The market and democratic systems enable disruptive technologies and systems to challenge the established order and, if it is good enough, entirely replace it. As a recent example the iPod and Bose speakers had totally replaced the old metre high speakers with CD, turntable, radio, cassette type stereo system. Bureaucracy is a different animal though.

From John Robb :

The poor results we get speak for themselves and costs are astronomical. Personally, I don't [think] the CIA or the NSA can be reformed through deck shuffling and coddling. One solution would be to hire Jack Welsh, let him fire 75% of the people already there, and allow him to build a new, functional system from the ground up.

Organisational disruption and replacement in bureaucracy is an internal process which runs in opposition to a bureaucratic form having an internal self-interest in perpetuating its current form. This dampens volatility but also hampers drastic internal re-organisation.

It becomes a political risk in government organisation as well, which further dampens the political desire for drastic change. Competition and self-organisation in the face of internal competitors are important external efficiency arbiters.

Robb is advocating market organisational approaches to government bureacracy - but market companies are easy to judge empirical results. There are a myriad of feedback mechanisms, there isnt with government departments and even less with the more opaque institutions like intelligence.

Until government has transparent feedback mechanisms I cannot see disruptive organisational revisions occurring. Government doesn't need to survive in a market the way a company does, its only concern is ensuring it doesn't fall under negative public opinion that will require political action - such as the Australian Wheat Board faced.

The AWB was darwined, but for a singular incident that was politically repugnant, not because it was uncompetitive or inefficient.