Everyone agrees that bureaucracy overall is a problem in the abstract but when it comes to particular policy issues people are often in favor of using bureaucracy to solve them.
There should be a government department that has the job of reducing bureaucracy. It’s staffed with people who go through existing laws and regulations and then publish suggestions for reform that reduces bureaucracy.
I don’t see an interest group that has an interest in opposing such a proposal.
They would not necessarily fight its creation—although a department those aim is to fight bureaucracy may very well seem threatening to people in position of power in the diverse bureaucratic departments. But they would definitely fight its action, i.e. any attempt at changing the way they run their services.
I do agree that the job of the department won’t be easy.
To the extent that you can create such a department withouttoo much resistance, I think it makes sense to count the idea of creating the department as “uncontroversially good legislation”.
I think this would probably become controversial, because removing almost any bureaucratic rule can be spun into a controversial headline since people look at what the rule is supposed to do instead of what it actually does (i.e. if you remove a safety rule that doesn’t do anything but creates expensive paperwork, you’re “removing rules that ensure our safety”).
I mean the bureaucracy for doing this would quickly become controversial because it does things that make bad headlines (and people would notice this before it even passes, “Why would you create the bureaucracy to get rid of rules if you don’t want to make us less safe?”).
Everyone agrees that bureaucracy overall is a problem in the abstract but when it comes to particular policy issues people are often in favor of using bureaucracy to solve them.
There should be a government department that has the job of reducing bureaucracy. It’s staffed with people who go through existing laws and regulations and then publish suggestions for reform that reduces bureaucracy.
I don’t see an interest group that has an interest in opposing such a proposal.
The most powerful of all : the bureaucrats themselves. Also Moloch and entropy, so we are fighting powerful forces here.
The new department would employ some bureaucrats, it’s not clear to me why existing bureaucrats would feel a need to fight its creation.
That is why it’s a job that needs a specialized team to combat it and can’t just be done effectively in the existing structures.
They would not necessarily fight its creation—although a department those aim is to fight bureaucracy may very well seem threatening to people in position of power in the diverse bureaucratic departments. But they would definitely fight its action, i.e. any attempt at changing the way they run their services.
I do agree that the job of the department won’t be easy.
To the extent that you can create such a department without
I think in most timelines this ends up as just an added layer of bureaucracy, but in the few of them when it does not it’s great.
I think this would probably become controversial, because removing almost any bureaucratic rule can be spun into a controversial headline since people look at what the rule is supposed to do instead of what it actually does (i.e. if you remove a safety rule that doesn’t do anything but creates expensive paperwork, you’re “removing rules that ensure our safety”).
The proposal is explicitly about not removing any specific rule because that’s hard but doing something else.
I mean the bureaucracy for doing this would quickly become controversial because it does things that make bad headlines (and people would notice this before it even passes, “Why would you create the bureaucracy to get rid of rules if you don’t want to make us less safe?”).