民間なら安い・Private sector more efficient
選挙カーからの「改革をするから投票してくれ」と言うしつこいかけ声が静かな住宅地をうるさくしている毎日です。政府の財政が破綻状態のようですので、今改革をしないと手がつけられない状態になるそうです。政府がまずたいした改革が必要ない小さいところでの無駄遣いを省こうとしないで、大きな郵政改革、道路改革等々に全力を注ごうとする辺りが良く分かりません。今日は県庁の森林関係の部署に「なんとかの森」(こういう立派そうに聞こえる事業が好きだよね、行政が)の担当者にあそこの森の芝広場の維持管理を確認したら、なんと1万5千平米ぐらいの面積の広場を年4回の芝刈り(回数は別問題)に使っている税金は1回30万円だそうです。ちなみに僕のNPOが管理している2万平米の芝生広場の年間維持管理予算が130万円しか無いですが、その中から、冬芝の種、肥料、芝刈機のリースとガソリン、諸々はいっているのに対して、行政が払っている1回30万円は芝刈り費だけです。我々が年間60回ぐらいの芝刈りをするので、数千円ぐらいしかかからない1回当たりを計算になります。行政が我が芝刈り機を購入し、手の空いた職員に芝刈りをさせれば、遥かに安く出来るはずです。芝生の状態が良くなり、納税者である利用者が喜び、全体の費用が今より数分の一で済みます。でもこういう改革をすると、自分達が今より少しばかり働かなければいけない結果となってしまうので、まずは期待できないですね。Every day now, our quiet residential suburb is disturbed by candidates for the imminent general election, each shouting from his campaign car that we should vote for him because he stands for reform, the key element being privatization based on the claim that the private sector is more efficient.Yet the government seems incapable of addressing the many small and easy areas for reform, focusing on the big issues such as privatization of the post office and national highway corporation.Today I had call to contact the person in charge of the “XXXXX Forest” (another of these fancy projects local government love). My question regarded the cost of maintenance of the 15,000sqm grass park area. The answer was that the government pays Y300,000 per time for a private sector company to cut the grass 4 times a year. The annual maintenance budget for my NPO to look after a 20,000sqm grass park is Y1.3mn, which includes fertilizer, winter grass seeds, the lease and running cost of our motor mower, and various other costs. From this budget we cut the grass 60 times a year, meaning that the cost per cutting is several thousand yen. Yet the government pays some company Y300,000 for one grass cutting.The local government could easily buy a decent motor mower (Y600,000) and have one staff member spend one morning once a week cutting the grass as part of his job. The grass would be in better condition, meaning that the taxpayer users would be happier, and the total cost would be minimal.But the inevitable result of this sort of reform, which would attract little media attention, would be that the public servants would have to work a wee bit harder. Not much chance of this reform, then, eh?