Government efficiency campaigns are not new. The Grace Commission in the 1980s produced almost 2,500 recommendations. The reinventing government initiative of the 1990s eliminated regulations by the ton and shrank the federal workforce. Every administration since has carried a management agenda with efficiency language in it. The pattern is consistent: a launch with cameras, a burst of early wins, and then a slow reversion as attention moves on. The interesting question is not why most reforms fade. It is why the few that lasted, lasted.
The survivors share three habits, none of them exciting. First, they changed a default instead of issuing a directive. A directive requires someone to keep enforcing it after the leadership that issued it departs. A changed default keeps working with no one's attention: a form that no longer exists, a system that requires a budget code before a payment goes out, a contract clause that appears automatically. The reforms that survived the 1990s are mostly invisible plumbing of exactly this kind.
Second, they gave a permanent institution a reason to defend them. Reforms owned by a temporary team die with the team. Reforms that transfer ownership to an office with a budget line and a career staff acquire defenders whose jobs depend on the new way of working. The unglamorous truth is that sustainability in government is a question of whose performance review the reform appears in.
Third, they measured something narrow and kept measuring it after the press stopped asking. Broad goals like eliminating waste cannot be tracked, so they cannot be defended. Narrow measures survive: improper payment rates in a named program, cycle time for a named process, vacancy costs for a named building portfolio, because a specific person can be asked about a specific number at a specific interval. When we evaluate any efficiency effort on this site, current ones included, these are the three tests we apply. Announcements are free. Defaults, owners, and measures are what remain when the cameras leave.
GoDOGE is an independent publication. Questions and corrections: [email protected]. Have something we should look into? Submit a tip.