesian Government.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

SJ,

 

Last year's SAT scores were the highest in 30 years. English scores were the highest in 28 years. Math scores were the highest in 36 years. The scores were at record levels for all ethic groups: whites; Asian-Americans; African-Americans; Native Americans; and Latinos. And they were achieved by the broadest test-taking pool in testing history. Forty-eight per cent of the nation's 2.9 million high school seniors took the test--a record. Thirty-six percent of the test takers were minorities, another record.

 

Also, voucher schools have shown no long-term gain in student improvement and charter schools have been found to be woefully behind public schools.

[Justice 0]

The problem is, in inner-city schools, vouchers won't do a damn bit of difference. There is a wall you'll hit when it comes to inner-cities not because of funding or teachers or anything like that, but family relationships and environment.

 

I would argue that I know more about private school systems than most people here, since both my grandmother and my mother have/currently work in the DPS, and knowing an extensive amount of people who went/go to private schools. Private Schools are not all what they are cracked up to be.