Lisbon: Efficiency?

FionnMatthew

One principal pro, commonly touted, for the treaty, is that it will increase efficiency in Europe.

Perhaps the point I am about to make is too philosophical, but I think it has relevance to the discussions going on here.

'Efficiency' is surely a good thing in many contexts, but it is certainly far from certain that efficiency is something we should always vote in favour of. If efficiency was the prime goal of government, there are far more efficient methods of going about government than, for instance, holding elections.

Perhaps the criticism here is more a criticism of the level of discourse on this treaty in recent weeks than the actual treaty itself. Do we really need non-contextual assurances that the treaty "increases efficiency," without cognizant clarifications as to exactly what sorts of efficiency, and why those are desirable? Don't superficial pros like this tend to sound like rather mundane analogues of the rhetorical use of the word "freedom" in recent American political speechwriting?

Scofflaw

FionnMatthew wrote: »

One principal pro, commonly touted, for the treaty, is that it will increase efficiency in Europe.

Perhaps the point I am about to make is too philosophical, but I think it has relevance to the discussions going on here.

'Efficiency' is surely a good thing in many contexts, but it is certainly far from certain that efficiency is something we should always vote in favour of. If efficiency was the prime goal of government, there are far more efficient methods of going about government than, for instance, holding elections.

Perhaps the criticism here is more a criticism of the level of discourse on this treaty in recent weeks than the actual treaty itself. Do we really need non-contextual assurances that the treaty "increases efficiency," without cognizant clarifications as to exactly what sorts of efficiency, and why those are desirable? Don't superficial pros like this tend to sound like rather mundane analogues of the rhetorical use of the word "freedom" in recent American political speechwriting?

I suspect we do, since it isn't really "more efficient" not to hold elections - it's just quicker. In the longer term, it's less efficient, because unrepresentative government imposes unpopular and ineffective laws. There's a reason why most countries are democracies, and why the democracies win most of the wars.

However, in this case we might say that what Lisbon does is increases the speed at which impartial legislation can be scrutinised and voted on by representative bodies, which seems to me to encapsulate both the speed and stability aspects of "efficiency".

cordially,
Scofflaw

FionnMatthew

Scofflaw wrote: »

I suspect we do, since it isn't really "more efficient" not to hold elections - it's just quicker. In the longer term, it's less efficient, because unrepresentative government imposes unpopular and ineffective laws. There's a reason why most countries are democracies, and why the democracies win most of the wars.

Respectfully, on that point, I have to disagree with you. I'm not assuming a stark dichotomy between democratic and non-democratic government, but pointing also to certain 'flavours' of democracy which might be unpalatable to us, but which, in disenfranchising certain sectors of society, still command what might be called popular support. There are, I think, myriad perverse turns a democracy can take. In some of those, I suggest, veering off the democratic path does not necessitate a lack of efficiency. Quite the opposite, I'd contend.

Perhaps this isn't the place to have the discussion, but I feel what you've said requires far more elaboration to sound like anything but pro-democratic ideology. (I don't mean to offend with this; it gets my point across most effectively. If I were to put it more delicately, and less clearly, I might say that there seems to be an air of optimism in your assertion which it isn't, on its own, entitled to.)

However, in this case we might say that what Lisbon does is increases the speed at which impartial legislation can be scrutinised and voted on by representative bodies, which seems to me to encapsulate both the speed and stability aspects of "efficiency".

Having read only the treaty, and not its antecedent texts, I can't really assess this. For my part, however, I wonder whether speed is ever a desirable attribute of government.

ixtlan

Well, the reduction in the commission from 27 to 18 could be described as efficiency, and it might also be described as sensible.

Would any country have 27 senior ministries? Indeed none would have 18, but one must pick a number that everyone can live with.

Why is 27 too big? Would you like to chair a meeting with 27 attendees with most of them wanting to comment on a topic? That however you could probably live with if you had good rules and everyone got along. A more serious problem is that to create 27 departments you have split decision making in non-logical ways, so that several of the departments are going to be tripping over the others and waiting for them to do things. Have a look at the list of commissioners/departments and see if you really think they have useful things to do... http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/index_en.htm

Is it really efficient for the EU to be duplicating effort and costs across so many departments? I find it funny that the no side portrays EU politicians as the elite with their own interests, but on the issues of reducing waste as regards 27 departments they say 27 is fine, plenty of work for them all to do!

The problem of course is that this is a hard sell to the public and the yes side has concentrated on why the arrangement for 18 is a good deal, rather than on why having 18 is a good idea to start with.

Remember finally that the Irish commissioner does not represent the country but the EU, which is why the 27 states agreed that the reduction was acceptable. It was not perceived as damaging to national interests. Ideally everyone would have a commissioner, but they agreed that it was more important to have a more manageable commission.

Ix

redspider

In terms of efficiency of the Commissioners, there is some validity that smaller groups of people can get things done quicker than larger groups. However, the EU is 500 million people, and I dont think that having 27 'managers' is having too many. Efficiency could be brought in by having perhaps two layers of Commisioners, with Commisioners voted into the top layer by fellow Commsiioners based on competence and skills or else rotated in, eg: 7 in top-layer, 20 in next layer. Studies have shown that top-level teams in organisations should be no more than 8 people approx.

By the way, our Government has more Ministers per head of population than the EU has commisioners, and I dont see FF or FG or other parties saying that there are too many ministerial positions and looking to get it down to a more efficient and best-practice 8. In fact, the trend in recent decades has been to add ministerial positions and create ministers of state and junior ministers - this flies in the face of the argument the main parties are making about the no. of EU commisioners.

In terms of the original question, yes, I agree that the phrase 'increased efficiency' has been bandied about without actually stating what increased efficiency is or really means. Stalin (a 'Commissioner' of one) was fairly efficient in his eyes, and he won a fair few wars as well, externally and internally, as Russia expanded.

Another point about the Commissioners, they are in theory EU representatives, but everyone knows that practically they are also representing their country at the table. They are Government appointed and the Lisbon Treaty should have included perhaps a new method of appointing them, perhaps by direct plebiscite voting, although the only way that could be done practically perhaps would be to have one Commisioner per country.

One thing is for sure, the EU should be a lot more efficient.

Redspider

The_Minister

redspider, read the thread on Commissioners, it answers most of your points.

Oh, and Commissioners are not managers. Their functon is different.

sink

I think you're not taking in the entire scope of the word efficient. Yes efficient means timely (as in eliminating wasted time) but that is not the only attribute, in corporate strategy efficiency also includes cost efficiency. The Lisbon treaty will cut costs by eliminating extraneous departments and roles. It also means using resources properly, having your best people working in areas that suit them.

There is another big word that gets thrown around a lot and that is effective. People overlook it because they think it means the same as efficiency, it does not. Effectiveness also has a wide scope encompassing timeliness (as in information is received and strategy is implemented on time to have an effect), relevance (actions relevant to the goals sought by the organisation) and flexibility (policy has to be flexible to adapt to changing external factors). The Lisbon treaty will increase the effectiveness of the EU by trimming the fat off of the organisation.

FionnMatthew

Sink, I haven't overlooked those senses of the term. I'd recommend having a look at the following for an appreciation of where I'm coming from.

Efficiency versus Democracy? Towards New Syntheses (a pamphlet for an academic workshop)

* Beyond Efficiency: The Logical Underpinnings of Administrative Principles
* Robert E. Goodin and Peter Wilenski
* Public Administration Review, Vol. 44, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1984), pp. 512-517 (article consists of 6 pages)
* Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration

* The Rhetorical Construction of Efficiency: Restructuring and Industrial Democracy in Mondragon, Spain
* Peter Leigh Taylor
* Sociological Forum, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Sep., 1994), pp. 459-489 (article consists of 31 pages)
* Published by: Springer Science + Business Media

Scofflaw

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Respectfully, on that point, I have to disagree with you. I'm not assuming a stark dichotomy between democratic and non-democratic government, but pointing also to certain 'flavours' of democracy which might be unpalatable to us, but which, in disenfranchising certain sectors of society, still command what might be called popular support. There are, I think, myriad perverse turns a democracy can take. In some of those, I suggest, veering off the democratic path does not necessitate a lack of efficiency. Quite the opposite, I'd contend.

Perhaps this isn't the place to have the discussion, but I feel what you've said requires far more elaboration to sound like anything but pro-democratic ideology. (I don't mean to offend with this; it gets my point across most effectively. If I were to put it more delicately, and less clearly, I might say that there seems to be an air of optimism in your assertion which it isn't, on its own, entitled to.)

Having read only the treaty, and not its antecedent texts, I can't really assess this. For my part, however, I wonder whether speed is ever a desirable attribute of government.

Ah - those are good points. I agree in general that speed is not necessarily desirable in governments, any more than "joined-up government" or an ability to use IT effectively is. However, speed of passage and speed of production aren't necessarily the same thing.

If we consider here the question of lots of Commissioners, we can see that more Commissioners can lead to more legislation, not less - a greater speed of production - as each Commissioner justifies his or her existence. It also leads to greater overlaps of responsibility, and to a lack of clarity in responsibility for legislation. So in the Commission I think we can have efficiency increases that increase accountability and clarity, rather than speed up the working of the institution. After all, Commissioners propose legislation within their remit, not as a voting body.

The idea behind the dropping of vetoes is, of course, to speed up the passage of legislation.

If, on the other hand, we consider the extension of the Parliament's voting powers, the effect of that is to slow down the passage legislation. The same effect is the case for the scrutiny of subsidiarity by the national parliaments.

So what seems to me to be happening here is that the less democratic bits of the EU (the supranational Commission and the intergovernmental Council) are getting an increase either in 'speed' efficiency (the Council) or responsibility efficiency (the Commission).

The democratic elements (the EU Parliament and the national parliaments) on the other hand, are gaining an extension in scrutiny and co-legislation that leads to an increase in democratic control.

So, the 'efficiency' element is balanced here by an increase in democratic control. Of the two, I would consider the latter the more fundamentally important, since the efficiency increases do not change the basic nature of the institutions concerned, whereas the democracy increases will in the long run send the EU on quite a different trajectory.

Overall, then, it's a quite subtle set of changes to a quite intricate piece of institutional machinery - and it's a set of changes which I think warrants being described as both more democratic and more efficient.

cordially,
Scofflaw