This coincides very nicely with the recent interview of Ezra Klein on Jon Stewart's podcast "The Weekly Show" - titled "Why We Can't Have Nice Things". I'm linking to 45m20s mark, a section titled "There are more efficient ways to pass laws": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcZxaFfxloo&t=4307s - here's some key points:
Complex Bureaucratic Processes: Ezra Klein discusses how modern liberal governance often involves overly complicated, multi-step bureaucratic processes that delay the implementation of laws. For example, the rural broadband initiative passed in 2021 still hadn't been fully implemented by 2024 due to a 14-stage process involving multiple approvals, public comment periods, and challenges at both state and federal levels.
"Everything Bagel Liberalism": Klein critiques what he calls "everything bagel liberalism," where well-intentioned policies are burdened with excessive requirements that aim to solve multiple issues simultaneously (e.g., equity standards, environmental goals). This makes projects more expensive and harder to execute, often excluding smaller entities from participation.
Comparison to Historical Efficiency: Klein contrasts this inefficiency with past government successes like the Works Progress Administration (WPA) during the New Deal or the rollout of Medicare in the 1960s, which achieved results much faster. He emphasizes that these delays are not inevitable but are a result of choices made in modern governance.
Impact on Public Trust: The slow pace of implementation undermines public trust in government. Klein argues that when people cannot see tangible benefits within a reasonable timeframe, it erodes faith in liberal democracy and fuels skepticism about government effectiveness.
Need for Streamlined Governance: Klein advocates for empowering officials and simplifying processes to make government more effective. He points out that Democrats often design their own policies in ways that hinder their implementation, even without Republican interference.
Examples of Success and Failure: While highlighting failures like rural broadband, Klein also acknowledges successful initiatives such as the Inflation Reduction Act's impact on green energy. He stresses that government can work effectively when processes are designed efficiently.
I haven't read his book, but in the interview Klein makes valid points about bureaucratic inefficiency, but he omits in his example on a important part: Existing players, in this case the ISPs (I remember reading about it when they were discussing the bill), lobbied heavily in creating these complex mess in the first place.
Not to mention, historically people from Vox discusses government reform, they typically reference approaches like the National Performance Review or cheerlead failed Rahm Emmanuel style reforms (until they failed), which fundamentally contradicts the more effective New Deal and WW2 programs detailed in this article: https://www.governance.fyi/p/process-and-performance-how-america
The Bureau of the Budget's program in the 1940s-50s achieved remarkable results by training front-line supervisors and building sustainable improvement capabilities, driving public trust in government to nearly 80%.
Clinton/Gore's was aware of that, and they were aware of Deming's Total Quality Management which did well in Japan and other countries. They still chose their NPR and embraced Jack Welch-style transformation that prioritized dramatic cuts over systematic improvement.
One of the reasons I chose to fork an older program like Work Simplification is because of this sort of history when people talk about process improvement and the fact you aren't just going to fight about public bureaucrats refusing change, but private players trying to gaslight us into making bad processes
This coincides very nicely with the recent interview of Ezra Klein on Jon Stewart's podcast "The Weekly Show" - titled "Why We Can't Have Nice Things". I'm linking to 45m20s mark, a section titled "There are more efficient ways to pass laws": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcZxaFfxloo&t=4307s - here's some key points:
Complex Bureaucratic Processes: Ezra Klein discusses how modern liberal governance often involves overly complicated, multi-step bureaucratic processes that delay the implementation of laws. For example, the rural broadband initiative passed in 2021 still hadn't been fully implemented by 2024 due to a 14-stage process involving multiple approvals, public comment periods, and challenges at both state and federal levels.
"Everything Bagel Liberalism": Klein critiques what he calls "everything bagel liberalism," where well-intentioned policies are burdened with excessive requirements that aim to solve multiple issues simultaneously (e.g., equity standards, environmental goals). This makes projects more expensive and harder to execute, often excluding smaller entities from participation.
Comparison to Historical Efficiency: Klein contrasts this inefficiency with past government successes like the Works Progress Administration (WPA) during the New Deal or the rollout of Medicare in the 1960s, which achieved results much faster. He emphasizes that these delays are not inevitable but are a result of choices made in modern governance.
Impact on Public Trust: The slow pace of implementation undermines public trust in government. Klein argues that when people cannot see tangible benefits within a reasonable timeframe, it erodes faith in liberal democracy and fuels skepticism about government effectiveness.
Need for Streamlined Governance: Klein advocates for empowering officials and simplifying processes to make government more effective. He points out that Democrats often design their own policies in ways that hinder their implementation, even without Republican interference.
Examples of Success and Failure: While highlighting failures like rural broadband, Klein also acknowledges successful initiatives such as the Inflation Reduction Act's impact on green energy. He stresses that government can work effectively when processes are designed efficiently.
I haven't read his book, but in the interview Klein makes valid points about bureaucratic inefficiency, but he omits in his example on a important part: Existing players, in this case the ISPs (I remember reading about it when they were discussing the bill), lobbied heavily in creating these complex mess in the first place.
Not to mention, historically people from Vox discusses government reform, they typically reference approaches like the National Performance Review or cheerlead failed Rahm Emmanuel style reforms (until they failed), which fundamentally contradicts the more effective New Deal and WW2 programs detailed in this article: https://www.governance.fyi/p/process-and-performance-how-america
The Bureau of the Budget's program in the 1940s-50s achieved remarkable results by training front-line supervisors and building sustainable improvement capabilities, driving public trust in government to nearly 80%.
Clinton/Gore's was aware of that, and they were aware of Deming's Total Quality Management which did well in Japan and other countries. They still chose their NPR and embraced Jack Welch-style transformation that prioritized dramatic cuts over systematic improvement.
One of the reasons I chose to fork an older program like Work Simplification is because of this sort of history when people talk about process improvement and the fact you aren't just going to fight about public bureaucrats refusing change, but private players trying to gaslight us into making bad processes