Why Do So Many Government Programs Fail?

[ACCT]

The Best Laid Plans…

Why do so many government programs fail? We’ve seen it time and time again. A need is identified, a program is formulated and put into place, everything starts out well enough, and then, perhaps over time, something happens. The program doesn’t achieve its goals. Or the amount of resources needed for it to achieve its goals are vastly more than expected.

We’ve seen this in Social Security, Medicare, the Great Society programs, and the public school system. Is it waste, fraud, and abuse (those favorite whipping-boys of legislators)? Welfare cheats? Incompetence? Just needs a little fine tuning? We’re not spending enough (no matter how much we seem to be spending)?

I have long been impressed by the operation of Gammon’s law in the U.S. schooling system: (name removed by moderator)ut, however measured, has been going up for decades, and output, whether measured by number of students, number of schools, or even more clearly, quality, has been going down.

Why does this happen? Does it have to happen? The short answer is yes, it does. Unfortunately for those who contemplate grand solutions to the genuine problems in the world. In a modern society the implementation of the kinds of plans we’re talking about here requires a bureaucracy. And Gammon’s Law is an intrinsic feature of bureaucracies.
Everything I’ve seen suggests, in fact, that spending is negatively correlated with outcomes. That is, the more spent per child, the worse the results.

There’s a name for this: Gammon’s Law:

Dr. Max Gammon was a British physician who sought to solve a public policy riddle: In the 1960s, the government spent significantly more on health care than it had previously, but the National Health Service didn’t seem any better for it. After an extensive study of the British system of socialized medicine, Dr. Gammon formulated his law: “In a bureaucratic system, increase in expenditure will be matched by fall in production.”

Dr. Gammon reasoned: "Such systems will act rather like ‘black holes,’ in the economic universe, simultaneously sucking in resources, and shrinking in terms of ‘emitted production.’ "

 

[sedonaman]

The Best Laid Plans…
Why do so many government programs fail? …

Because these programs are run by people and involve massive sums of money. As a result, they inevitably succumb to temptation, and corruption results. Of course, some want to enter into the administration of a program for the power and the accompanying ability to impose their will on others.

There’s a name for this: Gammon’s Law:
…

This is just another way of stating Lord Acton’s observation that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

 

[ACCT]

Adam Smith, the father of economics, published his writings in 1776. Adam Smith talked about a free market. The founding fathers talked about political freedom. The two concepts go hand-in-hand. You cannot have one without the other.

The consensus of that era was that government was dangerous. It had to be controlled. George Washington used the analogy of a fire. Government was a fire that had to be controlled, or it would burn down the house.

Today we just give lip service to free markets. Most people think that the government is in charge of the economy. Listen to the politicians. “It’s the economy, stupid!” Additionally, I know scientists and educators who think that the minimum wage helps poor workers. Rubbish! There is 50 years of solid economic research that says that the minimum wage is a price floor that causes unemployment among unskilled workers, if the minimum wage is above the equilibrium price for wages. The minimum wage came from Socialist platform in the 1920s. (The Democrats adopted the entire Socialist platform of the 1920s.)

The change in economic opinion occurred during the Depression in the 1930s. The Depression was seen as a failure of the free market, when it was actually the failure of government that caused the Depression.

The government continues to promote the myth that the free market is the source of economic instability. “The government blames all problems on external influences beyond its control, and takes credit for any and all favorable occurrences…The government’s behavior documents the reality that government is the major source of economic instability (Milton Friedman).”

 

[JohnAlexander]

Wrong question.

The question should be “Why should a government program succeed?”

Failure is the expected outcome. There must be a reason for something to succeed. Primarily there must be a motivation for all those involved to succeed.

The assumption is always made that the stated goal of a government program is the same as the actual goal of the program.

The actual goal of most government programs is to get politicians elected. At this they succeed very well.

Another goal of government programs is to make people feel good about themselves. By supporting a government program they can get the feeling they are doing something which is far easier than actually doing something. This succeeds very well also.

Assuming that the intentions are honorable and the actual goals are the same as the state goals then the biggest reason for failure is appalling ignorance.

Problems are fairly easy to see but there causes are not always obvious.

People are pathetically ignorant of basic economic theories. They assume simple things such as “the rich get richer as the poor get poorer” and assume that first it’s true and secondly the rich get richer by making the poor poorer.

People assume that money just exists. Some people have it and others don’t. The only way to fix the imbalance is to take from those who have and give it to those who don’t. No matter how often this has been tried and failed people still see it as a viable option.
It is very easy for politicians to exploit this ignorance.

Just look at Europe. They are doomed. The Euro will fall apart. Spain, Greece, France, etc. have been giving money away for so long that the people feel they are entitled to it. Try and take away the “right” and your government will fall. It will get far uglier before it gets better.

 

[St_Francis]

This is an interesting question.

Maybe the reason is something I have discovered: one can spend either time, or money. Spending money will probably save you time, or, if you haven’t much money, you at least have time in pretty much the same amount as everyone else.

We tend to spend money on all these programs. As a result, very little time is spent.

Children need time, not money, spent on them. People in need do also. In fact, even a very ill person might prefer people who care about them to spend lots of time with them to lots of lonely medical care.

Before the Protestant Revolt, the “safety net” was provided, if all else failed, by monks and nuns. So, one had one’s family, one’s community, and then monks and nuns, who were people who literally dedicated their entire lives, out of love for God, to their endeavors.

These people spent *time, *not money–oh, there was money involved, or at least physical resources, but there has to be a little money involved, even back then. But the money was given to the monasteries and used by people who were taking the minimum out for themselves. And it was given voluntarily, so again we had a sort of free market thing going on in that people would simply refuse to donate to a place which did not “deliver” charity.

But the helping people, at whatever level, were involved on a personal basis—they spent time with the afflicted or the young, and they spent time praying for them as well.

When people truly *care, *when people are truly personally *involved, *I suggest that this might set up a cycle. The needy who could do better feel grateful and try to live up to the help they have received. They also feel safe in risking trying to accomplish something, and can receive friendly advice when they need it.

Our current system leaves the poor feeling that they are receiving what is their due: it comes through a bureaucracy towards which there is no gratitude altho at the other end there are people who sacrifice to pay for it, and they do not receive the personal caring to succeed, much less prayers!

And adding more money to the system may give the recipients of the system the wrong message: not that they are worth spending more money on, but that unfortunately they must have more money spent on them because they aren’t as good as others. In education, when we strive to make education easier and more comfortable and fun, we aren’t sending out the message that *learning is hard work, *we are sending the rather discouraging message that if one is not comfortable, if one does not find it easy, if one does not find it fun, that one is a worthless idiot.

 

[sedonaman]

Wrong question.

The question should be “Why should a government program succeed?”

LOL! I never thought of it that way, but you have something here.

Failure is the expected outcome. There must be a reason for something to succeed. Primarily there must be a motivation for all those involved to succeed.

I would add to this that the problem being addressed for solution must be a reasonably solvable problem and not one based on misconceived ideology.

The assumption is always made that the stated goal of a government program is the same as the actual goal of the program.

The actual goal of most government programs is to get politicians elected. At this they succeed very well.

Of course, any cuts, we are told, will fall on the backs of “the poor” when in actuality, it will fall on the politicians’ re-election prospects.

Another goal of government programs is to make people feel good about themselves. By supporting a government program they can get the feeling they are doing something which is far easier than actually doing something. This succeeds very well also.

Assuming that the intentions are honorable and the actual goals are the same as the state goals then the biggest reason for failure is appalling ignorance.

Problems are fairly easy to see but there [sic] causes are not always obvious.

People are pathetically ignorant of basic economic theories. They assume simple things such as “the rich get richer as the poor get poorer” and assume that first it’s true and secondly the rich get richer by making the poor poorer.

I call these “Bumper-sticker Slogans.”

People assume that money just exists. Some people have it and others don’t. The only way to fix the imbalance is to take from those who have and give it to those who don’t. No matter how often this has been tried and failed people still see it as a viable option. It is very easy for politicians to exploit this ignorance.

People also think that money is wealth. It is not. Nor is wealth “distributed”; it is created by people through their work. True wealth is the goods and services society produces for its members. Since government spending is consumption, it must be paid for out of the wealth produced by the private sector. Conservative politicians have failed to make this case. The closest they come is, “Higher taxes mean fewer jobs” … and let it hang out there like everyone understands that when you remove capital from the market, you get less investment in production and fewer new jobs get created.

Yesterday, I heard obama rant that we must ensure that “everyone has his fair shot at succeeding.” But that is what education is suppose to do; but his party has successfully destroyed education over the last 60 years, thus perpetuating the ignorance politicians love to exploit.

… It will get far uglier before it gets better.

You have made some good observations.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Because Jesus didn’t tell us “Let the government take care of the poor.” He told US to care for widows and orphans and that really does mean US as in you and me, not an elected, partisan and increasingly corrupt nation-state government.

With every government program to “help” others or achieve some erstwhile noble goal, regular people like you and me are let off the hook of personal service. “The government is taking my taxes already, why should I help the poor (or the homeless or children) more than that?” becomes the interior attitude. And then another huge bureaucracy is born, and thousands of people are hired for government work, and the wheel keeps turning…no one benefits long-term.

Taking more of our taxes to take care of others, some of whom do not need the handouts but need to be encouraged to WORK and be good citizens, is theft. It is redistributing our goods at the point of a gun (the IRS) and it is wrong.

Taking welfare without giving anything back kills men’s souls.

 

[ACCT]

Because Jesus didn’t tell us “Let the government take care of the poor.” He told US to care for widows and orphans and that really does mean US as in you and me, not an elected, partisan and increasingly corrupt nation-state government.

With every government program to “help” others or achieve some erstwhile noble goal, regular people like you and me are let off the hook of personal service. “The government is taking my taxes already, why should I help the poor (or the homeless or children) more than that?” becomes the interior attitude. And then another huge bureaucracy is born, and thousands of people are hired for government work, and the wheel keeps turning…no one benefits long-term.

Taking more of our taxes to take care of others, some of whom do not need the handouts but need to be encouraged to WORK and be good citizens, is theft. It is redistributing our goods at the point of a gun (the IRS) and it is wrong.

Taking welfare without giving anything back kills men’s souls.

The gospel of socialism is envy. Satan is using socialism to take over the world. **There is no future without Jesus! ** We, with Jesus, will destroy Satan and socialism.

 

[sedonaman]

Another reason that so many government programs fail is that they require considerable effort to verify eligibility and go after those who defraud the system. Here is a good example:
wthr.com/video?clipId=7054149&topVideoCatNo=103348&autoStart=true

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

Depends on the perspective. The negative stuff hits the news, and we rarely if ever hear about the positives. In this respect we’re orientated towards the negative and expect to hear about the failures.

The FAA oversees some 80,000 flights in US airspace every day. Every. Day. One plane crashes - and it makes the news because it is so rare - and we’re calmoring for an FAA overhaul. We start grousing about lazy, overpaid bureaucrats who are going to collect their fatcat pensions regardless of how many people were injured or killed on that flight, and senators get TV and demand that heads roll.

A welfare-to-work program quietly chugs along for years, giving thousands of women resources, training, and skills to enter the workforce. It flies way under our collective radar. And then a reporter uncovers the fact that a half dozen of its receipients collected checks without taking classes or actually going through the program, it hits the papers, and - BAM! - it’s a failure.

A public school district graduates 85% of the children enrolled, who are enrolled regardless of their race, economic status, home language, parent education levels, or physical, mental, and/or emotional disabilities. Sixty percent of those who graduate go on to community colleges or four-year-universities right after graduation. Some of them go Ivy Leauge or other prestigious schools. But what do we hear about? The 15% drop-out rate. See? Public schools are a failure.

The Food and Drug Administration fulfills its mandates day after day, week after week, for years on end, and we don’t give it a thought. We drink our milk without worrying about TB and take our medicines without wondering if there’s something in those pills that’s not on the label. And then undetected E.coli gets in a field a spinach, people are hospitalized, and before you know it the FDA is a failing waste of taxpayer money.

I’m not excusing the walfare fraud, the dropouts, the crashes or the food poisoning. I’m trying to point out that it’s a matter of perspective. We tend to hear about the bad stuff. We take programs for granted when they’re doing what they’re supposed to do and don’t really think about them.

Luna

 

[vz71]

Depends on the perspective. The negative stuff hits the news, and we rarely if ever hear about the positives. In this respect we’re orientated towards the negative and expect to hear about the failures.

The FAA oversees some 80,000 flights in US airspace every day. Every. Day. One plane crashes - and it makes the news because it is so rare - and we’re calmoring for an FAA overhaul.

Fair enough.
We are negatively driven.

Of course, right beside the FAA that appears to operate well, there is the freakshow that is the TSA.

My understanding of why government fails is simple.

There is a quote on the wall in my office from Bill Cosby, “I do not know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.”
The government and all of the programs it puts out are stuck trying to cater to everyone, without the even the appearence of prejudice.
And it is being mired in all of the regulation that the failure occurs.

Another thing to consider is that there is not a single social program designed by the government that is there for our good. They are there to secure votes.

 

[sedonaman]

Depends on the perspective. The negative stuff hits the news, and we rarely if ever hear about the positives. In this respect we’re orientated towards the negative and expect to hear about the failures.

The FAA oversees some 80,000 flights in US airspace every day. Every. Day. One plane crashes - and it makes the news because it is so rare - and we’re calmoring for an FAA overhaul. We start grousing about lazy, overpaid bureaucrats who are going to collect their fatcat pensions regardless of how many people were injured or killed on that flight, and senators get TV and demand that heads roll.

A welfare-to-work program quietly chugs along for years, giving thousands of women resources, training, and skills to enter the workforce. It flies way under our collective radar. And then a reporter uncovers the fact that a half dozen of its receipients collected checks without taking classes or actually going through the program, it hits the papers, and - BAM! - it’s a failure.

A public school district graduates 85% of the children enrolled, who are enrolled regardless of their race, economic status, home language, parent education levels, or physical, mental, and/or emotional disabilities. Sixty percent of those who graduate go on to community colleges or four-year-universities right after graduation. Some of them go Ivy Leauge or other prestigious schools. But what do we hear about? The 15% drop-out rate. See? Public schools are a failure.

The Food and Drug Administration fulfills its mandates day after day, week after week, for years on end, and we don’t give it a thought. We drink our milk without worrying about TB and take our medicines without wondering if there’s something in those pills that’s not on the label. And then undetected E.coli gets in a field a spinach, people are hospitalized, and before you know it the FDA is a failing waste of taxpayer money.

I’m not excusing the walfare fraud, the dropouts, the crashes or the food poisoning. I’m trying to point out that it’s a matter of perspective. We tend to hear about the bad stuff. We take programs for granted when they’re doing what they’re supposed to do and don’t really think about them.

Luna

While you have a good point, there is something that galls me about fraud like the one in the link in my post #9: those who defrauded the government did so knowing they could get away with it. How did they know that? Why is nothing being done?

When I entered the workforce in 1959, you didn’t dare look at the clock for fear of being accused of clock-watching. If you committed some crime like that, you were out because there was a long line waiting to take your place. Fast-forward about 25 years. I had become a supervisor and noticed that some employees would commit all kinds of fraud, and no one would do anything, and they all had the same characteristic: they knew they could get away with it.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I take NOTHING that the government does for granted.

Not.
One.
Thing.

 

[skeyes]

President Regan said the worst words we ever want to hear are; “We are from the government and we are here to help”.

Stan

 

[Birdpreacher]

Why do so many businesses fail?

because people arnt perfect, still we dont throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I like having a military, courts, and schools.

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

Why do so many businesses fail?

I’ve read somewhere that upwards of 50% of new restaurants in the US don’t make it one year.

 

[Birdpreacher]

I’ve read somewhere that upwards of 50% of new restaurants in the US don’t make it one year.

Food is the only area where I am a social darwinist. The recession gave us the KFC doubledown.

 

[ACCT]

Wrong question.

The question should be “Why should a government program succeed?”

Failure is the expected outcome. There must be a reason for something to succeed. Primarily there must be a motivation for all those involved to succeed.

The assumption is always made that the stated goal of a government program is the same as the actual goal of the program.

The actual goal of most government programs is to get politicians elected. At this they succeed very well.

Another goal of government programs is to make people feel good about themselves. By supporting a government program they can get the feeling they are doing something which is far easier than actually doing something. This succeeds very well also.

Assuming that the intentions are honorable and the actual goals are the same as the state goals then the biggest reason for failure is appalling ignorance.

Problems are fairly easy to see but there causes are not always obvious.

People are pathetically ignorant of basic economic theories. They assume simple things such as “the rich get richer as the poor get poorer” and assume that first it’s true and secondly the rich get richer by making the poor poorer.

People assume that money just exists. Some people have it and others don’t. The only way to fix the imbalance is to take from those who have and give it to those who don’t. No matter how often this has been tried and failed people still see it as a viable option.
It is very easy for politicians to exploit this ignorance.

Just look at Europe. They are doomed. The Euro will fall apart. Spain, Greece, France, etc. have been giving money away for so long that the people feel they are entitled to it. Try and take away the “right” and your government will fall. It will get far uglier before it gets better.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

President Regan said the worst words we ever want to hear are; “We are from the government and we are here to help”.

Stan

I believe the quote was, “The 9 scariest words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’.”

 

[ACCT]

LOL! I never thought of it that way, but you have something here.

I would add to this that the problem being addressed for solution must be a reasonably solvable problem and not one based on misconceived ideology.

Of course, any cuts, we are told, will fall on the backs of “the poor” when in actuality, it will fall on the politicians’ re-election prospects.



I call these “Bumper-sticker Slogans.”

People also think that money is wealth. It is not. Nor is wealth “distributed”; it is created by people through their work. True wealth is the goods and services society produces for its members. Since government spending is consumption, it must be paid for out of the wealth produced by the private sector. Conservative politicians have failed to make this case. The closest they come is, “Higher taxes mean fewer jobs” … and let it hang out there like everyone understands that when you remove capital from the market, you get less investment in production and fewer new jobs get created.

Yesterday, I heard obama rant that we must ensure that “everyone has his fair shot at succeeding.” But that is what education is suppose to do; but his party has successfully destroyed education over the last 60 years, thus perpetuating the ignorance politicians love to exploit.

You have made some good observations.