Parkinson's Law

Generali

...or why bureaucracy will only get more and more expensive

http://www.economist.com/node/14116121

The accompanying table is derived from Admiralty statistics for 1914 and 1928. The criticism voiced at the time centred on the comparison between the sharp fall in numbers of those available for fighting and the sharp rise in those available only for administration, the creation, it was said, of “a magnificent Navy on land.” But that comparison is not to the present purpose. What we have to note is that the 2,000 Admiralty officials of 1914 had become the 3,569 of 1928; and that this growth was unrelated to any possible increase in their work. The Navy during that period had diminished, in point of fact, by a third in men and two-thirds in ships. Nor, from 1922 onwards, was its strength even expected to increase, for its total of ships (unlike its total of officials) was limited by the Washington Naval Agreement of that year. Yet in these circumstances we had a 78.45 per cent increase in Admiralty officials over a period of fourteen years; an average increase of 5.6 per cent a year on the earlier total. In fact, as we shall see, the rate of increase was not as regular as that. All we have to consider, at this stage, is the percentage rise over a given period.

In 2010, it took over 1,000 people just to pay military personnel according to the ONS

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/newWeb/www/index.php?page=48&pubType=0&thiscontent=3660&PublishTime=09:30:00&date=2012-02-10&disText=1%20January%202011&from=listing&topDate=2012-02-10.

vivatifosi

Hmmmm.... Interesting. This is the third thing I've heard/seen this week on Parkinson's Law having heard little about it for some time. There was even a lengthy article on Radio 4. I wonder if this is something the government are now going to lead on in the coming months.

grizzly1911

I picked up something a year or so back that compared the MOD procurement numbers of somewhere close to 30000 to that of Israel which had less than 1000 (closer to 500 I think).

Not sure how the numbers were assigned and how much is shared with the US in terms of Israel.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

...or why bureaucracy will only get more and more expensive

http://www.economist.com/node/14116121



In 2010, it took over 1,000 people just to pay military personnel according to the ONS

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/newWeb/www/index.php?page=48&pubType=0&thiscontent=3660&PublishTime=09:30:00&date=2012-02-10&disText=1%20January%202011&from=listing&topDate=2012-02-10.

Yes, certainly something that the British have excelled in, empire building

zagubov

Was horrified at the advert last night for army jobs whenI remembered that they're laying off even more experienced soldiers. Does not bode well.

Mind you we're a country whose navy has its own army. And giant unusable floating airbases for its would-be naval airforce.

The Israelis based their military on the Swiss model, not ours and the Swiss don't like wasting money. I bet they don't have a huge bureacracy.

The most useful navy ever had to be the Albanian one. In return for having a soviet sumarine base they got the soviets to supply them with submarine chasers which they promptly used to chase out the soviet union from the naval base in 1961.

macaque_2

Generali wrote: »

...or why bureaucracy will only get more and more expensive

Good article but Le Chatelier's Principle states:

Any change in status quo prompts an opposing reaction in the responding system.

Examples of opposing reactions might include:

• The black economy
• Moving manufacturing off shore
• Google and Starbucks tax arrangements

Le Chatelier's Principle has nothing to do with economics but what's sauce for the goose etc.

grizzly1911

zagubov wrote: »

Was horrified at the advert last night for army jobs whenI remembered that they're laying off even more experienced soldiers. Does not bode well.

Isn't it what all corporations do?

Get rid of expensive experienced staff and re-employ cheap trainees.

Helps cap the pension bill as well I guess.

Not saying I endorse the practice in either camp.

zagubov

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Isn't it what all corporations do?

Get rid of expensive experienced staff and re-employ cheap trainees.

Helps cap the pension bill as well I guess.

Not saying I endorse the practice in either camp.

Well it would be a god time for a young soldier to enlist as they have to keep a certain age profile and they can rise to the top. It's the loss of experience that worries me.

I've often thought what we need is no standing army at all, but a massive marine corps with air/naval support.

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

Yes, certainly something that the British have excelled in, empire building

I love the line in the article about the Admiralty constructing a first rate Navy on land.

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

I love the line in the article about the Admiralty constructing a first rate Navy on land.

Apparently when Serbia and Montenegro split, Serbia kept a Navy going with admirals and all the upper ranks despite having no coastline or seagoing vessels.

I rather liked the size of the Slovenian Navy which at one point supposedly consisted of one boat with about 8 crew.:D

Thrugelmir

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Get rid of expensive experienced staff and re-employ cheap trainees.

Modern warfare requires technically trained people. Not masses of expendable individuals.