They're taking a test-and-learn approach not just to the delivery of services, but to policy itself. We need to be doing this in the US, especially as we prepare for a pending Supreme Court decision.
I agree with the overall point of this post: that an iterative approach until an agency hits the right outcome would be much better, and isn’t happening in the US right now.
Regarding how to get around this structurally, here’s a partial solution: we can pass statutes (or publish regulations) saying that the point of this new law is to accomplish xyz outcome, and that the law is automatically repealed in two (or five, or any number of) years if this predicted outcome is not achieved.
I have heard many voices advocating for outcomes-based legislation, and many others arguing for how hard it is, both technically and politically. I'd like to learn more about both perspectives.
In my experience, the hardest obstacles to adopting outcome-orientation are always political and cultural rather than technical. The main reason why outcome-orientation is difficult is that often real accountability (outcomes mattering to those in charge) is very low. If it is low due to capability, then it can be fixed with technical approaches. However, if it is low because of structural problems (generally corruption, which includes complacent incompetence), then the answer is political; only then can technical approaches be applied. A great example in the U.S. is the current FTC led by Lina Khan. This excellent article by Cory Doctorow shows how given political will, outcome orientation supported by technical competence can bring about meaningful change, even at a small scale: https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/18/administrative-competence/#i-know-stuff
This is great. I also wanted to thank you to pointing to the UK. There is a lot of innovation happening inside the USA, but there is also huge value to get a perspective about what is happening elsewhere. Places which have different limitations for government transformation.
Also, I'd love to get more folks in the USA CivicTech space paying attention to FWD50. It's a terrific conference and keeps getting better every year.
Well, with Climate Change, you are getting your wish. Probably not in time for this fall though.
On a more serious note, I was in the South of France last December, so couldn't attend in person. I joined online and got a lot out of it. They have created an excellent hybrid event.
You're in a position where you see the best of other systems, and you can compare them to the normal of yours.
But I don't think that this UK best is systemic, I think it's almost noise, with random behaviour happening to lead to a peak - good minister, good team, good management, none of it selected for, at least from the top-down. We could do the exercise the other way around, and find that "the [insert nation] are way ahead of us", and be completely correct in one specific case.
The output you want sounds great, but I don't think it's systemic of the British system, and I don't think it (/we) have the process to learn from.
1. We can’t predict policy outcomes based on one change.
2. Rolling back Chevron deference will lead to chaos.
See how those two claims seem inconsistent?
Also, a rollback of Chevron deference may lead to uncertainty in the short term, but I think it will lead to more clarity in the long term, as Congress realizes they can’t punt to agencies and agencies realize they can’t add restrictions without explicit statutory authority. Will likely lead to fewer regs and rulings, and I think it’s a good thing.
I agree with the overall point of this post: that an iterative approach until an agency hits the right outcome would be much better, and isn’t happening in the US right now.
Regarding how to get around this structurally, here’s a partial solution: we can pass statutes (or publish regulations) saying that the point of this new law is to accomplish xyz outcome, and that the law is automatically repealed in two (or five, or any number of) years if this predicted outcome is not achieved.
I have heard many voices advocating for outcomes-based legislation, and many others arguing for how hard it is, both technically and politically. I'd like to learn more about both perspectives.
In my experience, the hardest obstacles to adopting outcome-orientation are always political and cultural rather than technical. The main reason why outcome-orientation is difficult is that often real accountability (outcomes mattering to those in charge) is very low. If it is low due to capability, then it can be fixed with technical approaches. However, if it is low because of structural problems (generally corruption, which includes complacent incompetence), then the answer is political; only then can technical approaches be applied. A great example in the U.S. is the current FTC led by Lina Khan. This excellent article by Cory Doctorow shows how given political will, outcome orientation supported by technical competence can bring about meaningful change, even at a small scale: https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/18/administrative-competence/#i-know-stuff
This is great. I also wanted to thank you to pointing to the UK. There is a lot of innovation happening inside the USA, but there is also huge value to get a perspective about what is happening elsewhere. Places which have different limitations for government transformation.
Also, I'd love to get more folks in the USA CivicTech space paying attention to FWD50. It's a terrific conference and keeps getting better every year.
Completely agree. Really fantastic event. I just wish it were warmer in Ottawa in November. :)
Well, with Climate Change, you are getting your wish. Probably not in time for this fall though.
On a more serious note, I was in the South of France last December, so couldn't attend in person. I joined online and got a lot out of it. They have created an excellent hybrid event.
You're in a position where you see the best of other systems, and you can compare them to the normal of yours.
But I don't think that this UK best is systemic, I think it's almost noise, with random behaviour happening to lead to a peak - good minister, good team, good management, none of it selected for, at least from the top-down. We could do the exercise the other way around, and find that "the [insert nation] are way ahead of us", and be completely correct in one specific case.
The output you want sounds great, but I don't think it's systemic of the British system, and I don't think it (/we) have the process to learn from.
Two of your points contradict each other.
1. We can’t predict policy outcomes based on one change.
2. Rolling back Chevron deference will lead to chaos.
See how those two claims seem inconsistent?
Also, a rollback of Chevron deference may lead to uncertainty in the short term, but I think it will lead to more clarity in the long term, as Congress realizes they can’t punt to agencies and agencies realize they can’t add restrictions without explicit statutory authority. Will likely lead to fewer regs and rulings, and I think it’s a good thing.
You may be right! Lots to figure out when the decision comes down.