Hi Chris,
At 01:13 10/07/01 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi Keith,
>
>> (CR)
>> >Come on, Keith. If there is any hierarchical undemocratic top-down
>> >organization, it is the modern private corporation.
>> [KH:]
>> Come on, Christoph. How many layers are there in the typical civil service
>> department? About 30 in the English CS. How many layers in the typical
>> corporation? No more than 10 in the very largest I suggest.
(CR)
>See, there's the "UK-centrism" again. I was thinking of the Swiss civil
>service, which is rather de-centralized and uses the "subsidiarity
principle",
>i.e. decisions are made as low in the hierarchy as possible. And most
>importantly, the direct democratic control over lower and higher levels is
>pretty strong (e.g. direct referendums on projects of a certain size).
>The number of layers isn't so high either -- for regional (cantonal)
>purposes, about 4-6.
I plead guilty to being UK-centric because the UK's civil service is the
only one I am fairly knowledgeable about. However, you must agree that the
Swiss system is not typical of nation-states. The UK's system is
representative of most developed countries and serves as an apt example.
(CR)
>Compare this with a (transnational) corporation: centralized (with the
>center far away), hardly any "subsidiary principle", **no democratic
>control at all**, and rather *more* layers than a reasonably regional
>government org. (even if it has less layers, the other points spoil
>the whole thing..)
If there is one thing that multinational corporations have learned in the
last 20 years it is that local management and boards of directors are
highly desirable. True, strategic decisions are taken at the top, but the
profitability/efficiency of different units are very much up to local
circumstances.
"**no democratic control at all**" Really? What about shareholders? What
about investment funds? What about business analysts? What about the press?
What about pensions funds? What about regulators? These may not be
democratic in the strictest one-person one-vote sense, but they represent
ordinary people/consumers/pensioners and can exert powerful effects on
multinationals.
Two days ago it was announced that the (new) chief executive of Railtrack
in the UK was going to receive a bonus of US$320,000 and share options
worth $635,000. Since Railtrack has been incompetently managed hitherto,
and since there's no evidence so far that the new chief executive is going
to do the job any better, there was instant anger by shareholders and
comments in the media. Today, he decided to relinquish his bonus and
options. This sort of pressure on companies is growing, particularly in the
UK and the US.
(KH)
>> Besides, there
>> is one flow of information that is absolutely vital at all times in a
>> coporation -- that is from the bottom (customer) to the top.
(CR)
>It seems that the corporations more and more care about shareholders
>rather than about customers. The customer can easily be ignored,
>especially if the corporation has a (quasi-)monopoly or a de-facto cartel.
>Since there is no democratic accountability, customers (even groups of)
>can't do much.
Without well-satisfied customers shareholders won't receive dividends and
management won't receive salaries. Yes, of course, cartels don't care a
great deal for customers but they tend not to last for long in modern times.
I'll cut the rest because I'll only repeat myself.
Keith H
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
