Centralization with localism's advantage of experimentation

One of the advantages of localism that is frequently cited is that the diversity of local approaches to a given problem and the relative ease with which new approaches can be adopted provide more opportunity for better solutions to emerge. It provides opportunity for experimentation and innovation, and is analogous to how the Cambrian Explosion resulted in the selection for better-adapted morphologies, or how a shotgun strategy (or throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks strategy) in business allows identification of niches and consumer preferences.

However, a problem that can occur with localism is that local approaches remain entrenched despite inferiority. Or put another way, once a superior approach has been identified in one locality, it is not implemented in other localities (whether such implementation is a push from a centralized authoritiy, or a pull from other localities copying).

So how can the benefit of experimentation be implemented within a centralized structure? Whilst generally working to the (hopefully optimal) centralised approach, local administrative structures would be able to apply for autonomy on a specific problem in order to test a defined alternative approach against a robust set of criteria. As a result of the central control, pushing out a new approach once an experiment has been concluded is relatively easy - the homogeneity of localities means that a single method of implementation is required for the new approach.

The multipolar technological arms race

That we live in, and are increasingly moving towards, a multipolar world is frequently discussed in the media. An interesting parallel to this trend is that we are also moving towards an increasingly multipolar technological arms race (technological escalation), with an even broader set of participants.

The WWI naval arms race had a handful of key players (most significantly Britain, France, Germany and Russia), which, after the Triple Entente, really had two poles. The Cold War arms race again had two poles (the USSR and NATO). The sovereign participants in our current technological arms race number in the tens (the G-20, etc).

But in addition to the sovereign participants, we also have private sector participants, criminal participants and grassroots/activist participants (e.g. Anonymous).

Why is this an arms race? And who is racing against whom?

War, and in particular cyber war, still remains a possibility in our relatively peaceful world, driving much of the national technological arms race. Additionally, nations invest technologically to maintain or increase economic advantage over other nations, and to maintain law and order within their nation. In some cases, national technological investment may be undertaken to maintain the power of the ruling/influential elite over the common citizen.

Private sector technological investment is principally aimed at maintaining competitive advantage over other companies. However, there is trend where private sector technological investment is aimed at controlling the consumer (digitial rights management is an example). The private sector invests technologically to protect against foreign nations that would attack the private sector as a proxy, potentially against direct company-to-company cyber warfare, against criminal attack, and against grassroots/activist participants.

Criminal technological investment is principally aimed at facilitating the illegal accumulation of wealth from nations, companies and individuals. Criminal organisations must invest technologically to outwit the technological defences of their targets, and also to build defensive (i.e. anonymising) capability to protect against attacks from governments, companies and white-hat activist groups. There is an overlap between the criminal participants to the arms race and the activist participants, where the criminal intent is not obtaining wealth, but pursuing an activist cause.

The range of pursuits of grassroots/activist participants is broad. It could be: battling against government technology that infringes against freedom of speech; battling against private sector technology that takes advantage of the consumer; battling criminal technology that takes advantage individuals. Patriotic activist groups may support the technological capability of the nation. And in some cases, technological escalation may be directly between activist groups.

Conclusion: pretty much every category is racing against every other category in some way or another.

So what?

Well, as a non-criminal consumer and citizen, the activist participants best represent my interests, perhaps followed by the nation state of which I am a citizen and inhabitant (much potential for debate here!). I already support my nation state's technological investment via taxes, but I don't support activist participants. Perhaps I should, perhaps there need to be more obvious ways to do so, and perhaps there needs to be a wider awareness of the need to do so if the participants who best represent my interests are going to win.

Strategic government

Problem: governments are too shorttermist, partially due to the election cycle.
Solution: a separate elected body with a much longer election cycle (e.g. 15-20 years), whose role is to look at longterm strategic issues.

Local government

It seems to me that it would be much more sensible to organise government along service delivery lines rather than having local government responsible for lots of unrelated services. Hence there would be a national waste agency that is responsible for all rubbish collection, a national education agency responsible for all schools, etc.

Public service performance measurement

There are too many variables to allow for a public service performance measurement system that does not create perverse incentives. There are three variables that should be captured for all public service performance measurement systems:

• Opinion of the users (patients and relatives for hospitals, students and parents for schools, the unemployed and employers for jobcentres, etc)
• Opinion of the front line staff (nurses and doctors for hospitals, teachers for schools, jobcentre employees for jobcentres, etc)
• Costs

Evolution and design in government

Government evolved, it was not designed. This evolution means that whilst it gets the job done, it is not the most efficient way to be. If we make incremental changes (without a coherent plan) we are just continuing that evolution. Therefore I think we should develop a coherent plan for government, and ensure all change in government is consistent with that plan.

You can't win

Positive concept in organisation and management	Negative consequences/perceptions
Economies of scale	Can be considered a one-size-fits-all approach
Joined-up approach (AKA not working in silos)	Requires coordination, which can be considered a waste of time
Transparency	Requires data to be collected, which can be seen to be bureaucratic
Holding people to account	Targets-culture
Continuous improvement	Targets-culture/bureaucratic
Consistency	Can require central high-level (top-down) coordination, which can be considered dictatorial Can be considered a one-size-fits-all approach

Other factors: top-down vs bottom-up

Are we learning as a society?

It seems to be that there is so much information out there, too much for us to process. As a result we tend to base out decisions on anecdotal experience rather than rational/scientific method. There are no firms answers to the most significant questions:

What is more efficient, private sector or public sector, centralised or decentralised?
What is better, the carrot or the stick?

Society swings from one side to another: after witnessing the inefficiencies of public sector bureaucracy it cries out for competition. Then, after experiencing the corruption of the private sector it remembers the fond old days of the honest civil servant.

Perhaps it is appropriate to swing: change is good. But is change not inefficient?

Nepotism and corruption

People in power (Members of Parliament, Senior Civil Service, Boards of Companies, etc) should be forced to disclose who they are close friends with and who they meet on official business and significant social events.

Distinguishing parties

In modern centerist government, distinguishing parties relies on two factors:

• efficiency
• priorities

Rot at the top

Suggestion: recruit heads of business to the head of the Civil Service with the incentive that they will receive one year's worth of any cost-to-taxpayer efficiency saving they make (the taxpayer gets it going forward).

Alternatively, the incentive could be having lots and lots of power to make sweeping changes, this way the businessman gains prestige invaluable to his/her future career.

The Leaky Website

I think the world would benefit from a website that links investigative journalists with the would-be leakers in the organisations they are interested in. Journalists would write what information they were interested in and disclose methods of contacting the journalist.

Although the Freedom of Information Act is good, journalists need to know what to FOI. The other side of this website would be people who work in government suggesting what to FOI.

All requests and suggestions would be tagged with themes and organisation names, making the site searchable, and allowing automated email to people interested. People could submit the organisation the work for, for example, and receive an update on all journalist requests for information.

The website should also provide guidance on how to leak (e.g. remailers, web anonymisers, etc) and the risks (e.g. info in the Official Secrets Act).

Some of these ideas are being implemented at Wikileaks.

Five pillars of government

Government policy should include as central tennets:

• transparency
• adversion to knee-jerk decisions
• simplification
• consultation of the front line
• less is more (i.e. stop meddling in the civil service)

The front line

The front line staff provide the services to the people: police, doctors, nurses, teachers. The civil service must provide services to these frontliners: training, organisation, remuneration, facilities and equipment.