Most efficient/ inefficient government?

[ray245]

Well...just because a country has the highest GDP and military might does not mean the country is the have the most effective government around.

So which country do you think have the most Most efficient and inefficient government?

[PeZook]

Well...just because a country has the highest GDP and military might does not mean the country is the have the most effective government around.

So which country do you think have the most Most efficient and inefficient government?

Define "efficient", please. Able to make the most with available resources?

Then I will have to nominate Dubai. They have no resources, no industry and yet have money to blow on stupid shit like artificial palm-islands.

Of course, they will eventually collapse economically if the status quo changes.

Able to provide best for their people?

Definitely Finland

Able to create the most sustainable system?

The Vatican

[ray245]

Efficient as in how well does the government managed the countries resources.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Efficient as in how well does the government managed the countries resources.

There's more than one metric for 'efficiency'. Efficient at defending its people's liberty? Probably something small and European.

Efficient at keeping its people happy? Likely again, one of the European countries.

Efficient at robbing its own people blind and giving the ill-gotten gains (usually through a needless war) to plutocrats and giant business with none the wiser or the population actually cheering it on? Easily America.

[K. A. Pital]

I'd say Finland is a rather efficient government with good strategic planning and socioeconomic policy, as of now.

From the non-First World, I'd say India's Kerala state (but not India in general).

[salm]

What about China? They managed to transform a mammoth of a country into a booming nation in pretty short time. At least economically.

[Ariphaos]

What about China? They managed to transform a mammoth of a country into a booming nation in pretty short time. At least economically.

I would hardly call China's government 'efficient'. There's a cost for everything and they'll pay it one way or another.

[K. A. Pital]

What about China? They managed to transform a mammoth of a country into a booming nation in pretty short time. At least economically.

They're both politically and economically competent but hardly "efficint" since their position drives them towards an ecological disaster. Can they cope? I doubt it. I think China has been turned into a world warehouse and will not be able to turn back from the road it has been advancing on very fast.

I'm not sure China can sustain their advancement and avoid massive social unrest at the same time from the rural poor and workers who are the new underclass versus the wealthy urban dwellers.

[Ma Deuce]

I hate to say this, but a dictatorship with a command economy is probably the most efficient at marshaling a nation's resources. It may not be most efficient at generating those resources, but a top-down command structure dictating what is allocated where for the whole country is inherently more efficient than Western-style capitalist democracy, where macroeconomic decisions are decided by many different organizations and businesses with often conflicting goals, and also by the many individuals in society through their purchase choices.

[Gigaliel]

I hate to say this, but a dictatorship with a command economy is probably the most efficient at marshaling a nation's resources. It may not be most efficient at generating those resources, but a top-down command structure dictating what is allocated where for the whole country is inherently more efficient than Western-style capitalist democracy, where macroeconomic decisions are decided by many different organizations and businesses with often conflicting goals, and also by the many individuals in society through their purchase choices.

Why is that controversial? When a nation has one objective in mind, such as a war, they usually change to a command economy for a time. This is also why martial law exists if it gets that bad. Of course, in peace time nations have many goals, possibly mutually exclusive at that. That would explain why the more free markets do better during periods like this sense bad ideas presumably do poorly in the market place. Your effectiveness may vary.

As for the most 'efficient' government? Singapore, I suppose? Their tiny size results in little bureaucratic overhead that comes with being a nation-state. Of course nation-states have far larger amounts of resources to draw upon that make the inefficiency worth it. Of course, by this definition a random tribal village would be more efficient than the U.K. This would technically true since their is very little waste, but it's a fairly useless statement.

[Dartzap]

The U.K system is incredibly wastful and inefficient, generally incompetent and the like.

*glares at the DWP*

[Nephtys]

Mao's China during his Great Leap Forward wins awards for record inefficiency, I say. Cutting out even the Soviet Five Year Plans in number of people killed out of pure inefficiency.

Most Efficient? Now that's a much harder question.

[Stuart]

As for the most 'efficient' government? Singapore, I suppose? Their tiny size results in little bureaucratic overhead that comes with being a nation-state.

Of all the countries I've been to I think Singapore ranks highest for general efficiency, probably by quite a wide margin. Its more than just small size (although Singapore isn't all that small in population terms). Its that they've got some really very bright people running the place.

[DrMckay]

Finland, Finland, Finland,
That's the place for me!
.
.
.
.
.
What? it had to come sooner or later...

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

As for the most 'efficient' government? Singapore, I suppose? Their tiny size results in little bureaucratic overhead that comes with being a nation-state.

Of all the countries I've been to I think Singapore ranks highest for general efficiency, probably by quite a wide margin. Its more than just small size (although Singapore isn't all that small in population terms). Its that they've got some really very bright people running the place.

As efficient as it is, there is a price for that efficiency...

[Sea Skimmer]

Define "efficient", please. Able to make the most with available resources?

Then I will have to nominate Dubai. They have no resources, no industry and yet have money to blow on stupid shit like artificial palm-islands.

They don’t have much oil, but they do get a very substantial amount of money out of natural gas. That combine with a tiny native (vs. the hoard of guest workers from Pakistan) population leaves them quite well off. They already built all the infrastructure they actually need, so all extra money can be dumped into tourist attractions.

[ray245]

As for the most 'efficient' government? Singapore, I suppose? Their tiny size results in little bureaucratic overhead that comes with being a nation-state.

Of all the countries I've been to I think Singapore ranks highest for general efficiency, probably by quite a wide margin. Its more than just small size (although Singapore isn't all that small in population terms). Its that they've got some really very bright people running the place.

As efficient as it is, there is a price for that efficiency...

Better than a inefficient government anyway. I do not want singapore to be like malaysia's central government.

Come to think of it, how can singapore be that well off if the government is more like the USA or other western country?

We have so many western nation complaining about our government, and if singapore was to adopt the style of most western government, can it work for a city state?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Better than a inefficient government anyway. I do not want singapore to be like malaysia's central government.

Come to think of it, how can singapore be that well off if the government is more like the USA or other western country?

We have so many western nation complaining about our government, and if singapore was to adopt the style of most western government, can it work for a city state?

There are however, limits to how much the trust of the citizen can be abused, and the anger over the recent announcements over the changes to the CPF has been building up.

As for whether a western style government can function in Singapore, the question is moot isn't it? The day that happened, is as good as the day the PAP suddenly changed over a new leaf.

Personally, I see no reason why that sort of Government cannot function in Singapore. But as it is, the more conservative elements of the country do not fancy western style "chaotic" politics.

[ray245]

Well...maybe not in the 60s when singapore is still a 3rd world country. However, given how exposed singapore is to the rest of the world, I doubt the government can really stop more western ideals from coming in.

It's just a matter of time really. How long...that is another question.

[Darth Wong]

Efficiency is a simple mathematical equation: efficiency = output divided by input.

Therefore, the most efficient government will always be the smallest government, because every individual in the government consumes money, hence increasing the difference between input and output. They also produce output, but no individual can achieve 100% efficiency himself, and the more individuals you have, the more likelihood that you have many seriously inefficient individuals. This fact is what drives "small government" political rhetoric, even if the people peddling it are actually big government spenders by nature.

The real question is why we are asking about efficiency when we should be asking about effectiveness. The fact is that it's quite possible to have an extraordinarily efficient government which utterly fails to meet the basic requirements of government.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

The real question is why we are asking about efficiency when we should be asking about effectiveness.

Short Answer: ray245 is a Fucking Moron™.

[Darth Wong]

Let's put it this way: if the government of the United States was a Coca-Cola vending machine, it would have far superior efficiency to any other government on Earth. It would also be a complete failure as a government, but damn, it would be an efficient failure!

[Stuart]

Efficiency is a simple mathematical equation: efficiency = output divided by input.

Interesting thought. We would now have to define output and input for a given government

Output could be defined as

Quality of armed forces
Quality of police and law enforcement
Quality of social services
Quality of environment

Rate each of those on a one-to-ten basis and multipy those together for an output rating

Input could be derived from

Tax rates
Impact on personal freedom
Impact on economic freedom
Impact on political freedom

Multiply those four together for an input rating.

Apply the formula and we have a rating for government efficiency (although, like Mike, I suspect efficiency is the wrong word here).

[Stuart]

if the government of the United States was a Coca-Cola vending machine,

Mike, I got news for you. The Government of the United States is a Coca-Cola vending machine. Remember the famous speech "and we hereby resolve that government of big business, by big business, for big business shall not fade from the earth."

[K. A. Pital]

and we hereby resolve that government of big business, by big business, for big business shall not fade from the earth

Who's that speaking, Benito Mussolini?