Thanks for reminding me of this article. Yes, as we've discussed in times past, I've always recommended transparency as a better strategy than regulation. Government regulations get captured by the big companies at the expense of the smaller ones, whereas governments will never become transparent voluntarily. But, as we've seen in the British Honours case that I posted, even the most secret things that go on in government leak out these days. Interestingly, it was this sort of leakage that was so significant at the Hutton Enquiry (and which, I think, will be so embarrassing to Blair when the report is published).
Keith
At 09:31 15/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Keith,
There is magic in secrecy but the drive to uncloak, to make transparent will
bring great changes.
Transparency will affect all institutions: business and government alike.
A recent issue of The Economist asserted that the new book "The Naked
Corporation: How the Age of Transparency Will Revolutionize Business"
provides the first "big idea" since management books slumped a couple of
years ago. Comparing Tapscott to management gurus Hamel, Peters and
Christensen, the article notes that Tapscott argues that greater
transparency is an unstoppable force: "It is the product of growing demand
from everybody with an interest in any corporation -- what he calls its
'stakeholder web' -- and of rapid technological change, above all the
spread of the Internet, that makes it far easier for firms to supply
information, and harder for them to keep secrets." (Economist 16 Oct 2003)
http://www.economist.com/
arthur
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 3:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Futurework] Status and Honours
211. Status and Honours
The importance of status can hardly be exaggerated. In hunter-gatherer
times, the patrilocal instinct of girls leaving their group or tribe at
puberty and seeking sexual partners in a neighbouring group would mean that
they would preferentially select the alpha male, or at least as
high-ranking a male as possible that she found there. An extremely good
example of the modern survival of this practice is to be found in Michael
Palin's book, Sahara (and the BBC TV documentary) where the young women
from several different groups of the Wodaabe tribe select their lifetime
partners from the young men who dress up, wear lashings of kohl and
stibnite make-up on their eyes and lips, and prance about (in what, to us,
is an amusing way). Here, the girls are making their selection not on the
basis of status per se but on the looks, the imagination of the men's
dressage and bearing -- to them, as highly correlated with status
and likely future life-success of the males as modern girls are able to
assess by going to a night club and dancing and talking with possible
future boy friends.
Every group, every institution, and every country develops clear visible
signs for status -- statues, memorials, rankings (civil service, army,
university), decorations, letters after their names, honorary prefixes,
medals, ribbons, lapel badges, hats and uniforms and so on. In England,
such rankings, formally initiated by William the Conqueror in 1066 after
the invasion, when he chose those who should be his barons (in exchange for
military services), have evolved ever since. Lloyd George, when prime
minister early last century, used to (privately) sell peerages. Prime
ministers ever since have sold peerages to those who contribute to party
funds (and perhaps to pirvate pockets). People, and particularly the males
(for instinctive reasons) are desperately eager for signs of status. For
most people, status is indicated in the goods they buy and, of course, the
notion of status goods is a central theme in my evolutionary economics
hypothesis.
But for a minority in England, we have the honours system -- whereby titles
and decorations are given by the Queen on her official birthday and at the
New Year. As with so many state functions, the business of choosing who
should receive honours has been taken over by the civil service and, in
particular, by a small group of very senior civil servants, usually the
heads of departments, or Permanent Secretaries. The minutes of the meetings
in which they discuss those who should receive honours on these occasion
are normally considered state secrets. Even political leaders -- even the
prime minister -- are not allowed to attend these deliberations or read
these minutes, though the civil servants concerned will take notice if a
prime minister has particular preferences. The records are normally kept
secret well beyond the usual 30-years limits for state documents.
However, someone has ratted on this secrecy a few days ago. A recent set of
minutes has been leaked to the press. There we have read the reason why
this person or that was chosen for this or that rank of decoration. Many of
these reasons are revealed to be quite trivial -- indeed, insincere. This
has caused a tremendous furore and will dynamite the secret procedures that
have applied hitherto.
There are those who affect to believe that status is not very important,
particularly Americans who tried to overthrow all this royalty-derived
business when they set up their republic. Even now, an American who
receives an honorary knighthood from the British Queen is not allowed to
put "Sir" in front of his name -- but this doesn't reduce his enthusiasm to
go to Buckingham Palace and be tapped on the shoulder with the Queen's
sword while he kneels before her (on a comfortable cushion it must be said).
Incidentally, over here, honours are affectionately called "gongs" by those
senior civil servants who affect not to take the matter too seriously --
but who would kill if they were left out when their age and status
qualified them for a honour of the appropriate grade.
Keith Hudson
<<<<
SEVEN CENTURIES OF THE GONG SHOW
Robert Winnett and David Leppard
The roots of Britain's honours system can be traced back to the 14th
century when Edward III created the Most Noble Order of the Garter, an
order of chivalry that was available to only 25 knights.
By the end of the century, King Richard II was handing out honours in the
form of gifts or gold n6ck chains as a reward for loyal service. Chains of
honour went to certain officers of the crown as a special mark of
distinction.
Until the beginning of the 19th century, honours in the form of
appointments to the order of chivalry in England were restricted to members
of the aristocracy and high-ranking military officers. From then on, those
to be honoured were selected by the prime minister of the day and came from
wider backgrounds.
Nowadays, the so-called "gongs" are supposed to recognise individuals who
have excelled in their professional lives or made a valuable contribution
to society. They are awarded twice a year, in the Queen's birthday honours
in June and at the new year. Some 1,500 awards are made each time,
including nominations from the armed services and the diplomatic service.
Michael De-la-Noy, the author, once described the British honours system as
"the most complex, class-ridden and -- to all but a handful of civil
servants, courtiers and snobs -- the most baffling" of its kind in the
world.
The structure of the system is reviewed every five years. John Major, the
former Conservative prime minister, was the last to make significant
changes to encourage more nominations from ordinary members of the public.
Tony Blair also vowed to open up the system and make it more representative
of the wider population -- for example, by giving higher honours to
teachers and nurses.
MPs from the public accounts committee are attempting to scrutinise how
and why honours are awarded. Cabinet Office papers released to the
committee and published last month suggest a number of options for radical
reform. These include giving the system "greater transparency" such as
extending membership of the vetting committees to more people from outside
Whitehall.
Members of the public can nominate outstanding individuals -- usually from
their fields of work or local communities. Those nominations eventually
produce 43% of the successful candidates, although most of these come at
the lower levels of honours. Each government department also has its own
honours unit which proposes its own names -- people in the professional
fields overseen by their department. In addition it "vets" applications
from members of the public.
A provisional list of names is then forwarded by the honours units to one
of eight sub-committees, each chaired by a senior civil servant, covering
different areas from sport to medicine and local services. The departments
also forward a special "reserve" set of names, known as the "blue list", to
the relevant honours committee. The subcommittees have set quotas for the
number of people they can nominate for each of the five levels of honours.
In ascending order of merit they are: Member of the British Empire (MBE);
Officer of the British Empire (OBE); Commander of the British Empire (CBE);
Knight/Dame of the British Empire (KBE/DBE); and Knight/Dame Grand Cross
(GBE). Each subcommittee sends lists of candidates for each level of award
to the main honours committee.
This committee, chaired by the cabinet secretary, then approves and amends
the final list of more than 1,000 names which is sent to the prime minister
and the Queen. Changes after this stage are a rare occurrence. The Queen
has no power to alter the list.
The Sunday Times -- 14 December 2003
>>>>
<<<<
HOW GRANDEES PICK A WINNER IN SECRECY
Robert Winnett and David Leppard
They are the gatekeepers of the Establishment. Twice a year, 10 of the most
powerful civil servants in Britain meet amid great secrecy to decide who
joins the honoured elite of British society. Led by Sir Andrew Turnbull,
the cabinet secretary and head of the civil service, these "great and the
good" of Whitehall choose who will be granted knighthoods and other titles,
and who will be rejected.
Though the system is secretive, the public is given the impression that
honours recognise merit and confer reward for achievement. This weekend
leaked minutes of the most recent committee meeting reveal just how far
the system is manipulated for other purposes.
They show that who gets a gong depends, quite apart from merit, on
celebrity, timing. Buggins' turn, political spin and how the insiders want
the overall list to be seen. Officials within the system claim the leaked
memo provides the first hard evidence of how, under Labour, manipulation of
the Queen's honours has reached new heights.
As well as revealing that Tim Henman, Britain's top tennis player, has been
recommended for an honour to "add interest" to the list, the document
reveals other, if not arbitrary at least contentious methods. It says that
efforts will be made to give an honour or peerage to the academic Anthony
Giddens, one of Tony Blair's mentors.
In one telling note, the committee considered the award of a CBE in
Scotland. A candidate called Susan Whyte was "held back" in order to make
way for Ross Lorimer. Why? Because it became apparent that Lorimer was
retiring as president of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of
Glasgow. If he did not get his gong now it would be difficult to give it to
him later.
In another case the, committee considered a candidate called Bates. ."He
had certainly delivered more than might be reasonably expected" in his
achievements, the committee noted. So why should his name not go forward
for an honour? Because it did not fit with other plans. "The committee
could not agree that he should receive a G [an elevated knighthood] at the
expense of a Kt [knighthood] to someone else."
In another case, the desire to give two rival football teams equal billing
took precedence over individual merit. Lady Cooksey, a former British
fencer who is now a high-profile charity volunteer and author, was in line
for an honour but the committee tried to reject her. Why? Because it was
already awarding an honour to a candidate from Celtic football club and it
was felt that, instead of Cooksey, it would look better to give an honour
to someone from Rangers, the arch rivals of Celtic.In the event. Rangers
were unable to come up with a "suitable alternative".
The gong-giving mandarins also seem to look after their own. The longest
section of the document deals with civil servants, and their chance for
honours seems to be expanding. The committee noted that "for future
reference 2nd Permanent Secretaries [those just below the head of a
government department] would be considered for a Kt [knighthood]". It noted
that John Taylor, the outgoing director-general of UK Research Councils,
was being pushed forward by Turnbull for the erroneous reason that "all
previous holders" of his office had been knighted.
The committee approved a proposal, too, that "those who were likely to
achieve higher levels should be held back to make way for those who were
unlikely to go further". In other words, give lesser civil servants a gong
now while they have the chance.
In all, the note reads like a discussion overheard in a London gentlemen's
club or the Kremlin: a small group of omnipotent grandees bat about names,
promoting some and exiling others as if they are mere pawns.
When Labour came to power it made much play of making the system more open
to ordinary people. Instead, the most notable change has been "spinning" to
make the most of celebrities receiving honours.
A whistleblower reveals how the process is dominated by the need to
generate good headlines and flatter the government -- rather than to simply
acknowledge outstanding achievement. The source said: "When the honours
team discusses names, they are aware that they need to find high-profile
people. If the list hasn't got that many news-worthy names then [a senior
official] would look at the list and say that more names were needed.
"Newsworthiness is really important. The reason Mick Jagger got put forward
was to make Blair look cool.
"Political searches form part of the biographical checks..This is really
about saving face for the government. People are not put forward if, for
example, their political thoughts and actions were anti-Labour."
There is increasing pressure for reform. The main committee consists
entirely of senior, middle-aged civil servants. As well as Tumbull, the
"gong masters" include Sir Hayden Phillips, permanent secretary at the
Department for Constitutional Affairs, and William Chapman, secretary for
appointments in the prime minister's office. Other members are thought to
include Sir Richard Mottram, the permanent secretary at the Department for
Work and Pensions.
The group was recently criticised by a parliamentary report for lacking
diversity. Whitehall insiders who have spoken to The Sunday Times hope that
the disclosure of the internal workings of the system will help lead to its
reform.
They point out that other countries, such as Australia and New Zealand have
recently made their honours systems much more open and accountable. Fraser
Kemp, a Labour MP and government whip, has previously called for a radical
overhaul of the system. He wants to see''a single honour -- the Order of
Britain -- given to all suitable candidates.
However, Blair has publicly rebuffed all proposals for radical reform.
Instead, departmental honours units have privately been given "quotas" to
increase the number of women to 50% of the list and ethnic minority
candidates to 5%. More awards should also be made to disabled candidates.
The Whitehall source said: "The system should be fairer and doesn't need to
be so cloak and dagger. "It should be like the Oscars, where people know
who else is being considered."
The Sunday Times -- 14 December 2003
>>>>
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
