Final answer:
Market-oriented or contingency-shaped systems are often more efficient than rule-governed bureaucracies. They adapt better to the information age by aligning incentives with desired outcomes, potentially offering more efficiency and innovation in services and policies.
Step-by-step explanation:
When considering efficiency in managing large groups of people or crafting policies, two approaches are commonly contrasted: rule-governed (bureaucracy or command-and-control regulation) and contingency-shaped (market-oriented tools).
Bureaucracies are often associated with the industrial revolution and mass production, necessitating a clear chain of command and adherence to strict protocols. While this was efficient for the times, in the information age, such rigid structures may decrease productivity.
On the other hand, market-oriented tools which economists favor, align incentives with goals such as environmental protection, potentially offering greater efficiency by either reducing costs or achieving better outcomes for the same costs.
In terms of environmental policy, for instance, rather than a rigid approach like command-and-control which might lead to an inefficient choice ('M'), market-oriented tools could lead to point 'Q' where economic output is greater with the same level of environmental protection, or point 'S' which offers greater environmental protection for the same level of output.
Thus, it can be argued that contingency-shaped or market-oriented policies may be more efficient than rule-governed systems because they can better adapt to changing situations and encourage innovation, ensuring equal opportunities and wider service without undue burdens.