I definitely agree that there are things we could do better in civil service and that there are some agencies that could do better hiring but I'm not really buying that we don't have true experts in government. While some of the detailed bureaus may be buried in directorates under cabinet-level agencies, those experts still exist (or they did 12-18 months ago). Through my 25-year government career, I'm not sure I've ever met an employee that didn't have a grad degree (which is needed to move beyond the GS-12 rank) and I've met experts who literally know everything about their subject matter.
I see the big difference as the scale of everything that makes life in government a lot harder. There's a lot more statute and reporting to follow. The U.S. is twice as big as it was in the 50's. The demands on government are greater. The IT revolution has improved service but also raised expectations. I agree we've screwed up IT implementation and I look forward to hearing more about how we screwed (and continue in some cases) that up but I don't believe the talent in government is better / worse than it was 50-70 years ago.
This is a good point, and I think both you and the article hit on different facets of the issue. There could be structural issues preventing the implementation of expertise today, but also, what it means to be an 'expert' in government might require something more than just being a content expert. The article notes how deft a 'good' bureau head historically had to be with the system to recruit and build influence. There is definitely something to the idea that an effective public sector expert also needs to be a skilled advocate for their area
I definitely agree that there are things we could do better in civil service and that there are some agencies that could do better hiring but I'm not really buying that we don't have true experts in government. While some of the detailed bureaus may be buried in directorates under cabinet-level agencies, those experts still exist (or they did 12-18 months ago). Through my 25-year government career, I'm not sure I've ever met an employee that didn't have a grad degree (which is needed to move beyond the GS-12 rank) and I've met experts who literally know everything about their subject matter.
I see the big difference as the scale of everything that makes life in government a lot harder. There's a lot more statute and reporting to follow. The U.S. is twice as big as it was in the 50's. The demands on government are greater. The IT revolution has improved service but also raised expectations. I agree we've screwed up IT implementation and I look forward to hearing more about how we screwed (and continue in some cases) that up but I don't believe the talent in government is better / worse than it was 50-70 years ago.
This is a good point, and I think both you and the article hit on different facets of the issue. There could be structural issues preventing the implementation of expertise today, but also, what it means to be an 'expert' in government might require something more than just being a content expert. The article notes how deft a 'good' bureau head historically had to be with the system to recruit and build influence. There is definitely something to the idea that an effective public sector expert also needs to be a skilled advocate for their area