While I commend the due regard for objectivity in this article, in a nation (entire western world) where balancing a budget, let alone reducing debt is so off-the-radar, it's like swatting flies on a carcass.
Interesting to note the federal vs municipal/provincial numbers.
The problem with this article really lies in the fact that measuring government ROI is hard, so the conclusion that the productivity of public sector employees is declining is pure speculation or opinion. How do you monetize government services like security, public trust, diplomacy, regulation. In some areas, you can, like 'increased exports, increased investment, or increased tax revenue', but in others not so easy to do, like improved health outcomes, reduced crime, etc.
You're absolutely right. When I reached out directly to Statistics Canada a while back to ask what their public sector labour productivity numbers were all about, they admitted that the best they could do was to use labour **costs** as a proxy for productivity.
As I'm sure you're aware, the government itself struggles with this problem (including, of course, the Auditor General, Parliamentary Budget Officer, etc.). I've got a post coming in a week or two that's focused on the official targets/results data that's published regularly on GC InfoBase for every department. This is an obvious (and well-intentioned) attempt at codifying accountability. But - with some notable exceptions - every set I saw involved box-checking gaming of the system.
Does ‘public servants (employees)’ include police, military, border and coastal security, firefighters, et al? I for one am happy to see those numbers increase.
Those categories are indeed included in the employee counts. Although they're generally not what people mean when they discuss public sector downsizing. The federal government, for example, tends to separate military recruitment into a different discussion.
Given that a significant portion of government effort is focussed on "prevention" efforts, be they fires, collissions. workplace fatalities, public heath emergencies, it becomes extremely difficult to do more than count whether a reduction in bad things happening ocurred and then often inappropriately inferring that the prevention was sucessful if the number didn't rise and hopefully went down.
and then there is the circular non able to make decisions but cover their ass portion of the self licking ice cream cone that really has nothing to measure other than how many people took how long to do next to nothing but check the orientation of their navel in relation to the Minister's whims.
Regarding federal employment numbers, if you listen to PSAC or PIPSC, they'd have you believe Ottawa now resembles skid row, with the Workforce Adjustment initiative de-employing almost every adult of working age overnight and every department and agency completely hollowed out.
On the provincial numbers, I'm curious how they're actually derived. Do they include crown corporations? In provinces like SK, the crowns provide a lot of services that in other provs are delivered by private firms. E.g., auto insurance, electricity, natural gas. My point being, comparing raw numbers across provinces may not be apples-to-apples.
Interesting possibility. All levels of employment numbers that I used came from the same Statistics Canada table (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=1410020101). They're classified using NAICS numbers 911, 912, and 913 respectively. There are no footnotes on those categories, so I'm assuming they're as apples-to-apples as possible. From the context, I'd also assume that Crown corps and NGOs are not included.
SK itself shows 8,293 fed workers, 18,354 prov workers, and 18,027 municipals. But I can see the ratios vary a lot by province. Perhaps there's something there to look into.
No matter how they count it, having spent 20 years living in SK, I can confirm that the whole province has an "Ottawa feel", with almost everybody seemingly being a public servant of one kind or another.
While I commend the due regard for objectivity in this article, in a nation (entire western world) where balancing a budget, let alone reducing debt is so off-the-radar, it's like swatting flies on a carcass.
Interesting to note the federal vs municipal/provincial numbers.
The problem with this article really lies in the fact that measuring government ROI is hard, so the conclusion that the productivity of public sector employees is declining is pure speculation or opinion. How do you monetize government services like security, public trust, diplomacy, regulation. In some areas, you can, like 'increased exports, increased investment, or increased tax revenue', but in others not so easy to do, like improved health outcomes, reduced crime, etc.
You're absolutely right. When I reached out directly to Statistics Canada a while back to ask what their public sector labour productivity numbers were all about, they admitted that the best they could do was to use labour **costs** as a proxy for productivity.
As I'm sure you're aware, the government itself struggles with this problem (including, of course, the Auditor General, Parliamentary Budget Officer, etc.). I've got a post coming in a week or two that's focused on the official targets/results data that's published regularly on GC InfoBase for every department. This is an obvious (and well-intentioned) attempt at codifying accountability. But - with some notable exceptions - every set I saw involved box-checking gaming of the system.
Does ‘public servants (employees)’ include police, military, border and coastal security, firefighters, et al? I for one am happy to see those numbers increase.
Those categories are indeed included in the employee counts. Although they're generally not what people mean when they discuss public sector downsizing. The federal government, for example, tends to separate military recruitment into a different discussion.
Given that a significant portion of government effort is focussed on "prevention" efforts, be they fires, collissions. workplace fatalities, public heath emergencies, it becomes extremely difficult to do more than count whether a reduction in bad things happening ocurred and then often inappropriately inferring that the prevention was sucessful if the number didn't rise and hopefully went down.
and then there is the circular non able to make decisions but cover their ass portion of the self licking ice cream cone that really has nothing to measure other than how many people took how long to do next to nothing but check the orientation of their navel in relation to the Minister's whims.
Regarding federal employment numbers, if you listen to PSAC or PIPSC, they'd have you believe Ottawa now resembles skid row, with the Workforce Adjustment initiative de-employing almost every adult of working age overnight and every department and agency completely hollowed out.
On the provincial numbers, I'm curious how they're actually derived. Do they include crown corporations? In provinces like SK, the crowns provide a lot of services that in other provs are delivered by private firms. E.g., auto insurance, electricity, natural gas. My point being, comparing raw numbers across provinces may not be apples-to-apples.
Interesting possibility. All levels of employment numbers that I used came from the same Statistics Canada table (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=1410020101). They're classified using NAICS numbers 911, 912, and 913 respectively. There are no footnotes on those categories, so I'm assuming they're as apples-to-apples as possible. From the context, I'd also assume that Crown corps and NGOs are not included.
SK itself shows 8,293 fed workers, 18,354 prov workers, and 18,027 municipals. But I can see the ratios vary a lot by province. Perhaps there's something there to look into.
Thanks, David.
No matter how they count it, having spent 20 years living in SK, I can confirm that the whole province has an "Ottawa feel", with almost everybody seemingly being a public servant of one kind or another.
My post on charity distribution interestingly found extraordinarily high concentrations of registered charities in SK: https://www.theaudit.ca/p/what-can-charity-concentrations-tell
Perhaps that's how it's happening.
The pctg of population number is a good measure, but we should be looking at broad public sector and govt funded NGOs too
That's an important point. Although getting good employment numbers for NGOs might be difficult.
Not unintentionally!