Matthew Yglesias notes that the Washington Executive has more political appointees than most democratic systems have in their exectives - most likely because of the Westminster Systems typical reliance on the public service as separation of responsibilities and specialization. Though this has been eroded in Australia with governments increasingly making the civil service political. Yglesias quotes a Washington Post article:
The political appointees were better educated, on average, than the civil staff. Many had stellar records in the private sector or on the campaign trail. Side by side, the political appointees just looked like a much smarter bunch than the careerists. When it came to performance, however, the bureaucrats whipped the politicals: Programs administered by civil servants were significantly more likely to display better strategic planning, program design, financial oversight -- and results.That would be consistent with the Civil Service being beauracratic specialists. I disagree with the meme that conservative governments want to break government and see it work ineffectively. Any government in power wants their policies enacted and the coercion and power government provides is the best mechanism to achieve that end.
