SoylentNews

"fork(2)" writes:

      Red tape...arghhh! Under the heading "Reforming the Bureaucracy", ushistory.org [ushistory.org] says:

How can the ordinary citizen feel connected to government when everything is so impersonal? Public criticism of bureaucratic inefficiency is commonplace. In response, many people, including most Presidents, have tried to reform and reorganize the bureaucracy.

      Interestingly, there is an actual theory of red-tape [oxfordjournals.org].

The theory makes a distinction between rules that are at their origin dysfunctional ("rule-inception red tape") and rules that initially served a useful function but transformed into red tape ("rule-evolved red tape"). Specific causes of each type red tape are identified. A distinction is made regarding the internal vs. external production and impact of red tape and a typology is developed which is used in hypotheses about red tape. Finally, the question of government red tape is considered. A model of the relationship between external control and red tape is presented. The model implies that most factors leading to red tape are not an inherent function of government. However, two inherent factors of government are cited, each of which gives rise to red tape.

      The only thing anywhere near as frustrating as government red-tape is university red-tape.

      Today's issue of Science [sciencemag.org] carries an article about yet another attempt to put a dent in the problem. This time influential lawmakers from both parties are tying the issue to broader pieces of legislation moving through Congress in hopes for some effectiveness at reducing the red-tape arising from government oversight of campus-based research. One of those bills should advance this week, in fact, as a Senate panel is expected on Wednesday to approve a measure that includes substantial language aimed at giving researchers some regulatory relief.

The bill -- which is officially known as the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act (S. 3084) -- would promote research, innovation, and science education at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Commerce, and across federal agencies. But it offers a convenient legislative vehicle to address regulatory reform. Other bills that address the topic focus on shortening the time from discovery to treatment in the U.S. health care system, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or on tweaking specific federal regulations.

      Generally, just a small portion of each bill deals with the oversight of academic research. But the broader legislation gives the cause much more visibility -- and a greater chance of success -- than it might otherwise enjoy as a stand-alone issue.

      That's important when you're trying to change rules governing the partnership that the federal government and universities forged during World War II. The corpus of regulations has increased manifold over the decades, to the point where many expert panels have warned the partnership itself is at risk.

      The article outlines several other Senate and House bills dealing with regulatory overload.

Original Submission