Building on conversations about public entrepreneurship and the future of digital government
In my previous post, I wrote about the need for public entrepreneurship — a collaborative approach that respects both innovation and the unique responsibility of government. Inspired by a great conversation with Dorothy Eng and David Eaves, I want to go a bit deeper on one part: the persistent calls for “efficiency” and “running government like a business” that dominate discussions about government reform.
The Efficiency Myth
Business-minded reform advocates tend to approach public service delivery with a private-sector lens — assuming that if government just “worked more like a business,” services would be faster, cheaper, and better. This perspective fundamentally misunderstands the nature of government’s work.
Government isn’t inefficient because it lacks business savvy. It’s inefficient because it’s trying to do something much harder.
First, governments don’t get to choose their customers. They serve everyone — including those with complex needs, those without digital access, and those most often failed by systems designed without them in mind. What looks inefficient from the outside may actually be intentional design for equity, accessibility, and accountability — not just speed.
This universal mandate creates complexity that simplistic efficiency metrics miss completely. When government designs a service, it must work for the tech-savvy urban professional, the rural elder without internet access, and the refugee who speaks neither official language. This isn’t inefficiency — it’s inclusion.
Second, democratic accountability isn’t red tape to cut — it’s what makes government legitimate. The transparency, due process, and fairness requirements that seem to slow us down are also what prevent abuse and ensure public trust. The risk calculations differ fundamentally, too. A service failure in government doesn’t just mean disappointed customers — it can mean vulnerable people unable to access life-sustaining benefits.
Third, many so-called inefficiencies are structural, not operational. Legacy systems, fragmented procurement rules, risk-averse oversight processes — these are baked into how government functions. You can’t optimize your way out of that without genuine reform. Calls for efficiency that ignore these root causes will only lead to surface-level fixes or outsourced solutions that cost more and serve fewer people.
Meeting the Moment with Capacity and Governance
This doesn’t mean government can’t be better. It absolutely must be. But the answer isn’t bolting private-sector solutions onto public-sector problems.
To meet this moment, governments need to invest in internal capacity — building in-house product teams, investing in technologists who understand both delivery and the constraints of public service, and designing with users, especially those historically marginalized, at the centre.
Too often, governments try to outsource their way to innovation and instead of outsourcing for capacity, they outsource their mission. The foundational work of understanding user needs, setting priorities, and maintaining accountability must be owned by public servants with technical and institutional knowledge. Building internal capacity places ownership of the public mission where it belongs.
But internal capacity alone isn’t enough — governments also need new governance. Traditional oversight models were built for waterfall-era projects: big, slow, linear, and risk-averse. Customer-centric delivery requires customer-centric governance: systems that empower cross-functional teams, fund work incrementally, and make room for learning and adaptation. Governance that prioritizes outcomes over artifacts. That values working software over memos and briefing notes.
That means changing how we approve, fund, measure, and manage digital work in the public sector. It means creating space for experimentation while maintaining accountability. And it means recognizing that the best way to reduce risk isn’t to avoid it entirely, but to take small risks early and often, learning as we go.
This isn’t abstract. We have shoulders to stand on. It’s not easy; but it works. And most importantly, it builds something the private sector can’t: public trust.
Let’s Focus on Effectiveness
The private sector and the public sector have a lot to learn from each other, and need to continue to find new models for working together. This collaboration must be founded on understanding and respect for what each sector brings to the table.
The question isn’t whether government should be more “business-like.” The question is how government can better fulfill its unique democratic mission in a digital world. We don’t need efficiency at the expense of equity — we need both, working together.
Real efficiency comes from effectiveness. And effectiveness isn’t about doing things cheaply — it’s about doing them well, for everyone. It’s about ensuring that public services are not just usable, but dignified. That they reach people where they are, not just where it’s easiest to build.
It’s time for governments to build the courage to deliver differently, and to govern differently too. And it’s time for business leaders to support public entrepreneurship, investing their talents in solutions that serve all residents, not just the easiest to reach.
That’s how we’ll deliver real public value. And it’s a future worth building, together.
Originally published on Medium.