Cult of Efficiency

Janice Gross Stein’s “The Cult of Efficiency,” read at a CBC Massey Lecture in 2001, attempts to define the concept of efficiency and how it has impacted our society in the past and present. Stein effectively applies this concept to many different sectors of our culture through examples and analysis of how it is delivered. Her thesis summarizes the overall ideas of her article, however it was not easily found in her introduction as it was not stated until the end of the fifth paragraph. The full statement is as follows, “Efficiency, or cost-effectiveness, has become an end in itself, a value often more important than others. But elevating efficiency, turning it into an end, misuses language, and this has profound consequences for the way we as citizens conceive of public life. When we define efficiency as an end, divorced from its larger purpose, it becomes nothing less than a cult (Stein, 2001).” The last sentence acts as a directional statement linking the thesis and the rest of the paper, and introduces the notion of a “cult,” which Stein later defines with its relation to efficiency.
As stated by Stein (2001), “We live in an age dominated by cult efficiency.” Efficiency is very important as long as it is used correctly; it must always be considered when resources are scarce and citizens and governments have important choices to make among competing priorities. Public education and health care, locally and globally, are often referred to in Stein’s argument on efficiencies and their delivery. She argues that what will define the quality of education and health care is whether citizens and experts can negotiate new standards of accountability, as efficiency will not do enough. Stein (2001) uses an example of a report that stated Ontario’s post-secondary institutions were “generally efficient,” but did not say what exactly these institutions were efficient at. This is an example of how the cult of efficiency takes away from focusing on the quality of education, and instead prides itself on lower administration costs. The key to understanding the definition of efficiency by first understanding its effectiveness in achieving whatever is to be accomplished. However, Stein (2001) points out that often effectiveness is not always considered when discussing efficiency, and when the emphasis turns to cost, the “cult” becomes stronger.
Stein (2001) additionally explored the efficiency of non-governmental organizations, as reports have called for “greater efficiency” with their work. Evidently this is not an easy question to answer, as there are many different tasks and background work that goes into what NGOs do. One must consider what a certain NGO seeks to accomplish and the difficulties their work experiences before beginning to question their effectiveness. Additionally, weighing the effectiveness of an NGO on its administrative costs compared to total spending can misguide one’s analysis as many do not consider the difficulty of their tasks. Furthermore, the reduction of administrative costs could negatively impact the work needing to be done worldwide, therefore leading Stein to the conclusion that understanding the main objectives of the NGOs is essential for deciding on their efficiency.
Consumers, Stein rightly states, have expectations for the public services government and institutions provide to be delivered efficiently. This need for efficiency has greatly increased since the industrial revolution when productivity was able to increase, as Stein explains through the findings of Adam Smith. Smith applied the concept of efficiency to making a pin in a factory, explaining that division of labour and markets allowed for gains in efficiency of production. Stein furthermore explains this by stating that, “the individual pursuit of self-interest would collectively control individual excess and promote the public good.” Moreover, as modern science revolutionized our relationship with nature, the way we see ourselves, and our possibilities, the concept of efficiency changed dramatically (Stein, 2001).
The analysis of productive efficiency, according to Stein (2001), depends on the capacity to quantify, measure, and compare the costs of the resources that are required to produce a given unit, and the capacity to measure and evaluate the quality as well as the quantity of what is produced. The concept of productive efficiency can be applied to public goods such as health care, education, water access, and government. Government systems were often criticized as being inefficient, resulting in cries from reformers for an “independent, non-partisan, merit-based bureaucracy to run municipal services.” Merit-based bureaucracies began to grow, however it was realised that efficiency and rationality should be a part of the public sector, but not part of politics. Stein concludes by saying how this has changed today, as many reformers now believe the solution lies in markets allowing citizens to “freely pursue their self-interest.” Evidently efficiency should be focused to the satisfaction of consumers and not so much its external objective standards (Stein, 2001).
This article has much strength in persuading its reader however there are some weaknesses apparent in Stein’s work. The use of examples is very beneficial in explaining Stein’s main ideas and allow for greater understanding of the concept of efficiency. The example of Ontario’s post-secondary institution report reinforced Stein’s argument of how the cult of efficiency can take away from quality in order to focus on costs. This quality vs. cost question in efficiency was reiterated in her description of NGOs, and how effectiveness should not be judged before knowing the greater objectives. Stein’s reference to Adam Smith and his studies added strength to her argument as well as it backed up her idea of when and how the modern concept of efficiency developed. Although much of Stein’s arguments were very strong, there were some weaknesses apparent as well. Many of her general ideas and concepts were explained in a quite lengthy argument, which can be beneficial in some cases, however in this case it made the article seem a bit boring. Her use of examples did make her arguments interesting, though twenty-six pages is a little excessive for the point she is trying to make. Furthermore, “The Cult of Efficiency was well written and had many strong ideas; however the length of the article seemed to take away from its effectiveness in engaging the reader. Stein’s arguments can be connected to the ideas of sociologists Marx and Weber in many ways. Marx’s theories discussed the ideas of consumerism and alienation, as a result of industrialization and capitalism. Stein (2001) mentions the importance for consumer satisfaction with efficiency several times throughout her article. She also touches on some of the ideas surrounding alienation, such as the industrial worker and the assembly line; the “human machine.” Stein arguments have much more connection with Weber’s theories however, and can be compared to his four types of social action. Efficiency most relates to the means-end rational, which is a social action involving the pursuit of an ends. It also can be connected to value-rational action, which can be explained as an action guided by values. This can be associated with a quote from Stein’s paper: “Efficiency is not an end, but a means to achieve valued ends. It is not a goal, but an instrument to achieve other goals. It is not a value, but a way to achieve other values. It is part of the story but never the whole (2001).” Additionally, Stein mentions Weber’s rational-legal ideal type in her article, defining it as “legitimacy functioned through laws and rules, and through bureaucracy, whose central purpose was to provide rational and efficient, top-down, rule-governed management.” Evidently efficiency has been an issue in all sectors of our society for centuries. Stein’s article effectively explains how efficiency has become a cult and uses strong ideas to inform her reader of its effect on us as citizens and consumers of our society.