Hide table of contents

Epistemic status: this post summarizes much of my priors about the potential of more digitally native government. Those priors stem from a decade of experience. I initially wrote this in 2016-2018 and forgot about it. The specific statements below were developed in collaboration with the startup team I worked with then. I'm sharing it now as a follow up to the post I recently wrote about state capacity. 

Fifteen theses about the near future of government operations

“Citizens of the 21st century need public technologists like citizens of the 19th century needed municipal engineers to build the drains and clean water supplies.”

-A manifesto for public technology

 

ARGO believes modernizing government operations has a unique urgency and importance. The flames of today’s tribalistic politics are fueled by a deep distrust in government and not unfounded skepticism that we can still deliver big public works. That reality will only be exacerbated as transformational technology like human augmentation with brain computer interfaces split our species into pure and post human tribes. 
 

Those digital technologies offer tremendous potential to uplift the human condition, though as we have seen in recent events, also tremendous potential to fracture humanity further along old fault lines. The fifteen theses below articulate ARGO’s vision for how to achieve that necessary modernization in government operations to help navigate today’s transformational shifts brought about by the digital revolution.

 

1. Inspiration from nondigital public technologies

Why not manage public data like water — a common resource required for all life? We too quickly forget that “legacy” institutions like plain vanilla public water utilities were radical innovations for their time. The new concept of a public utility enabled (near) ubiquitous access to clean water and pioneering infrastructure that safeguarded water supplies for future generations (not to mention building some of the few man made structures you can see from space!). So what might we learn from the water industry as we look to take the public technologist movement to the next level?

 

2. Making public technology a priority

California needs to pioneer a new deal for public technology. Creating A Public technology Corps inspired by FDR’s Civilian Conservation Corps who planted nearly 3 Billion trees to help reforest America and its green infrastructure could serve local California communities and public services with state of the art technology skills.
 

A Public Tech Corps, funded by the State and Local Government could manage public data professionally, and like US Army Corps of Engineers build the digital equivalent of the physical infrastructure that we take for granted. The California State Water Project wasn’t built on nights and weekends. Building modern public data infrastructure does not require new resources so much as seed capital to catalyze change, raise new revenues and reallocate existing funds.

 

3. Building public data infrastructure

Legacy systems and an excel-for-everything mindset not only cost more but preclude new approaches to tackling civic challenges by scattering key information across local machines. Public data can pipe through integrated infrastructure, flowing seamlessly and securely across municipal jurisdictions. This integration should be purpose-driven and build upon collaboratively developed data standards to ensure the resulting infrastructure supports meaningful measurement of important public outcomes.

 

4. Streamlining data sharing

While open by default, sensitive personally identifiable data can be securely shared with the academic researchers and other qualified analysts that can make use of it for public benefit using proven models for sharing sensitive data and conducting independent research that measures what works.

 

5. Measuring outcomes by default

By streamlining data sharing, measuring impact through “little speedometers” becomes as regular and routine as professional budgeting, addressing the massive impact gap that NYU Gov Lab identifies in that only $1 out of every $100 in US spending is actually backed by rigorous evidence. While it is unrealistic to expect all of America’s tens of thousands of municipalities to hire Chief Data Officers and public technologists in-house, integrating public data across cities and sharing the cost of technical talent can make such pioneering practices the new normal in city government operations.

 

6. Improving public service delivery

Building from the Effective Altruism movement, this outcome-oriented public service enables more creativity and a new standard of excellence in public service. For example, optimizing inspections like fire safety are routine and expected, helping to make tragedies like the ghost (Oakland) fire a thing of the past. 

 

7. A lever for grassroots change

Demonstrated results provide a lever to take the heroic civic technology movement to the next level. That is key as reallocating resources requires votes by city councils, school boards, water district boards and other municipal governing bodies. Those changes need to have obvious benefits to everyday citizens and aim for systemic change. For example, government services like getting your driver’s license renewed at the DMV have Airbnb caliber service quality or better by default.

 

8. Addressing obsolete institutional artifacts

In addition, increased measurement helps illuminate obsolete municipal structures like four water districts serving a town of ten thousand people or the extreme administrative fragmentation present in cities like Los Angeles, providing a catalyst for common sense modernization. It also sheds light on the potential inequities and economic segregation often enabled by  “the fragmented local government crazy quilt” that can frustrate integrated approaches to tackling entrenched civic challenges. 

 

9. Modernizing government to tackle big challenges

Echoing the bipartisan progressive reform movement a century ago, this renewed spirit of municipal reform provides the foundation for the much bigger changes our world urgently needs in times of uncertainty and upheaval. For example, every member of the Under 2 MOU could band together to share actual metered water, electricity and gas data to power creative, bottom up collaborations to achieve the common sense efficiency humanity needs to address climate change.

 

10. Taming the autonomous vehicle

The nascent age of automation provides a tremendous opportunity — and massive challenge — for cities looking to reduce the 27% of US emissions that go to transportation. In cities like Los Angeles, autonomous vehicles and transportation networks like Uber and Lyft have the potential to (seriously) end stop-and-go traffic by making buses and high occupancy ride sharing rather than single occupancy vehicles the new normal in mobility.

 

11. Need for a stewardship ethic from the technology industry

Such transformative potential also risks enabling a new era of robber barons, a challenge increasingly apparent as tech mega-platforms increasingly own everything. The ongoing debate about fake news demonstrate the huge need for a greater stewardship ethic from the tech giants.

 

12. Ensuring the digital revolution works for everyone

Growing inequality also highlights how it is in the enlightened self-interest of tech elites to support pragmatic reforms. Arguably Silicon Valley’s greatest threat is the mundane but massively impactful issue of housing prices. The increased technology community engagement on the issue and YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) movement is encouraging. Greater leadership however is needed to highlight how the digital revolution enables new creative approaches to streamline permitting and break through the entrenched interests that make systemic regulatory reform rather challenging (exhibit A the California Environmental Quality Act).

 

13. Human learning

Further, with in-demand digital skills rapidly changing, the knowledge economy requires radically greater connection between industry and schools. There is no better opportunity to realize the oft repeated call to move beyond our factory-like one-size-fits-all education system than improving how we connect skilled professionals to public schools.

 

14. Importance of historical humility

Still, the long history of efforts to improve education with digital tools and a user design perspective argue for great humility in the movement to modernize government operations. The successes and failures of not only smart cities and e-government but also the many, many initiatives to modernize, reform and “fix” government operations hold deep lessons for public technologists. Change is hard. Yet history shows that big systemic change — like the shift to (near) ubiquitous clean drinking water — is possible.

 

15. The future of government operations

The revolutionary potential of the internet means that we can do more than simply build a more beautiful user interface for antiquated government operations. Two decades after Gov works and five years after healthcare[dot]gov, today all the pieces are in place to truly transform government operations. Cities everywhere need integrated public data infrastructure in the spirit of the excellent UK Administrative Data Research Network. No one is better positioned than the grassroots civic technology movement to provide the glue to link together the many, many emergent urban and issue specific data collaboratives (see here for a great Gov Lab overview of the explosive growth in data collaboratives across the globe). Flowing like water, public data can power a common set of facts and deliberative discourse that enables us to tackle the massive public challenges we face in the twenty-first century.





 

5

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
More from Locke
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by