Did good employees, really create a favorable impression of government? A response to Megan McArdle

Today the excellent columnist Megan McArdle blogged a theory about why Americans were more willing to trust government in the decades immediately following the New Deal, but became distrustful towards government afterwards. Her theory is that many high quality employees were pushed into government work by a comparative lack of good private sector jobs. When the economy improved, it was impractical for long-term government employees to quit, but, so the theory goes, their successors were less worthy.

This actually might explain why people were so much more willing to trust government in the 1950s and 1960s than they are now: that was the era when government really was staffed with the "best and the brightest" at senior levels. The subsequent brain drain into the private sector decreased the quality of services and planning, which in turn made people hostile to the idea of more services and planning.

I very much respect McArdle's analysis, but in this case, I think that Megan's theory may well be flawed in that it implies that the broadly favorable public impressions of government present immediately following the great depression, and the broadly unfavorable impressions of government from the 1960s onward are actually variations from the same norm of "America."

I would say that to the contrary, the impressions of the government in both cases are actually impressions based on the overall SIZE of the government and regulations in the life cycle of the population in each era. In effect these two divergent appraisals of government reflect "normal" attitudes, in two very different, but characteristic systems.

Before the New Deal, the US government was comparatively small, and the reduced size of government overall was actually characteristic of the English speaking nations as a whole. Even the British Empire in India or Sudan used a small number of governmental officials, and as such, had a small amount of bureaucracy in comparison to many governments in continental Europe, or their colonies.

When the government is small, it is fairly easy to see how it is serving a useful purpose.

By contrast, when the government is large, it is likely to be seen as much less as pure and true "public service".

Megan's theory would tend to suggest that if the government is only staffed with good enough people, the public will tend to have a good impression of it.

I would say that to the contrary, most of the reason that the government is disliked is not because anything about it is identifiably corrupt or incorrect, but is rather that the government is large, in people's way, and government officials are unfriendly compared to many of the people encountered in other professions, where the need to recruit new customers encourages a pleasant demeanor.

I would suggest that both the history of literature and economics backs up my theory.

Modern economics which tries to restrict the role of government absolutely as much as possible, is commonly called the "Austrian school." Many of its luminaries emigrated, or fled Austria to the United States with the rise of Hitler. In the United States, these theories did not immediately receive a friendly reception, but then, the US at the time was accustomed to a small government, while anyone who grew up and was educated in Austria was accustomed to a very large government indeed. "Classical" economics from a British standpoint never was as minimalistic about the theoretical role of government, but then there was historically, less government to react against.

The anti-government young adults that began to appear in the 1960's and 1970's were the first to have actually spent a lifetime under the "good government" of the New Deal, and the good government employees of Megan's example.

When we look at the history of literature, it is certainly true that books like the classic "Catch 22" began to appear in the 1960's, rather than in WW2, when the book was set, but this is not necessarily because nobody could have, or did write books of the sort before. Rather, it was in the 1960's when people had enough experience with the behaviors of bureaucracy that such a book began to seem broadly relevant to the public.

If we look elsewhere however, there are examples of books with a similar spirit appearing and being celebrated earlier. "The Good Soldier Svejk" by Jaroslav Hasek was published in 1923, and like the Austrian school of economics, The Good Soldier Svejk came out of the Austrian empire, post WW1. This book has had enormous cultural impact in the Czech world, and was recognized as being broadly culturally relevant. Not only did this book predate "Catch 22" but in fact, it inspired it. Thus in both economics and literature, we have American cultural developments reacting against government, being inspired by reactions to the Austro-Hungarian empire, which predated the US experience of expansive and meddlesome government.

I would expand on this theory to say that I suspect that the EXPECTATIONS around government did not just change in a way that affected the population, but the expectations that spring up around an expansive government very likely affected the expectations and behavior of government workers themselves.

To put it one way, it is more inspiring to be Batman, than to be the clerk that logs prisoner's possessions, or a parole officer. This example sounds exaggerated, but in fact, if you use another cultural example, the Andy Griffith Show, it is easier to see how government service now occupies a less clearly essential social role than in the past. Andy Griffith, the small town Sheriff in the show, might not have been Batman, but despite engaging in petty tasks like the clerk or parole officer, his role was more socially elevated, and more obviously essential.

We're not in Mayberry any more...

Having "good" employees certainly means having employees who are dutiful in minor or unpleasant tasks as well as inspiring ones, but inspiration still certainly matters, and many employees who are now considered to be "top notch" or who are intelligent, are not likely to be inspired by labor in the bowels of a modern government bureaucracy.

As a final point, but one which likely has great import for the future of bureaucratic government and capitalism alike, one of the factors which probably pushed motivated and intelligent people into the government back in the Great Depression, and likely will today in the "Great Recession" was the notion that capitalism had effectively failed. This notion, turns the self-evident evils of government bureaucracy, into "necessary evils", things that people do not like, but which they accept.

As indicated earlier, the annoyances and evils of big government were noticed in Austria and noticed by Czechs very early, but this did not mean that the bureaucracy was ever eliminated.

Libertarians can easily make a case for the benefits of the free market on average, but just as employees can turn down potentially increased benefits in the commercial labor market, for increased certainty in government employment, so the public can choose increased security in the size and scope of government. Unless the average person can believe that they can control their own personal economic risks adequately in the private sector, they will impose regulations and other aspects of the public sector on everyone else.