In a message dated 7/31/2003 4:40:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< Interesting question though - why do the archaeologists need to be
 Government Employees (bureaucrats)? It would seem to make much more sense
 for these services to be privatized, because on the whole, the work isn't
 really "governmental". The argument for "loss of expertise" seems a little
 spurious. For one thing, in this instance, the (ex) Parks Archaeologists
 would be in an ideal situation to set themselves up as consultants.
  >>

It is specious, if not spurious (and possibly scurrilous), to equate
government employee with "bureaucrat."  Basically, a bureaucrat is simply a member of
a hierarchical governing body.  In popular parlance, "bureaucrat" connotes a
paper-shuffling functionary who mindlessly follows or enforces meaningless
rules.  It seems to me that a field archaeologist is hardly in a position to be a
bureaucrat in either sense of the word.  Many employees of the federal
government--and state and municipal governments--perform vital services and cannot
logically be considered bureaucrats.

There are legitimate arguments on both sides for determining whether certain
government services should be performed by employees vs. private contractors
and consultants.  Unfortunately, there are many bean-counting bureaucrats who
think that outsourcing the jobs they supervise will automatically save money or
create greater efficiency, but they do not always take into account the value
of long-term loyalty and the expertise which only employees as insiders can
develop.  Privatization is not automatically a cure-all.  It has its own
downside and disadvantages, as some problems with the space program, for example,
have suggested.  When a government agency decides to outsource some of its work,
and employees leave to perform the same services as more highly paid
consultants, one has to wonder if any tax dollars are actually being saved.  I think
some of these schemes can turn into expensive shell games.

Each case of governmental operation vs. privatization must be evaluated on
its own merits.  Bureaucracy is often a power game, but guess what?  Private
organizations and companies are run by bureaucrats too, but they also have a
profit motive, which does not necessarily serve the best interests of the
government bureaus which hire them and the public which ultimately funds them.

It might SEEM, at first blush, that certain government services should be
privatized for greater efficiency and cost-cutting, but such initiatives
sometimes turn out to be penny-wise and pound-foolish.  I've heard some convincing
arguments for keeping the National Park Service archaeologists federal, and it
seems to me that a change would be unwise.

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).