[NeutronBoy]

There's almost two conclusions from the article:

- running government more like a business isn't necessarily a bad thing, and

- a ruthless business-man isn't necessarily the best suited person to do it

[FussyZeus]

It seems like the only points where the businessman excelled were things external to the city, i.e. where negotiating with other entities, which makes sense.

I think the difference is that other parties approach a city as a business would, in an adversarial way; not necessarily in conflict, but with the clear knowledge that they are on opposing sides of a negotiation and neither is going to leave that table 100% happy. It's different when the Mayor is dealing with his City Council: they have to work and live together, and arguably should be working to the same goal; improving the city and making sure the City wins, not the Mayor or the Council.

I think that's where the business politicians routinely stumble; they're used to being purely in a win/lose environment, where very interaction is inherently a "I'm going to screw someone or get screwed" situation, whereas a lot of politics really shouldn't be about that. The whole point of Civil Service is working for the benefit of the community, not yourself or your particular department.

I also think this is why politicians suck at negotiating, because it's the opposite of what they're used to.

In short, as with most things, the Truth is somewhere in the middle.

[r00fus]

Well, doesn't your 2nd point invalidate the first? My take is good business acumen != good governance acumen.

It's almost like saying a good singer can be a good pianist. Hey, they're both about making music, right?

Well maybe not...

[sqeaky]

Perhaps its not a binary thing. It seems an organization can be more business-like or government-like in a variety of ways.

I mean look at insurance companies and their draconian forms to be filled out in triplicate for the littlest thing and limited sign-up dates. They even earn their money like a government taking it from you on a schedule, with little obvious effect until it becomes apparent why their service is valuable (or not).

Then on the other hand look at government groups like the military at war, efficient command and control pure meritocratic objective seeking, if one group can't do it another can and does. Their efficiency is not to reach a financial goal first, it is to achieve some goal set by the civilian government despite active opposition from other people.

Perhaps rules mandating checking for outside bids to fight cronyism, provincialism and outright corruption are a good idea even in the most liberal governments. Perhaps ruthless unilateral control have no place even in the most right wing group. Perhaps government is too complex to be summed up in a single sentence.