By Request: Accountable "Authorities"

Peter Bautista asks: "How to make public authorities, like New York's MTA, more publicly accountable?"

This is a very good question and I don't have a great answer to it. By way of punting, I'll note that I doubt you could solve the problems in this regard in isolation from the more general problem of lack of accountability in local government. There's very little competition in local elections, which naturally leads to a lack of accountability. And key transit states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Pennsylvania find themselves in the top ten most corrupt list which doesn't help.

These are important issues. I've increasingly come to believe that questions about the quality of government -- not just in a pure goo-goo sense of avoiding corruption, but in the real-world sense that some public agencies are well-run and others are poorly-run -- are more important that people realize. Effective agencies (the public schools in Massachusetts, the American military, and the bulk of the public sector in Scandinavia) attract public support, public funds, public enthusiasm and wind up in a virtuous circle. Dysfunctional agencies breed cynicism, corruption, low pay, and despair. Merely changing policies in the absence of the ability to actually get the job done (Brazil has very admirable laws against doing this but it doesn't stop anyone, and in theory there are people in charge of preventing stuff like this in DC) doesn't accomplish anything.

Comments

I tend to believe that problem stems from one party government. The corruption of the Republicans on the federal level is mirrored by the corruption of the Democrats on the municipal level. Just look at Detroit. So it is really the problem of one party governance. If only the Republicans didn't hate black people so much. I kid, I kid! But seriously, there are some corrupt cities where Republicans cannot win. It would be nice, if only to shake things up and get more efficient government.

I might also add that city governments aren't always structured very well electorally. The ward system is sometimes set up to reward cronyism, or the lack of such (see also Detroit). It might help if the city council was elected in a more responsible way.

Posted by freddiemac | June 16, 2008 2:34 PM

One of the main reasons that I think Libertarianism has been so attractive is because the inefficiency and incompetency of government can easily lead to the conclusion that no government is better than bad government. And it probably is. But I think good government is better than no government.

I spent 10 years working in the federal government under Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan. Throughout my experience I found there to be a nearly total lack of accountability. I also found a lot of missions to be impossible. Congress has a long history of adding duties without adding funding, and often adding to the workload while cutting the budget at the same time. Add in the intense politicization of the civil service that accelerated under Reagan and Bush, and it's a miracle the federal government can do anything. I saw burnout and low pay drive smart people into the private sector, even when they were truly dedicated public servants when they started. Now I live with a teacher in the LA Unified School District and I see another dysfunctional agency close up.

You are right about the cycle. Bad agencies induce cynicism which induces lack of public support which makes the agencies worse. Of course public hostility to good agencies can also create this situation.

I have very little idea how to remedy this situation. I keep waiting for a political leader who will instill a renewed national sense that public service is noble and worthy. This is one of the reasons that I support Obama. The ability to give speeches that inspire is going to be critical to any leadership that is going to turn around this cynical downward spiral.

Posted by Sherry | June 16, 2008 2:45 PM

i say the answer is two-fold: entrenched management bureaucracies and public sector unions which prevent employee discipline.

Posted by captain disco | June 16, 2008 2:49 PM

It seems to me to be an issue of scale. In the environmental protection and planning world, one of the issues we're now confronting is how to implement an engineering concept of "resilience" for hazard-prone coastal communities. In the biological sense, resilience stems from having a broad array of design features, ecological niches, types, etc., such that trying to enforce a singular policy (or set of policies) doesn't allow flexibility into the system, thus overcompensating some areas while undercompensating others (akin to how the statistical average of a population doesn't accurately reflect its distribution). In a political sense, the larger the scale on which a policy or program is implemented seems to yield a corresponding decrease in efficiency and effectiveness (no, I have no sources with which to back this up -- it is more just a general feeling having worked in state government and being familiar with municipal and county politics for a number of years). Largesse seems to yield systemic problems in accountability. The closer government is to the people (harkening back to the direct democracy of ancient Athens), the less margin there seems to be for government to get away from being "streamlined" if you will.

Posted by John | June 16, 2008 2:57 PM

Here's my proposal: Pay them more. Jobs that involve authority over lots of money, from Congress to local government, should be better compensated. This will increase the competition for the jobs themselves, heighten the scrutiny on officials who hold the jobs, and decrease somewhat the temptation of corruption. It would take some coin, but there's reason to hope that the increased personnel cost would be offset by smoother and more productive operations.

Posted by southpaw | June 16, 2008 3:04 PM

"Dysfunctional agencies breed cynicism, corruption, low pay, and despair."

Um, don't dysfunctional agencies often lead to high pay--or at least pay which is disproportionately high for the responsbility? That's what we get in Chicago, anyway.

Posted by zaleriana | June 16, 2008 3:12 PM

There's a tension though. Local success might require more of a local oligopoly. Basically, enough concentration of power to get things done, but enough democratic accountability and uncertainty to keep the power brokers honest.

Social research seems to demonstrate (small subject sample could mean that the error rate overwhelms the thesis) that core infrastructure work like bridges, public transportation, public housing, sewers, etc... only happen when a local public official has the vision, longevity, and machine power to push through projects that inevitably require years to complete.

For example, look at the careers of Fiorello LaGuardia or Mayor Richard J. Daley and his son Mayor Richard M. Daley who, it should be noted was first elected Mayor more than 12 years and 3 Mayors after his father died in office - quite a break in time and in the political life of the City.

The counter-argument, of course, is Detroit. One of the consistently worst-managed cities in America, even given its fundamental economic problems that politics alone cannot cure.

So, with regard to the MTA. It seems that it should be somewhat of its own power base. Funding, ridership, jobs, contracts should give it its own center of gravity. Either it needs to glom onto an outside long-lived political power or it needs to develop an internal strategy lead by a vision-driven and powerful leader. There would be several different strategies to achieve that. Examples include, (removing the Christian Dominionist sentiments) the way the religious right has successfully dominated and directed school boards and school policy across the country. Their tactics (again, Dominionist sentiment removed) could also be used by regular folks seeking to build a transportation coalition.

Posted by 22state | June 16, 2008 3:13 PM

I'm not a Chicago resident, but I was under the impression that Richard Daley Sr. ruined Chicago. Basically he was like Wallace, he cared only of winning elections and not actual governance. So doing practical things like running the trains was too much of a bother, so he outsourced it to the Regional Transit Authority. Now the CTA is stuck in administrative limbo, being beholden to the City of Chicago and also a regional board that has just too little powers to do anything and too much power for the CTA to do what it must. Instead of cooperation, the CTA, Metra, and Pace compete for the same riders, state, and federal funds.

Also, Old man Daley ruined large stretches of Chicago that voted against him by planting large public housing projects there and ruining the equity. Bad governance because there was one party rule.

Posted by freddiemac | June 16, 2008 3:28 PM

Effective agencies (the public schools in Massachusetts, the American military, and the bulk of the public sector in Scandinavia) attract public support, public funds, public enthusiasm and wind up in a virtuous circle. Dysfunctional agencies breed cynicism, corruption, low pay, and despair.

I.e. and c.f. above, effective agencies lead to people voting Democratic and ineffective agencies lead to people voting Republican. The GOP has certainly, at some level, taken this dynamic into account when they run agencies at the federal level. The problem is that the Democratic party has not gone after its corrupt local organizations even though it behooves the national party to do so -- if only so that people in the midwest who vote GOP because when they see Democrats in government, all they know is the corrupt political machine in the nearest city, maybe consider voting Dem.

So why don't the Dems. clean house?

Posted by DAS | June 16, 2008 3:34 PM

The American military is an effective agency and free of corruption? It seems to me that Matt is reasoning backwards: since the US military attracts public support, it must be effective. (Surely even Matt cannot mean that the US military is cost effective; or if he does, I'd like an example of an agency that contributes even less to the public good for a trifling trillion dollars a year.)

But the conclusion is all wrong. Lots of effective agencies draw no public support whatsoever, precisely because they do their job well. Who cares or even knows about the agencies that control food quality, except when something goes wrong? Who cares about environmental monitoring except when the air is unbreathable? Who cares or writes about the Fed when the economy is doing fine?

From what I've seen of public service, people who work in it are proud when they do things right, even when that means they're invisible to the public eye.

Posted by Hans B | June 16, 2008 3:39 PM

The American military is an effective agency and free of corruption? - Hans B

Actually the American military does seem to be effective (at doing what it's tasked to do) and free of corruption. Part of this is because, due to our system of civilian control over the military and civilian contracting, those parts of the military that are corrupt in other countries are civilian enterprises in our country.

In a country without a tradition of civilian leadership over the military, Halliburton would be owned by the military and the coup that brought GW Bush into power would have been a military coup (and GW Bush would be wearing a military garb other than when having a stunt-landing photo-op with a stuffed-crotch flight suit). Then it would be our military which would be corrupt.

But since we've pretty much isolated the military from corruption -- it is non-corrupt and quite effective ... except that it's tasked to do things for the benefit of a corrupt military-industrial complex. But that, thanks to our tradition of civilian leadership, is another issue entirely.

Posted by DAS | June 16, 2008 3:58 PM

I think every state and local dem should make a smooth functioning well staffed DMV a high priority. DMV bs and lines probably turn more voters into Republicans than any other gov't agency.

Posted by CalDem | June 16, 2008 4:00 PM

I think every state and local dem should make a smooth functioning well staffed DMV a high priority. DMV bs and lines probably turn more voters into Republicans than any other gov't agency.

Posted by CalDem | June 16, 2008 4:03 PM

CalDem,

One thing the Dems. in NJ did finally get right was changing the DMV. Oddly, I couldn't even tell what was different in terms of the DMV -- they had what seemed to be the same number of employees (and they seemed to be working no more or less harder than before), the process for us customers and everything ... yet, at a certain point, the DMV in NJ magically went from being hellacious to being quite efficient in terms of the time it took and the pleasantness of the experience.

Posted by DAS | June 16, 2008 4:25 PM

I'm curious what your opinion is of O'Malley's work bringing the CompStat approach to bear on most municipal agencies in Baltimore with CitiStat (http://www.ci.baltimore.md.us/government/citistat/) that he's now trying to replicate on more ambitious scale with StateStat in Maryland (http://www.statestat.maryland.gov/). Your love of The Wire gives you familiarity with the method, I'd assume.

My nutshell synopsis of his approach is increasing the frequency of accountability across the board... with the hope that frequent-but-not-overly-severe pressure applied to heads of agencies that serve at the pleasure of the Mayor/Governor with a focus on coming up with and implementing new strategies on a frequent basis works.

Posted by Zach | June 16, 2008 4:46 PM

The big difference I've found at the DMV is the difference between making an appointment vs. just showing up and waiting in line.

Posted by Adam Villani | June 16, 2008 4:49 PM

All that looting in flooded Iowa just goes to show you the extent of the problem.

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 16, 2008 8:17 PM

I yearn for the day when the MBTA Red Line actually makes it across an icy Longfellow Bridge without stalling.

You know what would be nice? Clocks at train and bus stations that indicate how long it will be until the next transport arrives. They do this all over Europe.

Posted by Joel | June 16, 2008 9:19 PM

Are we sure that some form of privatization would not lead to improved service? Are we sure we're sure?

Posted by mk | June 17, 2008 2:14 AM

Matt, you ignorant slut! Stop musing and start reading.

There's a large public administration literature on this, including Osborne and Gaebler 1992 and their descendants. This has been a primary concern of political scientists for a while: (see, e.g., McCubbins and Schwartz 1984 and everyone who cites them). To the library.

Joel, they announce waiting times in DC and the Bay Area. GPS on buses allows you to cut down on bus wait times at Nextbus.

Posted by Adam | June 17, 2008 3:20 AM

Re: In a country without a tradition of civilian leadership over the military, Halliburton would be owned by the military and the coup that brought GW Bush into power would have been a military coup (and GW Bush would be wearing a military garb other than when having a stunt-landing photo-op with a stuffed-crotch flight suit).

I very much doubt the military would have installed George Bush in power. Someone like Jim Webb maybe, but not Bush.

Posted by JonF | June 17, 2008 6:56 AM