Government at all levels has limped into the digital age, offering online services that can feel even more cumbersome than the paperwork that preceded them … Government is hamstrung by a rigid, industrial-era culture, in which elites dictate policy from on high, disconnected from and too often disdainful of the details of implementation. Lofty goals morph unrecognizably as they cascade through a complex hierarchy. … Jennifer Pahlka shows why we must … consider what it would mean to truly recode American government. (
One good first step would be to look at high state capacity, effective governance polities and see 1- what are they doing right, and 2- what is culturally/institutionally "copyable"? And this includes not only other countries or states or cities in certain areas (China infrastructure, South Korea nuclear power, Spanish high speed rail, Milan subways, Singapore healthcare) but also in the past (US highways, French nuclear power in 70s, US Manhattan Project then ICBM project then Apollo, etc.)
One white pill is that because the current dysfunction is SO bad and dire in the US, that there's massive room for improvement via low hanging fruit, 20% reform that yields 80% of the benefit, etc.
Government bureaucracies are also permanently left-leaning and undermining of the political policy agenda of any conservative-leaning elected government. "Unsurprisingly, neither governmental bureaucracies and quangos nor other civil institutions keep statistics on the political leanings of their employees. But there are clues. Unherd columnist Peter Franklin reflecting on his own experience of working in two UK government departments comments: “How many of the civil servants that most closely serve this Conservative government are actually Leftwing? Well....I would say approximately all of them”. And it’s not just the UK. Research in the US context finds that “the political beliefs of the median federal government employee lie to the left not only of the median Republican, but also the median Democrat”". https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/carry-on-governing
If you give total freedom to contractors to do whatever they want, you're just kicking the problem of accountability down a level. What's to stop an unscrupulous and unsupervised contractor from taking the money and siphoning it off to their pals and allies, just as you're concerned about politicians doing?
> “We’re not following the letter of the law,” [Yadira] admits. “But we’re producing the results that we know Congress intended.” (p. 215)
Who would believe that a typical contractor will accurately read what Congress intended? They're going to interpret it in whatever way balloons the project budget. The problem is not competence, it's corruption. A competent but corrupt actor is more of a problem than an incompetent but sincere actor.
If the public can enforce outcome-based accountability among government officials first, then the government officials will in turn be motivated to enforce outcome-based accountability among their contractors. If the public can't enforce outcome-based accountability among government officials, things will proceed as they have been. Letting officials disclaim responsibility for supervising the contractors is a step backwards.
But, how can it be fixed? I think we ought to try some radical ideas, see if they work. For example, one of the problems is that politicians are attracted to politics because of the opportunity for power and prestige. That's not the right kind of personality to serve the public interest. What if we anonymized politicians, made them shave their heads and go around in rags with their faces covered, to make the profession unappealing to ego-driven personalities? What if we prevented politicians from trading stocks while in office, to reduce perverse incentives? What if we surveilled politicians 24/7 and made the surveillance public, to eliminate backroom deals? (Rare exceptions might be made for when the politician must view sensitive military information.) And what if we tried outcome-based prediction markets? Of course, none of this will actually happen, not least of which because the politicians would never vote to reduce their own power.
Why not just do like the private sector does? Have a pool of $10B/year that gets paid out to politicians (current and former) on the basis of performance since they entered office. You don't have a convenient proxy like share price, but you could come up with a reasonable weighted performance score easily enough (GDP growth, crime rate, consumer confidence, etc.). As you say, it's silly that we pay these people so little money. It's no wonder corporations have so much influence, and that so few good people enter politics.
I know this is a late response, but this is very reminiscent of the ideas laid out in Jane Jacobs underrated dialogue "Systems of Survival." I don't think I could adequately summarize her ideas, but the idea of overhauling state accountability and not mixing commercial and government responsibilities is very similar to Jacobs ideas on guardian vs commercial symptoms, and she would probably describe the current practice of mixing government responsibilities and commercial development software as a "monstrous hybrid." In the context of Jane Jacobs ideas, converting the role of government software development to a guardian role, like a judge or military role, makes sense.
I actually do work in such a structure: French "state start-ups", small teams who build great agile solutions for the french government.
Funnily enough, I do agree wholeheartedly with Pahlka, while realizing that "hope" is not a great model, it might be the best we have. Government oversight is so ridiculously hard to achieve well, especially in tech when even private-company-oversight is a huge challenge.
Me and my team have been doing great work for the French state. We could work ten times less and bill just as much. We don't, because we are dedicated professionals, and we've been trusted 100%. We are in a great position to do great things, hence we aren't incentivized to breach said trust.
Just as we need separation of Church and State, we need complete separation of Economy and State. Government “regulation” has been and will always be captured by Big Corporates to build moats against their smaller competitors. Consumers must have the right to sue for damages under tort law to keep Business honest, and have the freedom to vote via their wallets, absent coercive government mandates.
One good first step would be to look at high state capacity, effective governance polities and see 1- what are they doing right, and 2- what is culturally/institutionally "copyable"? And this includes not only other countries or states or cities in certain areas (China infrastructure, South Korea nuclear power, Spanish high speed rail, Milan subways, Singapore healthcare) but also in the past (US highways, French nuclear power in 70s, US Manhattan Project then ICBM project then Apollo, etc.)
One white pill is that because the current dysfunction is SO bad and dire in the US, that there's massive room for improvement via low hanging fruit, 20% reform that yields 80% of the benefit, etc.
Government bureaucracies are also permanently left-leaning and undermining of the political policy agenda of any conservative-leaning elected government. "Unsurprisingly, neither governmental bureaucracies and quangos nor other civil institutions keep statistics on the political leanings of their employees. But there are clues. Unherd columnist Peter Franklin reflecting on his own experience of working in two UK government departments comments: “How many of the civil servants that most closely serve this Conservative government are actually Leftwing? Well....I would say approximately all of them”. And it’s not just the UK. Research in the US context finds that “the political beliefs of the median federal government employee lie to the left not only of the median Republican, but also the median Democrat”". https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/carry-on-governing
"outcome accountability" sounds a lot like Futarchy.
If you give total freedom to contractors to do whatever they want, you're just kicking the problem of accountability down a level. What's to stop an unscrupulous and unsupervised contractor from taking the money and siphoning it off to their pals and allies, just as you're concerned about politicians doing?
> “We’re not following the letter of the law,” [Yadira] admits. “But we’re producing the results that we know Congress intended.” (p. 215)
Who would believe that a typical contractor will accurately read what Congress intended? They're going to interpret it in whatever way balloons the project budget. The problem is not competence, it's corruption. A competent but corrupt actor is more of a problem than an incompetent but sincere actor.
If the public can enforce outcome-based accountability among government officials first, then the government officials will in turn be motivated to enforce outcome-based accountability among their contractors. If the public can't enforce outcome-based accountability among government officials, things will proceed as they have been. Letting officials disclaim responsibility for supervising the contractors is a step backwards.
But, how can it be fixed? I think we ought to try some radical ideas, see if they work. For example, one of the problems is that politicians are attracted to politics because of the opportunity for power and prestige. That's not the right kind of personality to serve the public interest. What if we anonymized politicians, made them shave their heads and go around in rags with their faces covered, to make the profession unappealing to ego-driven personalities? What if we prevented politicians from trading stocks while in office, to reduce perverse incentives? What if we surveilled politicians 24/7 and made the surveillance public, to eliminate backroom deals? (Rare exceptions might be made for when the politician must view sensitive military information.) And what if we tried outcome-based prediction markets? Of course, none of this will actually happen, not least of which because the politicians would never vote to reduce their own power.
Why not just do like the private sector does? Have a pool of $10B/year that gets paid out to politicians (current and former) on the basis of performance since they entered office. You don't have a convenient proxy like share price, but you could come up with a reasonable weighted performance score easily enough (GDP growth, crime rate, consumer confidence, etc.). As you say, it's silly that we pay these people so little money. It's no wonder corporations have so much influence, and that so few good people enter politics.
I know this is a late response, but this is very reminiscent of the ideas laid out in Jane Jacobs underrated dialogue "Systems of Survival." I don't think I could adequately summarize her ideas, but the idea of overhauling state accountability and not mixing commercial and government responsibilities is very similar to Jacobs ideas on guardian vs commercial symptoms, and she would probably describe the current practice of mixing government responsibilities and commercial development software as a "monstrous hybrid." In the context of Jane Jacobs ideas, converting the role of government software development to a guardian role, like a judge or military role, makes sense.
I actually do work in such a structure: French "state start-ups", small teams who build great agile solutions for the french government.
Funnily enough, I do agree wholeheartedly with Pahlka, while realizing that "hope" is not a great model, it might be the best we have. Government oversight is so ridiculously hard to achieve well, especially in tech when even private-company-oversight is a huge challenge.
Me and my team have been doing great work for the French state. We could work ten times less and bill just as much. We don't, because we are dedicated professionals, and we've been trusted 100%. We are in a great position to do great things, hence we aren't incentivized to breach said trust.
That was way too many typos to be typos; Google Voice or the like? rapid libertarians
the coffered
has spend
bilious of dollars
to this same things
lack of deskilled technologists
regulte less
sorta
<-"She just says to hire good people (she can suggest who) and free them to do what they see as best. And then hope."
Seeing how well China and Singapore have done with this strategy, I can understand her enthusiasm.
Just as we need separation of Church and State, we need complete separation of Economy and State. Government “regulation” has been and will always be captured by Big Corporates to build moats against their smaller competitors. Consumers must have the right to sue for damages under tort law to keep Business honest, and have the freedom to vote via their wallets, absent coercive government mandates.