Otro video sobre Corea y sus lecciones para América Latina.
De niño me gustaba desarmar mi bicicleta y engrasar los rodamientos en las ruedas. Me encantaba la sensación de velocidad que tenía la bicicleta después. Un servicio civil eficiente es como tener a los rodamientos de gobierno bien aceitados. El camino hacia el desarrollo queda mucho más accesible y la ciudadanía tiene más posibilidades de ver sus aspiraciones convertidas en realidades.
Una burocracia disfuncional, opaca, autorreferente y carente de profesionalismo es como pedalear cuesta arriba.
La pregunta es cómo hacemos que los servicios civiles de América Latina alcancen los estándares mundiales de excelencia. Recientemente, le preguntamos al Prof. David Kang del University of Southern California cuál es el secreto por el cual la burocracia es tan efectiva en Corea, y si la receta es transferible para otros países.
Kang es experto en Asia, profesor de relaciones internacionales y director del Instituto de Estudios Coreanos de dicha universidad. Como buen académico, Kang puso al desarrollo burocrático de Corea en su contexto histórico y geográfico. El país tuvo su primer examen de ingreso para el sector público en 788 dC. Sólo un pequeño porcentaje de los postulantes logran superar los exigentes exámenes de ingreso. El servicio público tiene un enorme prestigio en el país asiático.
Pueden ver su explicación del éxito de la burocracia coreana y su nota de cautela sobre si América Latina puede replicarlo en este video.
En América Latina, un primer paso para lograrlo es tener un buen diagnóstico de la efectividad del servicio civil. En el BID hicimos, junto con los países de la región, un ejercicio de diagnóstico en el 2004. La metodología, con indicadores, se basa en la Carta Iberoamericana de la Función Pública, que es un documento que identifica los principios y prácticas para tener un mejor servicio civil, y que firmaron todos los países de la región en 2003.
Ahora, 10 años después, hemos realizado el mismo ejercicio de diagnóstico, para entender mejor los avances y los retos pendientes en este tema. Pronto les tendremos novedades, para ayudar a la maquinaria del Estado a rodar mejor.
Es una ventana de oportunidad, identificar como hacer efectiva y eficaz, las rodaduras de los gobiernos latinoamericanos. Botar la corrupción y amar el servicio público, son parte de las primeras lecciones.
Hi Loren,I’m sorry to be so late in replying to this I’ve been tvelaring. First, I think that you make some good points about methodology. Much of the methodology in experimental philosophy could certainly be improved (I’m actually working with a graduate student in economics here now on the topic and, so, hope to redo and improve upon the experiment I mention in the paper eventually). But, I think that even with survey data we can often get some idea about how people are thinking about distributive justice. Regarding the relevance of experimental philosophy to theory: First, I should say that I do not have well-developed views on the relevance of empirical work on intuition to philosophy generally. I expect it may be relevant in many ways. In the paper, I use experimental evidence primarily because Miller appeals to such evidence to support his principle (Oppenheimer etc.). I try to show that neither the existing evidence Miller provides nor the new experiment I present supports his principle. Here is another excerpt from the paper that may be relevant to this point: It is not clear when appealing to intuitions is appropriate in ethical theory. There are different views on the matter. Some believe that an author need only account for his or her own intuitions. Others only believe that the intuitions of the philosophical community matter. Still others agree with Miller that good theories will rely upon ‘folk’ intuitions shared by all (or at least those not corrupted by too much philosophical theory). Philosophers should probably be concerned about the intuitions of different people for different purposes. Some philosophers (or most), having thought about certain philosophical issues, may have better intuitions than the philosophically uninitiated on these philosophical topics. It may be obvious to ethicists (but not to others) that accepting a particular proposition on the basis of intuition will require one to accept other propositions that have more unintuitive consequences. Ethicists, for instance, may be less likely than others to say morality is reducible to the law because they realize that this will commit them to the view that slaveholders in the antebellum Southern United States were acting morally. Sometimes, however, it is more plausible that philosophers’ intuitions about particular cases have been corrupted by their other theoretical commitments. Those who believe that there are only quiddities, for instance, might not think that there are individuals who can act well or poorly. What intuitions matter probably also depends a bit on what one is trying to show and to whom. If one is involved in a purely philosophical debate on a particular point appealing to philosopher’s intuitions on that point may be sufficient. Here we are involved in a much broader debate about how institutions should fulfill need. In the absence of reason to think some people’s intuitions matter more than others’ it seems reasonable to appeal to empirical evidence regarding folk intuitions here. We must just remain open to revising our results if it turns out that some people’s intuitions about meeting need are better than others’.Thanks! -Nicole