James Fallows is dismayed with Peter Orzag’s career choices
Peter Orszag, until recently the director of the Office of Management and Budget under Barack Obama, to join Citibank in a senior position. Exactly how much it will pay is not clear, but informed guesses are several million dollars per year. Citibank, of course, was one of the institutions most notably dependent on federal help to survive in these past two years.
Objectively this is both damaging and shocking.
– Damaging, in that it epitomizes and personalizes a criticism both left and right have had of the Obama Administration’s "bailout" policy: that it’s been too protective of the financial system’s high-flying leaders, and too reluctant to hold any person or institution accountable. . .– Shocking, in the structural rather than personal corruption that it illustrates. . . The idea that someone would help plan, advocate, and carry out an economic policy that played such a crucial role in the survival of a financial institution — and then, less than two years after his Administration took office, would take a job that (a) exemplifies the growing disparities the Administration says it’s trying to correct and (b) unavoidably will call on knowledge and contacts Orszag developed while in recent public service — this says something bad about what is taken for granted in American public life.
What it says most about is public sector pay. One thing that I find disheartening about the debate over public sector pay is how much it seems to mirror the notion of a “Just Price” for public workers. Is this how we think in economics?
Or do we believe that when prices are out of whack then black markets emerge, corruption of various forms ensues and people engage in strategic behavior?
One thing the low pay of senior public officials allows for is a pump-and-jump. Even in the most noble of circumstances smart folks will notice that they can get to the front of the line pretty fast in the low competition public sector, build an impressive resume and then jump ship to the private sector to make a load of cash.
Less noble would involve actively selling the benefits of one’s position to the highest bidder. What would stop people from doing this? The fear that they would be fired and thus loose out on a lucrative salary. However, with no lucrative salary there is little incentive not to do this.
I do hope that economically oriented folks aren’t suggesting that we use moral suasion to control government corruption. People respond to incentives. If you don’t want them to sell you out then you have to pay them more.

20 comments
Comments feed for this article
Tuesday ~ December 14th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Wonks Anonymous
Alexis de Tocqueville said in democratic nations the lowliest public clerk is well paid, but the highest official is not (obviously relative to other nations, not each other). It is the reverse in aristocratic nations.
Tuesday ~ December 14th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
dWj
Slightly (but not entirely) off-topic, I’d like to see NCAA address its pay-for-play scandals by encouraging professional leagues to take kids straight out of high school, possibly into development leagues. Let someone like Reggie Bush make money; the only people you need to worry about are those who actually want to be in college for some reason (whether for a career after athletics or because they want to play in the Rose Bowl). Professional-calibre athletes who don’t want to be in college will not be within bidding range of the black market.
Tuesday ~ December 14th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
IVV
I don’t think that much of the furor against “cushy” government jobs has anything to do with this situation. Typically, the private employee looks at the guaranteed pension and benefits of the public employee and wants that for themselves. If the private employee must compete and do without, then shouldn’t the public employee compete and do without as well?
In this case, it’s a different story. The public employee has a “cushy” position, but the private option is even more cushy. That cushiness can also be created by acting as a public employee first.
The other side of this is: does this mean that in order to keep top public officials, we must pay them like plutocrats?
Tuesday ~ December 14th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
ryan y
A couple questions:
(1) What exactly does the Orszag example tell us about public sector pay in general? Are there a whole lot of GS-7s pumping and jumping? At most this seems like you could use this sort of thing to make an argument for an “efficiency wage” for a relatively few, very powerful individuals, but not as a whole.
(2) If you’re going to have an efficiency wage for the public sector, doesn’t that mean you should want a smaller public sector? (That is, there are some things worth having the gov’t do if you “only” have to pay them marginal product, but if you pay a lot more they stop being worth it.)
(3) As a corollary to the above, an alternative to overpaying your public sector is to restrict the power of the public sector, right? That’s not the same as “moral suasion.”
Tuesday ~ December 14th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Jin K.
I do not think paying public employees more is necessarily the solution. More money does not necessarily equal more of the desired behavior. You may refer to this video made by the RSA in which it explains the idea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&feature=player_embedded
Wednesday ~ December 15th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Kevin
Orszag’s service in the public sector has been scant. He spent one or two years as a special advisor under Clinton (as a newly-minted PhD–political appointee). After founding, running, and selling a consulting co. he was director of CBO for a year. Then he became director of OMB.
To say that isn’t the typical career path for a federal employee would be wild understatement. From his bio on wiki it’s difficult to tell how Orszag rose so far and fast. Read between the lines, though, and it’s clear he made powerful connections (eg. Rubin) and spent many years in consulting and finance.
There is no rule which could stop this sort of revolving door except for the obvious: make it illegal for federal employees to get hired by the industries they regulated for x number of years.
Wednesday ~ December 15th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Mathguy
I don’t think the problem is public sector pay, but rather the severely distorted private sector pay. Orszag and his ilk are paid for connections they have, not the talent they possess.
Wednesday ~ December 15th, 2010 at 11:48 am
Bribing our way to ethical goodness at Unreported
[...] Kari Smith has an interesting take on how we can prevent future Peter Orzags from jumping ship to go work at Citibank One thing the low pay of senior public officials allows for is a pump-and-jump. Even in the most noble of circumstances smart folks will notice that they can get to the front of the line pretty fast in the low competition public sector, build an impressive resume and then jump ship to the private sector to make a load of cash. [...]
Wednesday ~ December 15th, 2010 at 11:53 am
MarcV
Keven and Mathguy are right. We already have a Congress whose members are paid almost 5 times the median family income and look at the result: a government for, of, and by big business. I don’t think we want an executive full of millionaires or people paid outrageously more than the citizens they serve. I am amazed that so many people actually think a 6 figure salary is the norm in this country. Far from it.
It seems that in the past presidents had senior staff that came from academia or politics and they stayed there making comfortable but not extravagant livings. The CBO and OMB are so huge that I doubt anyone could get a real handle on the job, much less make a difference, after only one year each. Orszag could have at least had the decency to serve Obama’s entire first term.
It is also past time that we ended Wall Street’s revolving door to the Treasury Department and related agencies.
Wednesday ~ December 15th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
sardonic_sob
It is interesting to contemplate whether or not this is a factor, but the bottom line is this: we cannot offer people “competitive” salaries for public service at the top end. Can’t do it. Not only can we not afford it, there would be a revolution. It makes perfect logical sense to say that the Secretary of the Treasury should make money in line with what the head of a major bank makes, but if we tried to do it the results would be catastrophic.
Wednesday ~ December 15th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
SJE
The Singapore government is known for paying its public servants much closer to market rates, and thereby attract the best and brightest. While Singapore is statist in outlook, it is very well run and has very low corruption both by comparison with most Western nations, but especially compared to its neighbors.
Wednesday ~ December 15th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Paul Mineiro
Singapore has a reputation for both excellent governance and high public salaries.
Friday ~ December 17th, 2010 at 9:43 am
IVV
How highly compensated is Singapore’s private sector in comparison with the public sector? How does this level of private compensation compare to America’s?
If the private sector includes a number of positions offering multimillion dollar packages, and the public sector also includes such multimillion dollar packages, then it’s apples to apples.
Wednesday ~ December 15th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Belligerati » Blog Archive » Fixing the revolving door is a hard problem
[...] This Is What An Underpaid Public Sector Looks Like [...]
Thursday ~ December 16th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Peter Orszag, Co-Optation, and Progressivism « The Harvard Political Review
[...] suggest mandatory community service and expanded national service programs. And I might suggest paying public employees more, not less, as seems to be our common [...]
Friday ~ December 17th, 2010 at 12:45 am
James Hare
Just started reading — very interesting. You meant lose, not loose. I’m not sure how one would loose out on a lucrative salary.
Friday ~ December 17th, 2010 at 5:31 am
Peter Orszag, Progressivism, and Public Sector Pay « The Harvard Political Review
[...] also skeptical of Sam’s solution of “paying public employees more, not [...]
Friday ~ December 17th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
The Peter Orszag Dilemma | Con Games
[...] Public Sector Pay, suggests Karl Smith at Modeled Behavior: “Even in the most noble of circumstances smart folks will [...]
Friday ~ December 17th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
cidiel
this is an absurd post, public pay is notoriously higher than private pay and thats excluding benefits which are MASSIVE for public employees. not to mention job security and lack of general competition due to the nature of public sector job life (no one is looking to fire you to cut costs!)
can we finally PV your fat pensions and actually look at the real numbers over time, one thing certain is YES private employees at very high levels will get paid a much higher market rate than public employees. that describes the relative competitive nature of the job framework that the private sector has created, it isn’t reflective of better pay for the overall private sector which is well below public sector pay (PROVEN). take a generic investment bank that will pay their employees 60-90k per entry level worker with NO benefits and working your butt off just to retain the job. Or the public financial employee with a job for life and big fat pension and healthcare benefits and structured pay increases and similar base salaries. don’t even get me started on your public/private unions and their disgusting behaviour.
Saturday ~ December 18th, 2010 at 12:16 am
Orszag Looking Out For Numero Uno
[...] kinder, gentler Keynesian whom I am now reading because I’m so sick of Krugman–had this to say in reaction to Fallows: What it says most about is public sector pay. One thing that I find [...]