TED'S TAKE: WHY GOOD IDEAS GO BAD (in government)

In an earlier Ted’s Take, I compared government to a talking dog. The remarkable thing isn't how well it talks, but that it talks at all.

That was about how government is structured and why it's so difficult to get anything done. But there's another problem: Even when government has a good idea, turning it into something that actually works is an entirely different challenge.

There are three things you need to accomplish anything: 1) an idea, 2) development of that idea into something that can be implemented, and 3) the ability to execute. If you fail or are lacking in any one of the three what you seek to accomplish will not be successful.

These are three critical phases of achievement. And government faces particular challenges at every stage.

In any governmental program there are the “regulator” and the “regulated” and each have differing views and incentives.

All regulatory systems are in fact stimulus systems where the polices are devised to stimulate a behavioral response on the part of the regulated. These responses can be desirable or undesirable, and the administrator of the program needs to understand and anticipate each. A bad idea properly developed and executed well will not accomplish the purpose. A great idea poorly developed but executed well will fail. And a great idea properly developed but poorly executed will invariability fail.

A failure in an any one area can be masked by the other areas that are performed well therefore it is difficult to see where failure occurred, but it did occur.

And here’s another complication: Elected officials don’t need to truly achieve results for their constituents. They only need to convince voters that they tried.

The Idea Phase: An idea can be a good or bad thing. Many ideas come from good intentions, but many are not doable. Governmental entities typically start with the idea. These ideas may seem like something worthwhile, but they need some or a lot of fine tuning – conceptually good but realistically impractical.

Most ideas originate from the political realm. These political ideas are designed to attract voters to the candidate and secure votes. While that may work politically, the ideas may or may not be practical as they move through development and implementation.

Even if legislation can secure enough votes to pass, congressional staff may lack a thorough understanding of the programs they are charged with overseeing. And even when lawmakers try to include necessary details, they may get them wrong, leading to bad results.

The Idea Development Phase: Most legislation today is passed with broad statutory language. This occurs because it is often the specifics that create political disagreements.

This leaves much of the actual development of government policy to regulatory agencies. And here’s where another problem arises: The incentives of regulators are often different from those of the legislators who created the program.  

Regulatory agencies have evolved over decades, often without the restructuring needed to keep pace with new responsibilities. Employees have incentives to preserve organizational longevity, protect their careers and avoid turbulence.

But meaningful change to government programs requires exactly the kind of disruption that system seeks to avoid. There’s an inherent mismatch between what policymakers want to accomplish and what the regulatory system is structured and motivated to deliver.

There is also the lack of any incentive to review the program overtime and come up with valid ideas for changes. Changes are mostly made for legislatively required or mandated updates rather than as a result of ongoing efforts to improve performance.

The result? Even a good idea can be compromised long before it reaches implementation.

The Execution Phase: Execution is where the consequences of poor policy development become clear.

Because polices are being developed and implemented by regulators who may not fully understand the people and organizations they regulate, the policies themselves can be misguided.

Regulators may fail to anticipate how the regulated community will respond. And those being regulated may seek ways around a policy to avoid harm or minimize its impact. This is a critical point. Regulation is intended to change behavior. But not every behavioral response will be one the government intended.

When regulators don’t understand the likely consequences of their decisions, they can’t adequately anticipate or prevent outcomes. Instead, they’re left reacting to problems their own policies helped create.

Corrections can then produce erratic, disjointed and unfulfilling policy that appears to be not well thought through --- because it wasn’t, even if unintentionally.

Summary: Government programs can fail at any one of these three stages: The idea, its development or its execution. And weakness in one phase can undermine even the strongest performance in the others. The more complex a program or proposed change, the more opportunities for something to go wrong.

That’s why I believe our expectations for government are often too high. We tend to judge policies by the intentions behind them without considering if or how they will work. A good idea is just the beginning.

Which brings me back to the talking dog.

As I’ve said before, the amazement in a talking dog is not how well it talks but that it talks at all. Perhaps we should adjust our expectations accordingly.