Skip to main content

Measure Government Success by Effectiveness and Efficiency, not Effort


If Oklahoma wants to be a top 10 state, it is critical that its goals be clearly defined. Metrics used to measure that status must be selected carefully, and reasonably calculated to measure those things that actually make a state a good place to live. A state might pride itself on being first in the nation in hummingbirds per capita, but that is unlikely to appeal to any but the most avid birdwatchers. It is also important for a government to focus on those things it can control. The waterfalls of Yosemite, the majesty of the Grand Canyon, and the sands of Daytona Beach all make their home states attractive, but the governments of those states have nothing to do with the appeal, other than making them accessible. The methods used must also be appropriate to the ends sought. Even being the healthiest state in the country would be unattractive, if it were accomplished through a rigid be-healthy-or-be-jailed regime. 

Oklahoma should strive to maximize economic opportunity, create a neutral playing ground that does not favor entrenched interests over new entrants to the field, and spend effectively and efficiently for essential, core services. Every program ought to have a clearly defined outcome, and programs that fail to meet their goals should be eliminated or restructured. 1889 has written previously on the kinds of metrics that should be used to test the effectiveness in these and other important areas, including some specific measurements. 

The driving force behind all these suggested metrics is that government measure its effectiveness, not its effort. Any time anyone touts or laments the total money allocated to a program, it is a red flag that they may be focusing too much on effort. Of course, funding levels matter to a certain extent. Programs can’t exist without a sufficient baseline of money, but money cannot be the sole determination of whether a program is going in the right direction. Pouring money into a failing program without addressing the structural problems is like pouring water into a full glass: it’s nothing but waste. Better to divert it elsewhere, or save it. 

That is not to say that cost is not an important part of measuring success. If one program costs $12 billion, and has a 95% effectiveness rate, while a comparable program would cost only $500 million and be 94% effective, it seems obvious that the legislature would do well to consider the latter. Efficiency measures that show the cost per unit of effectiveness are among the best tools for legislatures to evaluate whether to create or continue a program. 

Instead, policymakers should focus on the outcomes of their programs. How much do students know when they leave our schools? What do successful schools have in common? Is the tax climate one that will encourage new businesses to open and move to Oklahoma, or do corporate welfare programs and overregulation entrench previously-successful businesses which have become too big and old to adapt and innovate? Does propping up these dinosaurs make sense in the face of new technology, or should they be forced to compete in a truly free market? Who would want to live in a place where cars cost too much because the distribution model is stuck, by law, in the 1950’s? 

Perhaps the legislature should attach measurable goals to their bills. This would help evaluate whether the laws are effective. As a bonus, it would create transparency as to the true intent of the bill. 

Mike Davis is Research Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at mdavis@1889institute.org.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.


Popular posts from this blog

Muddy, Shallow Thinking Versus Clarity in Education Reform

Monopolies are the best! If we are to gain maximum efficiency and create the greatest value for people, monopoly is the way to go. Competition creates administrative inefficiency since instead of one set of managers, there are as many as there are companies, and all of them cost money. Competitive companies make products that do the same basic things, but waste resources by making products with different features. Standardized products would save money. Were research and development under one roof, instead of many competitive ones, researchers could coordinate more closely, saving money and ultimately being even more innovative. Monopolies would therefore benefit everyone. Everything in the first paragraph is, of course, balderdash . Monopolies, especially those created by government, stifle innovation, develop bloated management, produce too little at low quality, and charge too much. Why? Because they can. They’re monopolists. Without competition and with nearly guaranteed ...
Read more

Lies We Tell in Government, and Our Debts to Truth

HBO’s mini-series,  Chernobyl ,  is a drama depicting  the disastrous  1986  explosion ,  and  hero ic efforts to control the  resulting  meltdown ,  of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine  (then part of the Soviet Union ).  A flawed man, but true hero,  Valery  Alexeyvich   Legasov , worked tirelessly to ameliorate the disaster’s consequences and  chiefly  investigated its cause. He was  Deputy Director of the  Kurchatov  Institute of Atomic Energ y , a Soviet elite, who  is portrayed at the end of  the  series making a dramatic speech at a trial about how the nuclear reactor exploded, when  such an explosion in that type of reactor  should not have been possible. In the course of the series, the audience  learns  that the reactor had a design flaw that had been covered up by the Soviet State (true).  The audience also learns  that...
Read more

Oklahoma Is OK, but Seriously, That’s Not OK

The Americans at the table, negotiating a business deal, ask one of their number, “You can speak Dutch?” He replies, “I’m OK.” With his fellow Americans looking doubtful, he proceeds to mistranslate what they want him to say to their Dutch counterparts. The “OK” translator tells the Dutch that the Americans really need a hug, when he was supposed to tell them they really need the deal. With that, the AT&T commercial ends as one of the Dutch negotiators gives an American a hug with the announcer saying, “When just OK is not OK.” There are several of these commercials, each with a different scenario, in which, indeed, just OK is not OK. And every time I see one of these commercials I think of the license plates that were once so common – “ Oklahoma is OK. ” As someone who works to develop policy suggestions intended to make Oklahoma better, and hopefully, the best that Oklahoma can be, it often seems that slogan – Oklahoma is OK – gets in the way. The fact is, in most r...
Read more

The Unfairness of Concentrated Wealth is NOTHING Compared to the Unfairness of Redistributing It

Socialist types like to accuse rich corporate types of having “too much” wealth. Simple fairness, they claim, dictates that one person should not have so much when so many have so little. But if we’re going to talk about fairness, let’s really give it fair consideration. That means looking beyond the petty jealousy and thinking about the fairness of seizing wealth from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not.   How did the wealthy get that way? The socialist types claim that the greedy capitalists exploit their workers and their consumers. Is that true? Let’s start with the workers. Jeff Bezos may be greedy. I wouldn’t know, I’ve never met him. But I did work for him - in fact I hired other people to work for him. So I can say with reasonable certainty that he hasn’t created his enormous wealth by exploiting his workers. They were all there voluntarily.   Before attending law school, I spent several months working for the temp agency that hires seasonal workers ...
Read more