Published in The Gazette, March 11, 2002
Government websites are a constant source of hilarious and distressing information. The Québec government is looking for new civil servants to work “for the Québec collectivity” (http://www.tresor.gouv.qc.ca/ressources/emplois.htm). “Among equally qualified persons,” the ad says, “the government favours those belonging to groups that are underrepresented in the Québec public service: women, the handicapped, First Nations, ethnic communities, and the anglophones.”
Now, aren’t the anti-statists especially underrepresented in the public service? Indeed, the state has good reasons to discriminate against them, for they might raise basic questions about what the bureaucrats do, and whether we need more of them.
The fact is that we already have far too many bureaucrats. In Québec, more than 700,000 individuals officially work for the public sector, i.e., the provincial, federal or municipal governments and state corporations. Slightly more than half of these bureaucrats work for the Québec government (including the health and education networks). The number of bureaucrats has peaked in the mid 90s, and gone down a bit since, but appears to be on the rise again.
In Québec, one employed person out of five is a federal, provincial or municipal bureaucrat. This is not only higher than in the rest of Canada (where the proportion is 19% instead of 21%), but also higher than in all G-7 countries, with the sole exception of France.
Why do we have so many government bureaucrats? The short answer is simple: because we have too much government. A large part of what the bureaucrats do could be purchased on the market (like education or health), and paid for with private money if it was not taken in taxes. Actually, much of what the actual state does is positively harmful, that is, aimed at controlling peaceful individual behaviour. Only 7% of total public expenditures in Canada go to the expenditure function called “protection of person and property,” and a large part of this is spent on economic regulation, not on fighting violent crime.
In recent years, bureaucrats have adopted the vocabulary of customer service. This, of course, is pure, misleading propaganda. An individual is forced to be a customer and must pay anyway, whether he wants the services or not. In many cases, like health services, the state has even established a legal monopoly so that nobody can go and shop elsewhere. In other cases, the state’s so-called “services” are more like a racket: think about customs “services” or the many licences and permits that they force us to obtain.
Now, bureaucrat-bashing is easy. After all, the bureaucrats are only enforcing laws and regulations adopted by the politicians, who must be the primary culprits. Yet, civil servants do have some responsibility, not only because high-level bureaucrats are very influential in setting the state’s agenda, but also, and mainly, because they all vote. When one elector out of five belongs to a class whose interests are intimately tied to the fortunes of the state, no wonder that statist proposals have a big headway. If only because of this reasons, we can say that elections are rigged.
Let’s admit that the typical bureaucrat does not necessarily cast his vote with only his own interests in view. As shown by recent economic research, there are good reasons to believe that an individual citizen doesn’t vote as if he could have an impact on the election results, for his own vote would only count in case of a tie. As the probability of a tie is infinitesimal, so is the influence of his own vote. Voters, then, vote mainly to express an opinion, which may differ from their own self-interest. But even if bureaucrats don’t vote for their class interests, they are much more likely than the rest of the population to entertain a high opinion of the state or, at least, not to be scornful of it. Bureaucrats are biased in favour of the state.
Being close to the state in everyday life, bureaucrats have a comparative advantage in the political process. Many of them, like college teachers, have more free time than the general population to engage in politicking, and to “volunteer” their time for political causes. A disproportionate number run in elections, and end up a decisive force within the political class. The ultimate example was given in a recent book by French journalist Thierry Desjardins: in 2000, all ministers of the French government were civil servants on leave. We have not yet reach this ultimate stage of collective happiness, but still, one third of the actual ministers in the Québec government were government bureaucrats when first elected, and one half have been at some time during their careers.
The more the state wants to be everything to everybody, the more coercive it needs to be. French philosopher Raymond Ruyer was right: the new exploiting class is made of the public bureaucrats, who live off the people’s money while dictating to them how to live their lives. But don’t forget to include the politicians in the exploiting class. The servants rule.
Pierre Lemieux is an economist and co-director of the Economics and Liberty Research Group at the Université du Québec à Hull. His e-mail address is PL@pierrelemieux.org.