# Institute for Government (UK) ## Basic Info **Name:** Institute for Government **What is it:** An independent UK think tank focused on improving government effectiveness through research, analysis, and public engagement. Funded primarily by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation. **Who is involved:** Lord Sainsbury of Turville (Chairman of the Board), Emma Norris (Deputy Director), Alex Thomas (Programme Director for the Civil Service) **Location:** London, England **Link:** [https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk](https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk) --- ## Entries ### Notes from the "[Rewiring the state](https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/event/rewiring-state-government-reform)" event on [[2025-05-12|12/05/2025]]) #### The principal-agent problem at the core The debate often overlooks the principal-agent problem, which defines the accountability challenges in civil services. This issue is not simply about politicization, but about the information asymmetry between political principals (elected officials) and bureaucratic agents (civil servants). This asymmetry creates perverse incentives: - Civil servants may withhold critical information to preserve autonomy - Politicians struggle with effective monitoring - Both actors default to defensive behaviors over outcomes This framing, grounded in economics and political science, shifts the debate from moral claims to systemic design issues. #### Reframing as democratic delivery systems Rather than defending or controlling the civil service, view it as a system for democratic delivery. This reframing shifts the question from "who controls?" to "how effectively does the system implement democratic mandates?" It emphasizes: - Measuring policy implementation effectiveness - Capability development as a democratic precondition - Transparency in the chain from electoral mandate to policy outcomes #### Capability development as constitutional imperative Civil service capability isn’t just an operational concern—it’s a constitutional one. Without delivery capacity, democratic choice becomes hollow. Elected leaders cannot act without effective bureaucratic machinery. This implies: - Technical skills in digital, commercial, and delivery areas - Addressing the "skills debt" from rapidly evolving policy demands - Fostering cycles where capability feeds accountability #### Network governance beyond ministerial silos Traditional civil service reform still clings to vertical ministerial structures. But modern governance needs: - Horizontal, cross-departmental networks - Matrix management for complex problems - Functional leadership in areas like HR, digital, procurement This shift is essential for policy coherence and adaptive capacity. #### Porosity as democratic virtue Civil service debates often frame external influence as a threat. Instead, view porosity—openness to external ideas, talent, and scrutiny—as a democratic strength. Porosity means: - Talent exchanges with private and civic sectors - Independent performance assessments - Public value metrics that incorporate citizen views #### A new organizing framework: Constitutional paradoxes To organize these insights, focus on constitutional paradoxes that must be managed, not resolved: - **Responsiveness vs. Continuity:** Serving the current government while preserving long-term integrity - **Expertise vs. Democratic Control:** Balancing professional knowledge with popular legitimacy - **Unity vs. Specialization:** Coordinating action while developing domain depth - **Stability vs. Innovation:** Protecting institutional memory while enabling reform These tensions are foundational. Effective civil service design accepts their permanence and builds systems to balance them deliberately.