Upgrades for Cities? Or Makework for Bureaucrats?

Upgrades for Cities? Or Makework for Bureaucrats?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 29, 2009

With its "examinations," the Executive Yuan has approved the upgrading of three counties and municipalities to the status of Directly Administered Regions. Everyone, especially those from counties and municipalities been selected for upgrading, is excited. They wax eloquent about the imminent improvements in regional well-being upon being upgraded. Alas, we must remind them of an alternate possibility -- bureaucrats may fatten themselves at the public trough.

According to local government guidelines, the upper limit for people on the payroll of a Directly Administered Municipality with population over two million, is 15,400 persons. The Taipei County government currently has about 5,000 civil servants. That means 10,000 more positions will be available. The Taichung County government currently has about 6000 employees. It will be authorized to increase that number by over 9200 persons. The numbers for Kaohsiung County and Kaohsiung City have yet to be determined. Taichung Deputy Mayor Hsiao Chia-chi has vowed to exercise enormous restraint after being upgraded. The Taichung City government may increase the number of its employees by 9,200, Does his vow to increase the number of employees by "only" 1,000 persons qualify as "enormous restraint?" These 1,000 employees represent a 16% increase in the size of its bureaucracy. Taipei City and Kaohsiung City are currently the only two Directly Administered Muncipalities. From top to bottom, the two cities each have over 12,000 employees. Given Parkinson's Law, and the example of Taipei and Kaohsiung, sooner or later these newly upgraded municipalities will increase the number of their employees to the allowable limit.

Some people may ask: What's wrong with increasing the number of civil servants in order to better serve the public following an upgrade? One. Is increasing the number of employees really the only way to improve services given their current bureaucratic structure? Two. Will increasing the number of civil servants necessarily lead to an improvement in the quality of public services? The answer to both these questions is no. At the very least it is not yes.

Payroll expenses for government agencies, from the central government level to the local government level, has long constituted a large percentage of the total budget. Take the central government for example. Annual average payroll expenses exceed 400 billion NT. The payroll is currently between 25 and 30% of the total budget. It exceeds the GDP by over 4 percent. It exceeds the payroll of neighboring countries by approximately 1 to 2%. Take local city and county governments for example. Local municipal governments, including Taipei City and Kaohsiung City, each year spend as much as 400 billion NT on payroll expenses. This figure exceeds even the 300 billion in revenue these cities and counties collect on their own.

If we include cities, towns, and villages, local government payroll expenses exceed 400 billion NT. Death and Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY) is estimated at over half of 800 billion NT. In other words, the public pays taxes. The government budgets expenditures, over half of which is spent on salaries for civil servants. It is hard to convince the public that the number of civil servants and the extent of the bureaucracy is "inadequate." It is hard to convince the public that civil servants cannot provide better services to the public. They have enough people. Payroll expenses represent a large percentage of total expenditures. If public services are still inadequate, shouldn't administrative efficiency be improved, rather than the bureaucracy expanded?

Many precedents have shown that large increases in government agency staff usually fail to increase the quality of services. Instead "front line management personnel" steering those performing their jobs leads to major improvements. The public spends a great deal of money employing more civil servants. But the actual return and improvement in services is far less than the amount paid. In other words, the more bureaucrats one has on the payroll, the more unproductive work is performed relative to productive work. Therefore, can one really expect a proportionate increase in public services and public well-being once a municipality has been upgraded and the number of employees increased? Obviously not.

Moreover, the government must incur a high cost recruiting civil servants. According to expert figures, the average annual salary of civil servants is 120 million NT, far higher than salaries in the private sector. It is also twice the average per capita income. If one considers pensions, the cost is even higher.

Any organization will find it easy to put on fat, and hard to lose it. But for private enterprise this problem is easily solved. The market solves the problem of organizational bloat. Organizationally bloated, over-capitalized private businesses must eventually review their bottom lines. Therefore companies must conduct massive layoffs, streamlining their organization. Otherwise they will be eliminated by market forces. When the same problems occur within a government bureaucracy, the lack of a market-based bottom line, coupled with bureaucratic inertia, ensure that the problem of organizational bloat is never addressed. Personnel are added but never subtracted. The government has been chanting reform and the streamlining of personnel for over a decade. But , the chants have come to nothing. Any reductions in the number of civil servants are largely the "fruits" of privatizing public enterprises. This is why governmental organizations find it easy to put on fat, and hard to lose it.

The upgrading of cities and counties has its pros and cons. But the blind expansion of a bureaucracy invariably spells disaster. We hope the government will give priority to this issue. In upgrading, one must maintain strict controls. Personnel must provide mutual support, or be transferred as needed to avoid bureaucratic bloat. Once municipal governments have been upgraded, the government must appreciate the financial pressures imposed upon government by the blind increase in governmental agencies and personnel. It must outsource as many public projects to improve or expand public services as possible. Otherwise, upgrading will not bring increased well-being. It will be a prelude to disaster.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.06.29
社論－莫使升格釀成官僚肥化的災難
本報訊

在行政院「會考」通過三縣市升格案後，各界─特別是得到升格通過的縣市，都興奮的描繪升格後，民眾福祉的提升與地方未來的榮景。不過，我們必須提醒另一個面向─官僚肥化的災難。

依照地方行政機關準則的規定，人口超過二百萬人的直轄市，其員額編列可達一．五四萬人；台北縣現在公務員數約五千人，還有一萬人的增加空間；台中縣市府員工數合計約六千人，尚可再增九千多人；高雄縣市的數字則未知。即使升格後的市政府很克制，如台中市副市長蕭家旗說的，升格後台中市政府員額可增加九二○○ 人，但初期「只要先增加一千人」。很克制吧？但，這一千人代表的其實就是官僚一口氣膨脹了十六％。以目前台北市與高雄市兩個直轄市的市府員工數，都在一萬二千多人上下來看，在「有為者亦若是」的效果下，遲早這些新的直轄市員工數都會靠向這個極端數字。

也許，有人會說：升格後增加公務員數，擴大對民眾服務，有何不好？這句話要成立前，要先問兩個問題：第一、現在的官僚組織是否不足，只有增加人數才能提供更多服務？第二、增加員額就一定增加對民眾的服務與提高民眾福祉嗎？這兩個問題的答案，恐怕都是否定的，或至少不是肯定的。

我們的政府單位，從中央到地方，人事費用占預算支出的比例一直偏高；以中央政府而言，平均每年人事費用支出大概在四千多億元，占整體預算的規模都在二五至三○％上下，與ＧＤＰ的比則是在四％多，鄰近其它國家則多在一到二％上下。再看縣市地方政府吧，包含北高直轄市在內的各地方政府，每年人事費決算數字也高達四千多億元之譜；這個數字比縣市自有財源三千多億的數字還高。

如果把包括鄉鎮市考慮在內，地方政府四千多億的人事費用，占歲出決算金額八千多億元的五成以上；換言之，民眾繳稅、政府編列預算支出，有一半以上花在養公務員上。這些數字，很難說服社會大眾說：公務員人數與官僚組織「還不夠多」，所以無法對民眾提供更佳的服務吧？人數夠多、人事支出又占整體支出比重高，如果民眾仍覺服務不足，該檢討改進的是行政效率，不是擴編官僚組織吧？

許多例子都顯示，政府機構人員大幅擴充，通常第一線服務者增加的比例不高，反而是「管理第一線人員」、「督導」業務者，大幅增加。結果就是民眾多花了很多錢增聘公務員，但實際得到的回報與服務，遠低於其付出。換言之，官僚愈多，無用工作取代有用工作的程度愈大。所以，期待升格後的直轄市，大幅擴充員額後，得到如數增加的服務與福祉嗎？顯然不能。

更何況，政府增聘公務員成本相當高，依學者統計，公務員平均年薪是一二○萬元，遠高於一般民間薪資，也是平均國民所得的兩倍。如再考慮退休撫卹，其成本更高。

任何組織都有易肥難瘦的特性，但這個問題對民營企業較容易解決，因為，市場會解決組織肥大問題。組織肥大、成本過高的民營企業，終究會反映在財務數字上，因而讓企業有壓力必須大幅裁員、精簡組織，否則將被市場淘汰。同樣的問題發生在政府官僚單位，因為缺乏市場財務數字的查驗，加上官僚必有的惰性，組織肥大問題從來就無法解決，人員幾乎從來就是「有進沒出」。台灣政府喊了十多年的政府改造、人事精簡，最後不了了之；公務員帳面數字的減少多數來自公營事業民營化的「成果」，即可窺見政府組織易胖難瘦的韌性。

縣市升格之事千頭萬緒、利弊參見，但官僚體系盲目擴充必是災難一場。期望政府能夠先注意此問題。在升格之際，能以總量控管、人員彼此支援或撥用方式，避免官僚體系過分肥大。而升格後的市政府，更應體認盲目擴充組織與人員對財政所造成的壓力，將許多有意強化或增加對民眾服務之項目，儘量以外包方式為之。否則，升格不是幸福的到來，而是另一場災難的序曲！