It’s certainly not the mad professors with the new thoughts that have been sitting in the Productivity Commission.
The film’s universe is full of stories about people who is smart and thinking too big for its own good. But still taking the world a bit further. Those who see new solutions, thinking again, and who question the way we do things.
In the movie “Dead Poets Society” challenged conservative and strict values of Robin Williams’ creative and freedom-seeking professor Keaton. In the “Good Will Hunting” is Will too smart for his own good. Not to talk about all issues William Nash meetings. But that’s not the mad professors with the new thoughts that have been sitting in the Productivity Commission.
There were high expectations for the Norwegian Productivity Commission. It’s not often a professor factor is so high in Norwegian public reports (NOU) which in NOU 2016: 3. Sometimes puts government down range of different interest groups. Not this time. The social partners are not represented. Minorities and marginalized groups are not represented. Throughout the country, urban and rural, church and state are not represented.
What they talked about the first meeting?
Productivity Commission members are there because they are experts. Four of them have PhD in economics. One of them is a leading voice in technology, another leader one of the most technology-intensive and effective agencies. The government has made a choice which is wiser than themselves. When should they get the answers they did not even had already thought of.
Since productivity is about how we get the most out of the least amount – This is about everything. It is so large that it is almost paralyzing. One can suspect that is exactly what the Commission also intend.
Having plowed through the entire report, one wonders really most of one thing: What they talked about the first meeting? They asked each other: what do we mean by a productivity commission? What we can help with that is not done by someone else? How can we raise the Norwegian debate on productivity and provide a sound basis for political decisions? Maybe they did. If so, they should made a bit more of it.
The first part of the second report gives well-known reasons why productivity is important. Productivity and labor input determines how much money we have to welfare in the future. How preceded also mandate the Commission has received. The reason for Productivity Commission report is thus much the same as we brought with us from the Ministry of Finance Perspective message from 2013: Should we maintain the level of welfare, we need to increase revenues (more in job producing more per hour) and reduce costs (more in job and a more efficient public sector).
It is also good that the productivity Commission puts productivity up against other targets. Productivity measures how much we get out of each hour worked. We know that high productivity can push someone out of the labor market. Thus, productivity also be high simply because many do not have jobs. Spain had such in 2012 and 2013 the highest growth in labor productivity in the eurozone. This despite the fact that production fell by over 3 percent in the same period.
The reason for productivity increase is that the number of employed persons (people at work) declined more than production. The proportion of employed persons dropped to 55 percent of the population of working age. Productivity Commission said so in its previous report: “ The inclusion of groups on the fringes of the labor market could increase labor supply. This would be economically very profitable, although higher employment among the elderly, immigrants, the disabled and the sick in isolation is likely to reduce the measured average productivity “(NOU 2015: 1, p. 59).
In chapter four makes Productivity Commission also bit the same as Perspective Message projections. Different growth paths of employment, services and productivity growth in the public and private sectors illustrates how it might go with government finances come. In the Commission’s projections assumptions slightly different and thus result. But as the Commission also points out, it is still little we know about the future.
It’s hard to say something new and reflected when so many difficult subjects must fit.
Then they come to the analysis of what the problem is. There is much that is good here too. But not so much new, nor as obvious priority. And sometimes a little misleading. The Commission pointed out several individual factors that can limit productivity. Strong growth in the number of employees in government agencies is expensive. The growth may be related to excessive measurement and control hysteria, says the Commission. Complicated tendering processes are time consuming and may not provide the best results. Inefficient use of scarce human resources in health care and law enforcement weakens services and gives poor use of resources. We are not world champions in research or innovation and we educate not most realists.
But there is little space for each problem. It’s hard to say something new and reflected when so many difficult subjects should accommodate. And easy to be careless. There are several examples in the report, including in the Commission’s analysis of the population’s general level of knowledge. There are too few who complete vocational training, the Commission says. For large drop in higher education, too few who study science and too few top scientists. And results in international tests indicate that Norwegian schools are too poor. The analysis is only partially correct.
First vocational courses. It is true that projections indicate that we need more skilled workers in future. All levels require increasingly technological and digital literacy. Commission’s response is that we have overteoretisert vocational subjects. In attempt to raise the general level of knowledge among the population and to encourage choosing vocational courses, we have built more general admission into vocational subjects, while everybody has got the right to secondary education. And too many are dying. But if it’s theory of gravity that makes this or other issues, we do not know enough about.
Researchers at Fafo found several other explanations in 2010 – most of them things that happens long before high school. While there are indications that we need skilled workers, it is not clear that today’s skilled workers have the skills the labor market demands. Those who complete secondary vocational education do not necessarily apprenticeship. Companies report that apprentices lack practical skills and thus compete with cheap labor from Eastern Europe. These are complex issues. Therefore also the Government made five expert committee to find better solutions for vocational education.
The second claim of the Commission is that too few choose science, and that educational institutions also have strong incentives to create cheap subjects. But the expert group that assessed financing of universities and colleges in 2014 found “ no clear indication that institutions prioritize cheap courses ” and thought, moreover, that “ students make reasonable sensible career choices based on the information they have, and out of their own strengths and weaknesses. Applicants to various educational react to changing signals from the labor market, reflecting to some extent also the needs of society, but there is a delay in the system . “
A third claim is that Norwegian researchers to adequately publish in the world.
A number of campaigns and various measures to strengthen young people’s educational choices are set in motion in recent years. Applications for science increased by 11 percent from 2014 to 2015 and by 25 percent from 2012 to 2015. And it’s really more science is the answer to a future productive career high participation? Or is it more complicated than that? Should we believe Ludvigsen Committee thorough review of international research on the big question “ What knowledge do we need in the future “, the answer is far more than science. We need interdisciplinary skills. Depth Learning. Learning Ability. Digital competence. Measures to improve underpin informed educational choices could advantageously been further strengthened, and their effects are also the subject of extensive research and analysis, including on NIFU. It’s not as simple as that more must take science.
A third claim is that Norwegian researchers to adequately publish in the world. Norwegian research has been much improved in recent years in terms of publication points in international journals. But few at the very top. There is a problem if the goal is to have as many as possible at the very top. Productivity Commission does not discuss the publication points and count edge system is suited neither to ensure productive research or productivity-enhancing research. Is the best research result of good performance management? Or something completely different? It would have been an interesting analysis.
Most notable is perhaps the claim that school is too bad. As think tank Agenda shows the note “Can it be measured,” is trying important, but a very small part of the necessary knowledge of the school. The information we get from PISA and other tests, is no easy answer or measurement of “quality” in school. Project manager for PISA and associate Marit Kjærnsli at the University of Oslo, said so to Aftenposten: “We must not exaggerate findings, but it is important to see what Norwegian schools are doing well and what challenges we have. The rating is not important, but we should look at what we can do to learn from other countries. ” Even smaller samples can tell us about what must be done. Several teachers, better teachers, new curriculum, longer school day, more basic skills or more interdisciplinarity. School contents are luckily elaborate discussed Ludvigsen Committee’s report “Future school”. The samples give us useful but insufficient information.
If the committee should propose solutions becomes even more difficult to spot the wise experts. The sounds more like good bureaucrats.
In some areas, measures considered so carefully that they are already discussed in other NOUERE. Productivity Commission supports Hours A majority recommendation. They repeat the suggestion of Brochmann Committee to remove cash and tax class 2. They reproduce Scheel Committee analysis of equal taxation of asset values. The Commission supports the simplification of the Commission that the procurement should not accommodate societal goals beyond the individual purchasing – such as requirements that climate considerations, the use of apprentices or other considerations. And they repeat Government Declaration goal of more effective recognition of education from abroad. Furthermore, the Commission advocates of municipalities shape, but it has already been started.
Other times it seems that they have forgotten their own request that a greater degree should consider several possible solutions against each other. According Productivity Commission should all reforms and measures are being considered carefully. “ The assessment should preferably be made by independent experts and professionals “, they say. And further: “ Before decisions are made should alternative solutions be considered ” (p. 41). But the Commission has even done this? Because there is often more than one solution. Increased concentration and greater income requirements for funding could be one way to catch up internationally in multiple contexts. But there are also other approaches to how research should be funded and managed.
How can we ensure that everyone who works also teaches – all the time?
Will scientists better of several tellekanter? And more top research important than more good research near businesses and management? Stricter admission and management of educational choices may give some desired results, and other unwanted. State ownership has both advantages and disadvantages. Whether subsidies of agriculture, the answer depends on how we value Norwegian food production. Excessive financial reporting and control requirements creates a large bureaucracy, is emphasized. But still be reporting results strengthened. Growth in employment in the public sector connected in the report with the norms of resource use – which often occur in the first line. For example, it hardly claim about the number of preschool teachers per child in a nursery that knows the public payroll budgets.
If the Productivity Commission would contribute something unique, should they chose a different approach. They should not have plunged into the individual sectors and come with ready-made solutions to questions that others also investigating. They should made us wiser on what contributes to productivity and the dilemma we will meet on the road. Marveled. Questioned established truths. They could, for example, focused on the three drivers of productivity and plowed deeper: What contributes to thwarting productivity and what considerations must be weighed against each other? Then they could been content with three chapters:
- Knowledge at all levels and in many forms helps to strengthen productivity. Commission says a lot about knowledge – especially higher education and research. But research on the international level is still one of many goals that politicians must prioritize and weigh up against other targets. Another and central factor that will determine our growth potential in the future is whether the school manages to capture more young before they fall. And that all students acquire skills they will need for life and at work. Is it more important to make sure everyone gets along if it means changing the school facility for all? Have we become so eager to be as good as South Koreans in PISA that we have thrown on the boat which was good with Norwegian schools and as we know that the future need? Is there a connection between those who fall from those who feel a growing pressure to perform? And how can skilled employees contribute to productivity? Much research suggests for example that employees get more supply of expertise and confident employees are more innovative. Maybe this means even more to productivity growth than investment in top international research.
Productivity Commission should addressed the various forms of knowledge and expertise at various stages in life and set them in context. What is the relationship between education, research and productivity and how we ensure both a generally high level of knowledge in the population and a labor market that holds more? How do we get more people to work longer and what skills do they do? How do we ensure that everyone who works also teaches – all the time? Especially if more change jobs frequently or in the labor market changes? And how we make innovative workplaces?
The explanation for high Norwegian productivity has traditionally been in what we call the Norwegian model. A compressed wage structure that pushes forward technology and creative destruction. Recognising the Norwegian model and tripartite significance for Norwegian adaptability. But the same model, according to the Commission stand in the way of innovation, they say. And swipe back international research without having time to discuss the particularly thorough. In chapter 6 we read that Acemoglu et al (2014) believes the Nordic model delivers good results because there are other countries that are leading the way in innovation. These authors also highlight that the US model provides stronger incentives for innovation than the Nordic, notably through greater wage inequality that makes it more profitable to provide extra effort.
Is it possible to envisage increasing wealth as can not be measured as GDP growth?
But not all agree. Joseph Stiglitz (2015) thinks that the safety net in the Nordic countries in terms of overall welfare with consistently high level of benefits, has contributed to innovation by reducing the risk of failure. It’s an intriguing contrast. As the Committee professors advantageously be looked at. But more we do not know about it and it’s only the first perspective that fits in the summary.
- Productivity Commission is also interested in technology. It is important to avoid bad technology investments in the public sector, they say. But given all the possibilities – what is it that hampers necessary investments and priorities in technology? Which technology changes has the greatest potential to increase efficiency and productivity? Where is the greatest need for new technological solutions and what stands in the way of triggering them?
Important barriers may be a lack of expertise, market uncertainty and a lack of resources to invest in technology that will reduce costs in the long term. We also clearly seen in the construction industry in recent years that productivity growth falls when the supply of low-paid labor weakens employer incentives to invest in new technology. It gives us a difficult dilemma because we are trying to drive into the labor market while we must maintain high wages to ensure high productivity.
What are the connections between social organization and our ability to adopt new technology ? Can international and Norwegian research teach us something about this? If one of three tasks can be automated, how we ensure that people have the necessary skills to supplement and handle technology? The municipalities have the right framework conditions for investing in technology that can reduce the need for nursing homes? Has technology firms sufficient predictability to obtain investments, develop and scale solutions? None of this, we get more knowledge of productivity Commission.
- The Commission says much sense about the problems with the organization of the public sector. Excessive and detailed scorecard in the public sector means that we are wasting a lot of time measuring and reporting rather than producing services. This hampers productivity, flexibility and innovation. But the lands quickly on simple solutions: more performance measurements and increased flexibility in the labor market.
International research on the organization of the public sector and the service sector has far more and different answers. For example, Benington and Hartley (2001) described three paradigms which they call Traditional Public Administration, New Public Management and New Public Governance . The last has a lot in common with modern management and organizational literature. Much of it is about how people who provide services make it possible. Knowledge workers are motivated not by incentives, but by participation. BI researchers Kuvaas and Dysvik shows that accountability of employees for better economic performance, more satisfied employees, lower absenteeism and less conflict.
Many people would probably still wanted me any more.
researchers Kuvaas and Dysvik also investigated the relationship between employees’ perception of goal as absolute and employee performance. They show that employees who perceive goals as adjustable along, perform better than those who interpret goals as absolute and fixed sizes. And that many perceive goals as just absolute. Feeling so-called job autonomy strengthens thus the quality of work. Is it so that incentives and performance goals motivates institutions, organizations and knowledge workers? Could this be another important reason for ineffective solutions in health care?
On two spaces productivity Commission also sensational conservative in their approach to the role of government in major challenges. In the climate issue, which are little discussed in the report, they have decided that the cost in the short term must always prevail. “K lima policy should be multisectoral and cost ” the Commission says, and warns against national sectoral targets. But the policy has prevailed for twenty-five years and emissions have increased during the same period. In his discussion of procurement processes, the Commission is concerned that “non-procurement professional requirements should not be part of the procurement rules.” It must be interpreted as that the state can not use its market power to do things like push forward greater use of apprentices or more environmentally friendly solutions.
There are also even larger question selection is not set. That really would have done them interesting. How much productivity growth is possible? We have in recent decades had a historically high growth in productivity. Can it continue? Or will Jeremy Rifkin get right in saying that in the future, the energy and commodities produced almost no cost and therefore make far higher standard of living possible without the same growth in income? What does so, such an economy – where infrastructure costs and production is almost free – for distribution in society? Is it possible to envisage increasing wealth can not be measured as GDP growth?
These questions and more, I want from the country’s professors. Possibly they disappeared burning hearts and brains on the way into the Ministry of Finance disciplines the meeting. Possibly it was a coincidence that this committee had so few politicians and so many professors. In that case, the government received the report they requested and we have got what we deserved. Many would probably still wanted me any more. We must look further.
No comments:
Post a Comment