After Christian Jacob, president of the UMP group in the National Assembly, invited to "think hiring officials for life ", this old sea serpent has produced quite a stir. Issuance Of grist example could help to raise this issue at an issue devoted the insecurity in the public service. Why this challenge? Also because this would be an efficiency gain for the government. A further sign, in fact, from the grip of what Karl Polanyi called the "fallacy economy ".
Although Christian Jacob was able to highlight the opportunities for mobility offered by a questioning of the status of officials, listening to the issuance of France Culture leaves no doubt that this statute is primarily criticized because it puts officials to protect from losing their jobs, so competition so incentives to work, and otherwise encourages to laziness at least less effective than a less protective status would require them to continue. This point could not be more clear in the remark Nicolas Lecaussin , the "liberal" media of the confrontation, that in France, 75% of young people want to become servants "rather entrepreneurs. There would
much to say about the general interpretation of this figure, so often advanced and so rarely sourced. Taken as an indicator of pussilanimité of French people towards capitalism or market (the famous "French disease"), you might as well read the general ignorance of the public: he would still want to know what position occupy these "75%" because there is no guarantee that everybody wants to be, for example, teachers in college. This would also know if that appeals is not, perhaps, more the meaning given to certain jobs rather than their safety. In short, we should know a little more, starting with where you got that figure ... Otherwise, he joined the many false arguments that pollute the extensive public debate.
Still, it appears many of its recurrent use that in a certain tradition of thought, the job security provided by the Staff is very problematic because it would lead to inefficient operation of services public. In the absence of the risk of losing his job, the organization simply could not be economically efficient. The denunciation of inequality "unacceptable" between those who are exposed to this risk and those who will escape, one way or another, in the same direction.
So that in this perspective, there is an economic incentive: hunger. Indeed, in our societies, not having a job means not being able to feed themselves, nor have access to all goods that are considered socially necessary for everyone, whether it be housing, clothing , hobbies, etc.. It is through the course of employment that you earn the right to get all these things. Even though there are "safety nets", these are tenuous enough so that hunger can not be fully satisfied without the sale of his work. Poverty, fear of hunger and deprivation: that is what is the essential motivation that guide our economic behavior.
Has it always been this way? To this question, Karl Polanyi replied in his various writings (especially those collected in his Essays ) so we can more clearly "no." Hunger has not always been the primary economic motivation. It is a characteristic of our societies have the only possible economic incentives, to the exclusion of all others. This is what in fact "market societies", societies which Polanyi hoped that the Second World War had marked the collapse. Had he lived, to paraphrase Brassens, then showed him no.
What Polanyi argues on the basis of historical and anthropological exploration of primitive economic systems - understood here: "that precede the advent of self-regulating market in the West of the nineteenth century" - is that hunger has not always been an incentive or economic motivation. Instead, he says, in many societies, hunger does not exist. At least as a personal experience: an individual could not be hungry if his group was itself in starvation. Otherwise, all sorts of obligations required them to look after those who can not or want to work from those who hunger, those who can not obtain by themselves for their food. This has been, in Europe, the moral obligation to let the poor take part of the harvest, an obligation which has eventually become institutionalized in the "poor laws" which Polanyi discusses the disappearance of England in the late eighteenth century as the beginning of the "market society". This does not mean that the beneficiaries of such a system were living in luxury, but at least they were not threatened by hunger and death. So the concrete right, for those who wish to pursue a lifestyle of their choice - a central idea in Polanyi and who would, perhaps, to please those who call themselves "liberal."
But then why are they working people? Well for other motives than the fear of hunger and the search for gain.
Motivation to work is not lacking: to acquire or guarantee a certain social status, comply with standards and values, etc.. In fact, these motivations exist in our societies, and, except for some very specific cases, such as some traders actually only motivated by profit and gain ever greater, most people have relatively complex motivations work. A fear of hunger and the search for profit in addition, often dominant, other reasons that range from simple pleasure taken in the activity that engages with many different moral considerations. In history and the recognition that we can not get any incentives. And cases of officials choosing disobedience as a way of combating stress the attachment thereof to the content of their job, not the only gains they can derive. This is also true in private.
This last remark leads us to the fallacy that economic Karl Polanyi has repeatedly denounced. For why in the private cases of disobedience are they if not impossible at least rare? Just because hunger is the incentive for them dominant. Not because it is naturally stronger than others, but because the social organization leads to make it so strong. The economic fallacy is the belief that the economic organization of ours is the organization "natural", valid at any time and any place - a failing that economists are never fully able to abandon or said in passing. We tended to think that only hunger and gain are the "real" incentives and "true" motivations "economic" and that all others are at best a vague ideology placed on material interests ( where one sees all that separates Polanyi Marxism). And our economic organization is built precisely on this belief, so it becomes "real" for us. It is the organization of hunger, the maximum lift of solidarity that each safeguarded against this threat, which made individuals of workers on a market to sell their work. And it is this market that excludes other possible motivations of the field, they took away some of their force in people's minds.
Returning to the original question: the status of civil servants. One quickly understands that there may be other reasons for them and that rather than trying to replace them the reason for the hunger, it would be equally feasible to develop, for example by asking recognition of everyone's work.
But we can go further. The constitution of hunger as the only "real" economic motivation was not translated because of the devaluation of other causes of action, other incentives. That is the yardstick that individuals consider the interest of work, primarily if not to the exclusion of all others. And this is also true for public servants: they too are worked by the economic fallacy and can indulge in thinking that their motives in terms of gains, as they appear on the bottom of their payroll, do not justify all their efforts. Therefore, one can conclude that it transforming our company into a market that is causing the problems that the proposed deal by extending a little more ...
Doubtless one could then propose to take over the problem again fresh, and rather than discuss the retention or deletion of the Staff, consider the place of work and motivations across society. Precarious workers, real public service through the many alternatives to the famous "status", merely extends the reasons for hunger and earnings. It pushes people to seek nothing other than their work escape from famine or benefit which they can enjoy at their leisure. In short, it devalues confidently "work value" some gargle. Companies that know how employee involvement is important would do well to reflect on this. Maybe they would reach their goals better if they were using with their employees other incentives to those that we persist in thinking to be the only "economic".
Although Christian Jacob was able to highlight the opportunities for mobility offered by a questioning of the status of officials, listening to the issuance of France Culture leaves no doubt that this statute is primarily criticized because it puts officials to protect from losing their jobs, so competition so incentives to work, and otherwise encourages to laziness at least less effective than a less protective status would require them to continue. This point could not be more clear in the remark Nicolas Lecaussin , the "liberal" media of the confrontation, that in France, 75% of young people want to become servants "rather entrepreneurs. There would
much to say about the general interpretation of this figure, so often advanced and so rarely sourced. Taken as an indicator of pussilanimité of French people towards capitalism or market (the famous "French disease"), you might as well read the general ignorance of the public: he would still want to know what position occupy these "75%" because there is no guarantee that everybody wants to be, for example, teachers in college. This would also know if that appeals is not, perhaps, more the meaning given to certain jobs rather than their safety. In short, we should know a little more, starting with where you got that figure ... Otherwise, he joined the many false arguments that pollute the extensive public debate.
Still, it appears many of its recurrent use that in a certain tradition of thought, the job security provided by the Staff is very problematic because it would lead to inefficient operation of services public. In the absence of the risk of losing his job, the organization simply could not be economically efficient. The denunciation of inequality "unacceptable" between those who are exposed to this risk and those who will escape, one way or another, in the same direction.
So that in this perspective, there is an economic incentive: hunger. Indeed, in our societies, not having a job means not being able to feed themselves, nor have access to all goods that are considered socially necessary for everyone, whether it be housing, clothing , hobbies, etc.. It is through the course of employment that you earn the right to get all these things. Even though there are "safety nets", these are tenuous enough so that hunger can not be fully satisfied without the sale of his work. Poverty, fear of hunger and deprivation: that is what is the essential motivation that guide our economic behavior.
Has it always been this way? To this question, Karl Polanyi replied in his various writings (especially those collected in his Essays ) so we can more clearly "no." Hunger has not always been the primary economic motivation. It is a characteristic of our societies have the only possible economic incentives, to the exclusion of all others. This is what in fact "market societies", societies which Polanyi hoped that the Second World War had marked the collapse. Had he lived, to paraphrase Brassens, then showed him no.
What Polanyi argues on the basis of historical and anthropological exploration of primitive economic systems - understood here: "that precede the advent of self-regulating market in the West of the nineteenth century" - is that hunger has not always been an incentive or economic motivation. Instead, he says, in many societies, hunger does not exist. At least as a personal experience: an individual could not be hungry if his group was itself in starvation. Otherwise, all sorts of obligations required them to look after those who can not or want to work from those who hunger, those who can not obtain by themselves for their food. This has been, in Europe, the moral obligation to let the poor take part of the harvest, an obligation which has eventually become institutionalized in the "poor laws" which Polanyi discusses the disappearance of England in the late eighteenth century as the beginning of the "market society". This does not mean that the beneficiaries of such a system were living in luxury, but at least they were not threatened by hunger and death. So the concrete right, for those who wish to pursue a lifestyle of their choice - a central idea in Polanyi and who would, perhaps, to please those who call themselves "liberal."
But then why are they working people? Well for other motives than the fear of hunger and the search for gain.
But what about social organizations other than the market economy? Hunger and gain are they also linked to productive activities which determine the existence of the company in question? The answer to this question is clearly negative. In general, we find that the social organization of production is falling as the motivations of hunger and gain are not solicited And in fact, where the fear of hunger is related to productive activities, that motive is MEOE other important drivers. Such a mixture of motvations is what we mean by the term social motivations : This is the type of incentive that makes us conform to a behavior approved by society. A brief overview of the history of civilization does not show us the man acting in the service of his individual interest in acquiring material goods, but rather to ensure its position, its rights and benefits ("Should we believe in economic determinism? " Tests , P. 524).
Motivation to work is not lacking: to acquire or guarantee a certain social status, comply with standards and values, etc.. In fact, these motivations exist in our societies, and, except for some very specific cases, such as some traders actually only motivated by profit and gain ever greater, most people have relatively complex motivations work. A fear of hunger and the search for profit in addition, often dominant, other reasons that range from simple pleasure taken in the activity that engages with many different moral considerations. In history and the recognition that we can not get any incentives. And cases of officials choosing disobedience as a way of combating stress the attachment thereof to the content of their job, not the only gains they can derive. This is also true in private.
This last remark leads us to the fallacy that economic Karl Polanyi has repeatedly denounced. For why in the private cases of disobedience are they if not impossible at least rare? Just because hunger is the incentive for them dominant. Not because it is naturally stronger than others, but because the social organization leads to make it so strong. The economic fallacy is the belief that the economic organization of ours is the organization "natural", valid at any time and any place - a failing that economists are never fully able to abandon or said in passing. We tended to think that only hunger and gain are the "real" incentives and "true" motivations "economic" and that all others are at best a vague ideology placed on material interests ( where one sees all that separates Polanyi Marxism). And our economic organization is built precisely on this belief, so it becomes "real" for us. It is the organization of hunger, the maximum lift of solidarity that each safeguarded against this threat, which made individuals of workers on a market to sell their work. And it is this market that excludes other possible motivations of the field, they took away some of their force in people's minds.
Returning to the original question: the status of civil servants. One quickly understands that there may be other reasons for them and that rather than trying to replace them the reason for the hunger, it would be equally feasible to develop, for example by asking recognition of everyone's work.
But we can go further. The constitution of hunger as the only "real" economic motivation was not translated because of the devaluation of other causes of action, other incentives. That is the yardstick that individuals consider the interest of work, primarily if not to the exclusion of all others. And this is also true for public servants: they too are worked by the economic fallacy and can indulge in thinking that their motives in terms of gains, as they appear on the bottom of their payroll, do not justify all their efforts. Therefore, one can conclude that it transforming our company into a market that is causing the problems that the proposed deal by extending a little more ...
Doubtless one could then propose to take over the problem again fresh, and rather than discuss the retention or deletion of the Staff, consider the place of work and motivations across society. Precarious workers, real public service through the many alternatives to the famous "status", merely extends the reasons for hunger and earnings. It pushes people to seek nothing other than their work escape from famine or benefit which they can enjoy at their leisure. In short, it devalues confidently "work value" some gargle. Companies that know how employee involvement is important would do well to reflect on this. Maybe they would reach their goals better if they were using with their employees other incentives to those that we persist in thinking to be the only "economic".
0 comments:
Post a Comment