Tag Archives: transparency

Week in Public Organizations, 7Jun2009


What a week.  more orgporn, gender and mentorship, playing chess with terrorists, spendthrift car companies, antitrust in high tech, black wires, Scandinavian transparency, Korean intel, tending the automotive garden, debunking Hawthorne, more car stuff, and parsing intel failure.  These were some of the stories that made the cut last week:

Forbes posts corporate orgporn
NBER study links gender gap, mentorship opportunities
Obama strategically undermines Osama
GM sends signals… but perhaps not the right ones
Tech companies under antitrust investigation
Covert agency + construction = secrecy fail
CFP: Finland builds through transparency
Scenarios for increased DPRK surveillance
Safford discusses cars, gardens
Hawthorne debunked?
Are there options for GM beyond cars?
What does “intel failure” actually mean?

CFP: Finland builds through transparency

Excellent analysis by Corporate Foreign Policy of Finland’s strategy for pulling investments:

The global economic recession has dynamically shifted corporate strategy regarding international investment. A more pragmatic approach to integration in foreign markets has been notably undertaken by MNCs looking to capitalize on a newly-formed economic landscape. Corporations looking to integrate in to Finland should therefore find themselves in a smoother and far more favorable position as a result of the economic recession’s effects to the northern European nation. The prospect of job creation plays a critical factor in cutting bureaucracy in integration. Finland’s unemployment rate last month hit a three-year high at 8.8 percent, up from 6.2 percent in April of 2008, according to the Finnish government statistics agency, and having laid their cards on the table and showing a rather poor hand, would welcome the opportunity foreign investors would provide.

I expect other European players with similar GDP (UK, Germany) will be watching closely.

Does Senator Byrd read this blog?


Robert Byrd, the Senate pro tempore from West Virginia, said in a letter to the president he is concerned the appointments of new so called ‘czars’ in the offices of health, urban affairs and climate change are not subject to Senate approval and could therefore shield information from congress under the right of executive privilege.

“Too often, I have seen these lines of authority and responsibility become tangled and blurred, sometimes purposely, to shield information and to obscure the decision-making process,” Byrd wrote in the letter.

“As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president,” he continued. “In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.”

This relates (at least tangentially) to a recent post about duplication of efforts between czars and secretaries.  Byrd’s concern, though, is more precise:  it’s about authority, transparency, and the quality of decisions.  With thinking like that, the good senator is welcome to blog here anytime.