Bureaucrats versus policymaking

Reviewing The Trouble with Physics, by Lee Smolin, Mike Alder writes:

The gradual corruption of enterprises by bureaucracy appears to be inevitable. Once any enterprise becomes successful, it is doomed to be taken over by those for whom power and prestige are the central aspects of their lives. The forms are prsereved, but the content is lost. Rituals replicate endlessly. Thes would seem to be a constant of human nature; the trick is to recognize when it has happened and not be fooled by the rhetoric. And if can happen to Christianity it can appen to anything. Including Science. Bureaucrats versus science (apparently unavailable right now), 'Quadrant', December 2007

It's certainly happened to universities and research. Lamenting the failure of theoretical physicists to come up with radical innovations or dramatic shifts in our thinking, Alder continues, summarising Smolin:

Financial managers need to defend expenditures on the basis of maximising their expected return.... That inevitably means that the currently favoured paradigme gets almost all the money. ... So everyone goes for the best bet, and if it happens to be wrong, we all go bust. .... Philosophers who are good are beyond price, but the mediocre are useless. Scientests tend to be technicians more than philosphers, but the system of rewards doled out by the bureaucrats in charge of the universities these days favours the technicians. It is so much easier to measure their output.

The same is happening in the world of policymaking. You don't get penalised if you advocate a tried, tested and failed policy. But try something different, and if it's not a success in a roaringly obvious way, you will suffer the consequences. Better to play safe and do the conventional thing. And if you want to be creative, go into advertising. Bureaucracy stifles creative policymaking just as surely as it has oppressed religion and theoretical physics.

We need a system that encourages innovation, and Social Policy Bonds may be the answer. Under a bond regime successful policies would be rewarded, however unfashionable or outlandish they might seem; while failed policies would be terminated - in the interests of everybody: bondholders, society and the environment alike. As well, the bonds would encourage diverse approaches, and ones that adapt over time - again, unlike the monoculture that prevails increasinly not only in politics, but in our rural environment, our urban environment, religion and science.