## Notes from 12 March 2026 [[2026-03-11|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2026-03-13|Next note →]] [[Geoff Mulgan]]’s proposal for **[Public Priorities Prediction Markets](https://geoffmulgan.substack.com/p/prediction-markets-and-holding-governments)** looks super interesting. The idea is to use collective intelligence to bet on whether a policy (like building 1.5 million homes) will actually happen. In Brazil, the **[Prisma Fiscal](https://www.gov.br/fazenda/pt-br/assuntos/prisma-fiscal)** already captures a bit of this energy, albeit in a more institutionalized way. By ranking private sector analysts on their fiscal forecasts, it creates a "podium" where reputation is the currency. It’s essentially an expert-only prediction market that forces transparency on numbers the government might otherwise try to massage. Mulgan’s vision is simply to scale this logic to every major social target, turning government promises into a real-time reality check for everyone to see. --- A [recent report](https://stateleadership.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/27/2025/08/SLI_Shadow-Govt-Report.pdf) from the **[[State Leadership Initiative (SLI)|State Leadership Initiative]]** argues that a "shadow government" of national professional associations is quietly imposing a progressive agenda on conservative states. These organizations (such as those for Medicaid directors, insurance commissioners, and school officers) supposedly bypass elected officials by embedding DEI, ESG, and climate mandates into "best practices", model policies, and civil servant training. The report suggests that while Republicans win elections, the "bureaucratic bloodstream" remains captured by leftist orthodoxy, rendering the will of the voters moot. I follow these developments with curiosity because some of the accusations are plausible—particularly the point about "consensus manufacturing". It is true that these associations can create a fabricated sense of normality, where specific ideological frameworks are presented as the only "professional" way to govern, effectively marginalizing dissent. However, the tone of the report is often so unreasonable and alarmist that it becomes difficult to engage in good faith. For instance, its take on **[[National Association of State Personnel Executives (NASPE)]]** portrays the organization almost as a DEI delivery system designed to "indoctrinate" state employees. While one might dislike specific DEI policies, the report treats these professional development efforts as conspiracy, ignoring the fact that these associations also handle the mundane, essential technical work of state administration. The report concludes that in some cases conservatives should withdraw from these groups and create "rival associations". While disputing these spaces is a valid path, creating entirely new infrastructure seems counterproductive; it is already difficult enough to have comparable data and standards across 50 different states. The current shape of these institutions is largely the result of conservatives ceding the ground of institutional building. Rather than "chilling" and engaging in the hard work of shaping civil service pipelines and leadership, the report opts for an "all-or-nothing" alarmism that overlooks the reality of modern governance.