## Notes from 18 June 2025 [[2025-06-17|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2025-06-19|Next note →]] Last week, I had the opportunity to watch [[Geoff Mulgan]] speak at the [[Creative Bureaucracy Festival]] in Berlin. In a packed hall of "bureaucracy lovers," he discussed a new essay he wrote for the British think tank [[Demos]] titled "[DOGE Done Better: The case for progressive efficiency and a streamlined state](https://demos.co.uk/research/doge-done-better-the-case-for-progressive-efficiency-and-a-streamlined-state/)". In it, he argues not for the complete dismantling of the administrative state but for the need to reintroduce the concepts of frugality and constructive reform among progressives who believe in the positive role of public administration in society. (Please do not confuse his call with the "[[Left Populism in Mexico|republican austerity]]" of "progressives" in Mexico). He began his presentation by addressing the main point of his paper: "But DOGE is a prompt to the rest of the world to do better. The questions it asked were necessary ones. Now we need better answers". That's such a great statement! I read the new brief and thought it was excellent. It argues that DOGE has produced few net savings thus far and is at risk of long-term damage by treating efficiency as political theater rather than rigorous reform. Its blunt approach of cuts, staff reductions, and dismantling established agencies has failed to deliver lasting benefits and often overlooks the real drivers of waste. Mulgan argues that, instead of mere cost-cutting, a successful efficiency initiative must combine deep insider knowledge with fresh external perspectives, anchor itself in the center of government, and operate more like an agile movement than a traditional department. To this end, Mulgan proposes a "_Ministry of Value and Efficiency_" (MOVE) built around four pillars: intelligence (mobilizing data, AI, and collective know-how); meshes (linking the central and local levels); movement (energizing stakeholders with a shared mission); and methods (a broad toolkit of twelve "economies," ranging from pure cuts to relational and prevention-focused savings). MOVE would manage a diverse portfolio of projects, from slashing red tape and redesigning services to deploying smart digital tools and AI, while applying clear principles and tests to avoid harmful "boomerang" cuts and ensure that savings translate into genuine public value. One particularly interesting insight is that those in fiscal discipline roles (usually economists in the finance ministry) grapple with budgets and adjustments, yet they often lack deep experience in service operations. Likewise, service managers seldom grasp the full picture of fiscal constraints. This divide fuels unnecessary conflict. One idea that got me thinking was introducing rotational fellowships, or "_tour-of-duty_" rotations, where tax officials work alongside frontline social services staff, and vice versa. Shared experience could help dissolve tribalism, and everyone would recognize that cutting waste and upholding fiscal responsibility are two sides of the same coin. From the beginning, I must say that I appreciated Mulgan’s decision not to equate Elon Musk’s actions with Milei’s theatrical chainsaw game. While they may share sensationalist communication strategies, their outcomes diverge sharply. While there are many commonalities besides communication strategy, one must consider that the status quo in the US and Argentina, where each experiment is being implemented, could not be more different. While Musk’s DOGE risks eroding the public good for narrow interests (DOGE is more about an ideological crusade against what they see as "_wokeness_" in government than a crusade for efficiency), one must understand that Argentina was on the brink of collapse and hyperinflation. It's a country that is absurdly overregulated, a "corporatist republic" where every aspect of public life is regulated in favor of narrow corporations with access to the government instead of a government that acts in the public interest. So libertarianism grew there as an answer to a failing administrative-political regime that could not provide an exit from a decadent development model. **Global experiments in bureaucracy reform** Mulgan’s paper highlights several real-world alliances and innovations for reducing bureaucracy that people should consider instead of DOGE. Of course, he didn't mention every interesting initiative on the planet, but I think Baden-Württemberg’s 2023 **[Entlastungsallianz](https://stm.baden-wuerttemberg.de/de/themen/verwaltungsmodernisierung-und-buerokratieabbau/entlastungsallianz-fuer-baden-wuerttemberg)*** is a standout model. It brings together the state government, industry federations, chambers of commerce, and municipalities to: - **Surface real bottlenecks** (e.g., protracted licensing, redundant expert opinions) - **Work in thematic task forces**—ministry experts, business and local leaders design pragmatic fixes - Publish **“Entlastungspakete”** packed with hundreds of relief measures, from simplified restaurant permits to end-to-end digital licensing - Push solutions directly into decrees, regulatory tweaks or parliamentary bills This is much more than a superficial review of outdated regulations. It’s a negotiated process in which the main stakeholders come together with the clear purpose of cutting red tape. In addition to the BW case, Mulgan could have mentioned other experiments that deserve recognition. - In **Idaho**, the state adopted “[zero-based regulation](https://manhattan.institute/article/zero-based-regulation-a-step-by-step-guide-for-states)”, forcing every rule to be periodically re-justified, effectively embedding sunset clauses. As a result, they’ve cut nearly 40% of state regulations - yet maintained health, safety and environmental standards. - **Pennsylvania’s “[PAyback](https://donmoynihan.substack.com/p/permitting-reform-in-pennsylvania)”** initiative flips the script on government performance: if agencies miss permit deadlines, applicants get their fees returned, turning public bodies into service providers with tangible skin in the game. **Aligning incentives for efficiency** Thinking about the experience in Pennsylvania, I realized that one gap I see in Mulgan's playbook is a sharper focus on _incentive alignment_. We need explicit rewards, such as monetary bonuses, public recognition, or career accelerators, for departments and teams that uncover and eliminate real waste. Imagine a model in which a service branch that saves €10 million automatically keeps a percentage to reinvest in innovation. This would send a clear message that finding efficiencies is not only tolerated but celebrated. **Final thoughts** Geoff Mulgan’s essay offers a much-needed corrective to the reflexive criticism of DOGE that ignores the conditions that led to its creation. Too many commentators attack the theatrics of cost-cutting without addressing why governments feel compelled to promise radical efficiency. Mulgan, by contrast, does not become defensive; he offers concrete alternatives, a constructive spirit that is rare. Similarly, [[Jennifer Pahlka]]’s work in the U.S. models how progressives can champion reform without abandoning their values. For Brazil, where half-hearted fiscal discipline has stifled growth for decades, embracing true responsibility is essential. Mulgan’s "_MOVE_" framework demonstrates that disciplined budgeting and smart reform can coexist with social safeguards and democratic inclusion. Jamaica, having cut its debt/GDP ratio from nearly 150 percent of GDP in 2012 to just 72 percent in 2023 and on course to reduce that debt to less than 60 percent by 2028, is a prime case in point _([Arslanalp, Eichengreen and Henry, 2024](https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/3_Arslanalp-et-al_unembargoed.pdf))_. Brazil cannot ignore this lesson: fiscal virtue is achievable, and it must be reclaimed if we are to build a sustainable, high-performance state.