Few Americans would argue against the goal of government efficiency, but it’s clear the words mean different things to different people. For Elon Musk and the para-governmental department he oversees, efficiency is achieved by chainsaw—slashing away at programs and staff and therefore, at least theoretically—and before reinstatements, back pay, reversals, and lawsuits—saving government money. As Musk proves, it doesn’t take a lot of thought to save public funds if you don’t care about what the programs bring to the public.
But effective efficiency seeks still to solve a problem or provide a service for which it was designed, and to do so in the best way possible without causing unintended consequences elsewhere, such as poorer service delivery, shoddy work, unsafe work environments, and so on.
A new brief from In the Public Interest breaks down the difference between “extractive” and “effective” efficiency strategies. It brings timely and much-needed perspective on what truly creates government efficiency.
From the introduction to “Efficiency: Effective or Extractive?”:
Efficiency typically refers to doing more with less—have a greater output with fewer inputs. But it’s the input part that is most attractive to elected officials. If they can cut costs and either do more for the extra money or return it in some way to taxpayers, they have material for their next campaign ads. But it is also simply good government to handle the public’s money with care, to get the biggest bang for the buck.
Smart efficiencies can identify and implement new innovations while cutting costs. Engineering advancements can lead to greater fuel efficiency for cars. Hiring of employees with greater knowledge and experience—or training them—can lead to higher quality work produced more quickly. Electronic toll booths can save travelers time, while smartphones have enabled all sorts of activities to be done faster and more accurately, from ordering takeout for dinner to getting driving directions to a new location. Greater efficiencies can result in positive outcomes, including greater convenience or time saved—much of which leads to cost savings.
“Efficiency,” reduced to cost savings alone without consideration of effectiveness, doesn’t lead to “more and better” service – whether within public agencies or outsourced private contractors.