LONDON -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair's new government involves a series of changes in the responsibilities of government departments, some of which have been given new names. This will mean reorganizations of offices involving a great deal of aggravation for those concerned. It seems inevitable that in some cases government business will be disrupted while the moves are taking place and new channels of communication are being established. Newspaper reports suggest that some of the reorganization was decided at the last moment without adequate thought having been given to the implications for efficiency and delivery of policy. Some changes were probably also made to satisfy the personal egos of some of those involved.

Some changes may make sense in due course once the problems of reorganization have been overcome. The Department of Education and Employment has become the Department of Education and Skills while the Department of Social Security has become the Department of Work and Pensions. But a good deal of coordination will be needed between the sections responsible for "skills" and the sections responsible for "work."

No doubt the newly expanded Cabinet Office under John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, will become involved in the task of ensuring "joined up government" (a favorite phrase of ministers in the government). I expect that there will be endless interdepartmental committee meetings needed before the reorganization can be effective in improving delivery of government promises.

The Department of the Environment, which had included transport and the regions, has been split up. The old Ministry of Agriculture, which has been blamed for the mishandling of various farming crises, has been subsumed into a new Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. No one except the farming lobby represented in Britain by the National Farmers Union, which largely represents the big farmers, is likely to shed any tears at the demise of the former Ministry of Agriculture, but will the new department manage to put food and consumer safety above farming interests? Will the inclusion of environmental issues in the Department's brief lead to the restructuring of agriculture into an environmentally friendly industry?

The rest of the old Department of the Environment is to be called the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (quite a mouthful). Decisions on planning and improvements in transport infrastructure will inevitably involve environmental issues and, once again to achieve "joined up government," the Cabinet Office will become involved in coordinating the roles of the two departments.

A further complication has been injected into the equation by leaving with Prescott personal responsibility for international environmental issues, including the future of the Kyoto Protocol.

Governments in Britain often seem to think that the answer to all their problems is reorganization and change. They prefer to overlook the fact that constant reorganization and change leads those involved into endless committees and drafting of papers setting out the new organization when they really should be concentrating on formulating rational policies and ways of ensuring delivery.

When I hear from my former colleagues of the constant organizational changes in the diplomatic service, I ask myself whether they have really led to better and more effective policies. They have certainly caused aggravation and some loss of morale. The Labour government in this respect has not been particularly imaginative or innovative. Thatcher's government appeared just as keen on constant change. Often it seemed then and now that change was regarded as always for the better. They forgot the old adage, "If it's not broke, don't mend it."

Governments and parliamentarians also often overlook one of the first principles of leadership, which is to get the best performance out of your staff. This means good personal relations leading to good morale. This cannot be achieved by constant criticism and sniping at those who are trying to do their jobs conscientiously. Of course, all organizations need to change and must avoid complacency and inertia, but changes are usually best when they are initiated by those doing the job rather than imposed from above.

Looking at the Japanese scene, I see some similarities. I wonder whether all the aggravation involved in the reorganization of government departments at the beginning of this year has really led to major improvements in policymaking and delivery.

Can some of the present Cabinet ministers really master the policies of the departments that they oversee? Do they delegate properly decision making to their junior ministers? Do they all understand adequately the importance of trust between themselves and their civil servants whose morale has suffered so much in recent years? Perhaps most importantly, will they be in their posts long enough to exercise a real influence on policy making within their spheres?

The government of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi generally looks better able to find answers to these questions than some of its predecessors, although doubt must remain about Foreign Minister Makiko Tanaka's capacity to cope with the real problems of foreign policy facing Japan. One change, which the Japanese government might copy from Britain, is to abolish the Ministry of Agriculture and subsume its functions into the department responsible for the economy, industry and trade. If this had been done earlier the escalating trade war with China might have been avoided.

Did the Japanese government realize when it succumbed to pressures from the farming lobby the dangers it was running of retaliation? The argument that the restrictions could be justified under WTO rules should have been weighed carefully against the dangers of retaliation bearing in mind that China is not yet a WTO member, although hopefully it soon will be.

Blair's and Koizumi's governments will be judged by their success in delivering on their promises. This is more likely to be achieved by concentrating on substance rather than form. Reorganization and change do not necessarily lead to successful delivery of promises.