"Because most entrenched bureaucracies tend to develop a strong aversion to changing the status quo, state-run technological progress is not likely to be sustained over long periods." — Joel Mokyr
-
This is 100% true of big companies as well. My standing tongue-in-cheek joke: What is much worse than dealing with the DMV? Why, trying to get a big tech company bureaucracy to do anything. Give me the Post Office or the State Department any day. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3106703?seq=1 …
Possibly, but tech companies are regularly replaced with new ones. Governments aren't.
-
-
Solve: force move government departments/functions every ~20 years to a new location (over 1000 miles away).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yeah. That's why bringing economic reforms in developing countries so tough. China is an exception though. It seems, they embrace change.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Does the United States have the same government it did 20 or 30 years ago? Does the UK?
-
On average, yes it does. Elected officials might change, but the bureaucrats that actually run the departments tend to stay the same, or get recycled.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
They also have a well-oiled pipeline for continuing innovation by snapping up smaller, healthier bureaucracies. Federalism makes an interesting case on starting fresh governments... Was there more policy innovation across the board back when the US regularly added new states?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
(I am arguing tongue in cheek with you,
@paulg) Our exec branch is designed to get people out after 8 years! Which is more what I can say about super voting shares or CEOs for life...Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.