Worse, the last time anyone tried this was when the rules were changed to publish the earnings of CEOs of public companies. The idea was to shame them into behaving responsibly. Unfortunately, it appears that CEOs have no such shame and they turned it into a status race. Executive salaries exploded.

Sure, complete disclosure will make people over cautious and limit experimentation. However, let's not limit 'open and transparency' in the name of experimentation. It can become a convenient excuse to keep information locked away to avoid embarrassment.

My understanding is that the expenses scandal was only made public because an Anglo-American journalist based in London, Heather Brooke, requested information in 2005 under the then new UK Freedom of Information Act. Her request had been blocked and after 4 years of pushing 'the leak for pay' took place. A leak wasn't required, but it was the only way to push the door open. Here is a link to a 2009 NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/world/europe/20britain.html?_r=1

'Open and transparent' is not very popular with people in power, either in government or business or NGOs. It can be forced by legislation, usually with more success in government and it should be done carefully. However, I don't think revealing pay for government officials is problematic in anyway. It can lead to more equitable pay between public and private positions. Here in Hong Kong the pay for civil servants is completely transparent and when our current government tried to appoint 'government advisors' without revealing pay there was a justifiable uproar.

I've been pushing for 'open and transparent' in the Hong Kong knowledge management community for this past year. Eventually some progress will be made. Sometimes it just takes a constant effort over a long period of time.

Hi –

Some discretion and wiggle room is advised, but overall, the logic for this particular case here is flawed.

In your complex system, for govt/civil ‘servants,’ why do you leave out the employer? Seems odd such a critical role would not be present from any holistic discussion of govt transparency or complex system. If the employer is absent, how do they know how to manage and lead the employed?

In a modern civil society, including parliamentary systems and constitutional monarchies, the government works for the governed. ‘By, for and of’ the people as Lincoln would say in the USA. The governed, the people, are not only entitled to transparency in earnings and expenditures, they determine them!

Also in the USA, here in San Francisco, it was recently reveal by the City govt that some policemen in San Francisco earned over $500K (sic) last year. On the Federal level, it was uncovered the US Postmaster General 2008 compensation was about $800K (sic).

Sadly, US Govt employees used to be called ‘servants’ too. It was because they were impassioned for govt service. Remember, govt is a non-risk agency. Thus, govt MUST NOT pay competitive wages because govt DOES NOT COMPETE. It is basic social logic.

Notably, for the first time in US history govt employees earn more than the private sector on average, $39/hr (govt) versus $37/hr (private), fully loaded. More work in govt than manufacturing! Utterly disgraceful and unsustainable.

The ‘best and brightest’ are attracted to govt to SERVE -- not to compete with the private sector. Public sector unions and their greedy bosses and craven political mignons like Obama are ruining the social contract, joy and reward of authentic, hi-quality, passionate govt service. Period.

In the USA at least, do you really way corrupt, lazy, porn-addicted losers running the SEC or inspecting deep water submersible rigs? As long as there are ‘competitive’ salaries in non-risk govt agencies, service will be crap, just as we have seen at FEMA, Federal Reserve, CIA, TSA, U.S. Minerals and Mining Service, etc., etc., etc.

The purpose of govt is to SERVE not to compete.

-j

Well I was talking primarily in a UK context John. We have this quaint notion that you should separate powers, so we don't do things like elect judges to take one example of many. We also have a civil service which is not subject to political appointment in the main, although that has been compromised. In the recent general election the civil service worked with the opposition in advance of the election, and the then current political government could not prevent it, or have access to the material. With that approach we need to see the civil service as a service, it is subject to publicly declared salary bands and is also subject to audit, both direct and through the audit commission. The employer is the independent civil service.

. Otherwise I agree with you that in general public service should not be gain based which is the dominant metaphor of the commercial sector (although historically there was also a service base in longer term employees that we have lost. That has to be qualified however by the very low wage rates in the US. For government to pay less would be criminal.

fully agree with you on the dangers of allowing anyone to inspect the data - the point about corrupt use of the data is a third point to those I listed above.

The Singapore and Hong Kong civil service bases their pay scales on the careful analysis of private pay scales so they attract the same talent pool. This analysis is made widely public and it lets graduates make a judgement if they want to 'serve' government or 'slog it out' for P&G. Frankly, there shouldn't be any difference in pay IMHO. These are two of the most well-managed city-states on the planet. Money is a useful demarcator for talent and I don't think equitable pay between public and private service sectors is a bad idea. Poorly paid government servants just become corrupt.