“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.” – Ronald Regan
That’s new Groundswell protested in New Zealand (NZ) has been fighting regulations that it considers unenforceable. Groundswell seeks to rewrite tough laws, support rural communities, provide solutions to climate change and reduce the cost of government regulation.
Whether or not you agree with Groundswell’s message, this is an interesting example of someone fighting against a government they think is overreaching.
Not every rule made by the government is necessarily beneficial. In NZ, it is illegal to make loud noises near the whale. In England, recklessly disturbing the bat can go to prison for up to 6 months. In Washington State, USA, killing Bigfoot is illegal – maybe with a sense of humor. This is a real example. It is important to be critical.
A common theme on this website is the scope of government, and where you should get involved. This article builds on this theme.
With issues like COVID-19 and climate change, we are entering an era that will require more governments to coordinate, resource and tackle big issues. But governments must be wary of believing they have all the answers to avoid becoming dependent.
The government cannot solve everything
The title of this post is a bit confusing, what you should be aware of is public officials, and the government of today. A common trait among the public sector is the belief that they have more influence than they really do, and that they can achieve better results quickly just by teaching people or telling them what to do.
Overconfidence in the ability to make changes is common at all levels, but is especially relevant for governments that use taxpayer funds.
His can-do attitude is admirable, but also naive. The pursuit of better results is good, but there are some things that governments should not or cannot do. Agencies should consider the appropriate scope. For example, should government buyers be involved in distribution? Or still what to know?
To illustrate the point. Governments must be involved in addressing climate change. Carbon pricing alone is not enough to tackle climate change, and the stakes are too high for failure to be an option. Every intervention should be on the table.
On the other hand, it makes no sense for the government to be involved in the production and sale of baked beans. Of course, the government could give out food stamps to help alleviate poverty which is then used to buy baked beans. But production and sale? Forget it. The market is already working.
There is a risk that the government intervenes simply because it sees something it does not like
Sometimes governments try to solve problems simply because they see bad things happening, rather than because the intervention is reasonable, needed and likely to be effective. But not every social ill is a problem to be solved by the government. Moreover, the intervention must be effective in order to be celebrated.
Governments may designate certain communities as ‘vulnerable’ or ‘in need of assistance’ based on the results the group sees. It may sound unusual to describe this as dangerous, but it speaks to the superman complex that you sometimes see with public officials.
Communities may need support but should be able to define what that looks like and have the autonomy to act on their own, rather than asking for ‘help’.
This approach reflects the importance of autonomy – empowering people to manage their own lives. If people then choose not to act in a way that supports better social outcomes, that is not necessarily a problem for government to deal with.
Governments run the risk of overreach when taking responsibility for social problems
Overreach, when an agency does more than it should, can occur when the agency believes that people need help or protection, or seeks to improve outcomes using methods that are beyond the agency’s scope.
It’s not uncommon for people to see a problem, and think they would do a better job of solving it. People also don’t like to minimize what they do, because it can affect their impact. The government, being in a position of control, is therefore at risk of overreach. Although this is not unique to the government.
In addition, public agencies often only consider costs and benefits within their own scope, which makes it easy for them to overreach. This can happen because agencies do not consider the wider implications of the intervention – or certainly do not give equal weight to their own agenda.
The prohibition movement of the 1920’s/30’s which banned alcohol is a good example of the government being too controlling. The social problems associated with alcohol are dire, but a heavy-handed approach that pushes social norms is unlikely to be effective, and has unintended consequences. When the market moves underground, it is more difficult to control. Arguably legal marijuana and complete ban on smoking sitting in the same bucket.
The COVID-19 vaccination strategy is a recent example. How much responsibility can the government take on the unvaccinated? A centralized vaccine strategy is useful for ensuring widespread access, supporting equity and addressing externalities, but governments can only do so much. There is a core of the population that remains unvaccinated.
COVID-19 has created a discussion about overreach and the proper role of government
During COVID-19, we have seen the expansion of government regulations into domains not previously considered. One of the more topical ones is the appropriate limit for the unvaccinated – if there is one. That one of the great debates in NZ.
When is it appropriate for the government to limit the rights of unvaccinations as opposed to leaving it to the individual? This post has no answers, but some thoughts:
For:
-
Remaining unvaccinated increases the risk of transmission and new variantso these people should be ‘encouraged’ to vaccinate.
-
Something significant externality from remaining unvaccinated. Government intervention is useful in reflecting social costs.
-
The vaccinated will generally prefer it it is not appropriate for unvaccinated people to manage their own health risks, and vaccinated people have done the right thing.
-
It is difficult to privatize costs in the public health system, for example, if someone goes to the ICU as an unvaccinated person, who will pay you?
against:
-
There are equity concerns if the unvaccinated demographic is a high-risk population (eg, those with low incomes).
-
Regarding restrictions on services – it is not normally the government’s role to choose who can and cannot be served. Many organizations already have an incentive to serve only the vaccinated majority to persuade health-conscious customers to be wary of transmission.
-
Those who are not vaccinated are also people.
Apart:
It is very easy to blame the government
On a final note, most people at some point blame the government because they don’t understand why, or what they are talking about. Naturally, but also a bit lazy. Government is not there to solve all ills, and this must be accepted. But unfortunately, the government has blamed itself by abdicating responsibility for social problems.
The right incentives and structures must be provided to enable self-reliance along with social support. Ultimately society needs free thinking people who can solve their own problems in order to function properly. ‘Too much’ the government bans this.
On a final note, this is the last post of 2021. Enjoy the rest of the year. Also, big thanks to Feedspot for choosing Byte Size as one of them top 100 blogs on the web.
▼▼ Thanks for reading. Share using the link below. ▼▼