My confusion was he seems to think the permanent nature of the civil service provides them an advantage over ministers, but if they are always shifting around then wouldn’t this prevent them from gaining a local knowledge advantage.
1. There’s a difference between having unchecked power/no accountability, and being good at your job.
a. The ministers also move around. (Perhaps they can’t gain a large knowledge advantage, but if no one can fire you, and you’re actually in control (if only via a ‘succeed/fail switch’) then you can have a power advantage.
b. They are at an advantage if they have (greater) career security—even in the form of moving around, while the elected officials may not have the same job security. For an analogy, how good is someone at a job on their first day? After 2 years? After switching departments?
2. They can have more information:
a. For example, if internally they are able to find predecessors, they could in theory communicate individually. At a group level, think of it as a conspiracy—maybe they don’t write things down, or destroy records, but they can still operate over time and communicate (if they bother).
b. Knowing things like ‘did the policy fail, or fail because it was never tried?’ can convey a slight relative advantage. Additionally if they tend to ‘serve’ in the same capacity for longer periods (as compared to ministers), then even if they were starting from scratch, they’d have time to build up more of an advantage.
My confusion was he seems to think the permanent nature of the civil service provides them an advantage over ministers, but if they are always shifting around then wouldn’t this prevent them from gaining a local knowledge advantage.
1. There’s a difference between having unchecked power/no accountability, and being good at your job.
a. The ministers also move around. (Perhaps they can’t gain a large knowledge advantage, but if no one can fire you, and you’re actually in control (if only via a ‘succeed/fail switch’) then you can have a power advantage.
b. They are at an advantage if they have (greater) career security—even in the form of moving around, while the elected officials may not have the same job security. For an analogy, how good is someone at a job on their first day? After 2 years? After switching departments?
2. They can have more information:
a. For example, if internally they are able to find predecessors, they could in theory communicate individually. At a group level, think of it as a conspiracy—maybe they don’t write things down, or destroy records, but they can still operate over time and communicate (if they bother).
b. Knowing things like ‘did the policy fail, or fail because it was never tried?’ can convey a slight relative advantage. Additionally if they tend to ‘serve’ in the same capacity for longer periods (as compared to ministers), then even if they were starting from scratch, they’d have time to build up more of an advantage.