Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) operation are cutting government institutions and agencies to carry out the new administration’s stated aim to reduce government. This is a debate that has long simmered in the United States under the (false) rubric of “big” vs. “small” and has resulted in brinksmanship over deficits and government shutdowns. Lost in this turmoil is an actual, and needed, examination of what are the ingredients of governance that deliver the best outcomes for society, the economy, and a healthy, happy nation. There is bipartisan agreement that our government is not delivering as it should, lacks public trust, and is wasteful in some areas. But taking out our sledgehammers is an answer without a question, which should be, what are the outcomes we want? What does good governance look like?
Living 25 years overseas, including in poor dictatorships like Cambodia, rich dictatorships like Singapore, and wealthy democracies like Sweden, exposed me firsthand to a range of governance models and their impacts—the good, the bad, and the ugly. But beyond personal experience, I have researched democracy and governance around the world and examined what the data tells us about the government models that deliver best for its people with regard to development, wealth, health, education, happiness index, and stability. Democratic forms of government overall yield better results than autocracies, with few exceptions, like when your democracy is invaded by Russia. But in addition to democratic credentials, the data points to a few broad ingredients successful countries share.
A strong social contract. Governments that provide universal healthcare, education (including university), and childcare have higher life expectancy, lower maternal and child mortality, better educational performance, and less income inequality. As the Minister of Finance in Sweden once told me, universal daycare doesn’t cost the country money, it contributes to the economy through a stable and productive workforce. Wealthy countries like the United States that don’t provide such basic services have worse quality of life outcomes. For example, the United States ranks last among developed nations for overall healthcare, 55th in the world for maternal mortality, and near the bottom in math proficiency among OECD countries. Perceptions of the government and institutions in countries that honor this contract are also higher.
Limited money in politics. Publics in democratic nations worldwide increasingly believe that their governing systems favor elites with financial power through overt corruption or legal influence avenues (e.g., lobbying and political action committees). Countries that have stricter political finance and lobbying regulations, yield higher trust in government, more equitable spending decisions, and better economic outcomes. While in parts of Europe members of parliament live in modest apartments and bike to work, the U.S. Congress is dominated by millionaire members, influenced by lobbyists, and fueled by political action committees that would be illegal elsewhere. To protect against abuse and financial influence, as well as to limit waste, countries also have strong transparency and oversight mechanisms, such as Norway’s new Transparency Act or Finland’s National Audit Agency. The United States’ Consumer Protection Bureau, currently being dismantled, was also a gold standard in curbing corruption and protecting citizens.
Investment in civic resilience. Strong governance fosters a shared national narrative. Polarization and societal divisions have increased across the globe as parties and leaders have embraced the idea that the country has one identity, one culture, one tradition — an “original” or “true” citizen — while rejecting pluralism, diversity, and difference. This “us vs. them” mentality fosters bad governance decisions, designed to benefit one group and punish the “other.” Countries that have stood united are those with leadership that has forged a national narrative based on shared ideas – democracy, pluralism, tolerance, freedom — rather than tribal alliances. Governments play a role by fostering a whole-of-society effort to promote civic education, bridge-building engagement, and national pride. Scandinavian and Baltic countries, for example, have invested in civic education in schools. Sweden’s Committee on National Investment in Media and Information Literacy offers programs to increase people’s resistance to divisive propaganda. Countries have even established ministries devoted to building societal resilience and cohesiveness.
Truly representative government. In many countries, citizens distrust government and perceive politicians and political parties, gatekeepers to power, as self-interested and unrepresentative. Most party officials and candidates are old, male, rich, and from a dominant ethnic and religious group and do not resemble the population. Data has repeatedly proven that countries where government leadership is more representative of the public have better outcomes from GDP, healthcare, and quality of life to fewer conflicts and crime. For example, there is a direct correlation between women in office and lower corruption and higher standard of living.
Respect for personal freedom. While thriving countries may have government present in big, shared projects (education, social safety nets, and healthcare), government is absent in the realm of personal freedoms, such as marriage, reproductive choice, and religion. Governments that successfully deliver for people and garner high public trust are those that protect individual rights. Sweden, for example, which follows a so-called “big governance” model in many areas, simultaneously forcefully protects and defends personal freedoms.
The U.S. government has a ballooning deficit and spends more than other nations on basic services but has poorer outcomes, deepening inequality, and record-low public trust. This is not the fault of the dedicated government employees who are committed to serving their country, it is about a lack of a much-needed good governance vision for our country. The administration’s current “slash and burn” approach is not a vision for good governance. We must be cautious about efforts to go after waste and inefficiency, which is an important and worthy goal, but in several countries where I’ve lived has been used as a pretext to coopt and control, not deliver for people. The administration should pivot to a plan to improve (not eliminate) government so that it effectively and efficiently produces the best outcomes for Americans, which would be welcome across the political spectrum.