A reflection on Nesta’s Government Innovation Summit: a case for pragmatic radicalism in the face of government’s legitimacy crisis
The twin challenge governments face
I was inspired by Nesta’s compelling invitation to kick off their recent Government Innovation Summit: instead of feeling despair at the current state of government, let’s be practically optimistic and work together to bring about a brighter future. Sure, there is reason to feel glum given prevailing political headlines, but why not search for light in the face of darkness?
The challenges government faces are complex and interconnected. Across the world, the public is losing faith in the institution of government, and without public support, it is increasingly difficult for government to effectively address problems their residents face. In the face of this legitimacy crisis, we at the Centre for Public Impact believe it’s critical to reimagine government to work better for everyone.
A tale of two approaches
I have observed a tension between two approaches to reimagining government — radicalism and incrementalism. While this admittedly is an oversimplification of a very nuanced debate, it provides a helpful lens to consider how we should go about making things better.
An incrementalist believes in tinkering within systems and structures to make things better. Working with those in power across the political spectrum to make small changes can ultimately improve existing services. Such approaches include strengthening existing evidence bases, clarifying reporting mechanisms, and better equipping leaders with tools to improve outcomes for all. Adjustments may feel modest at first, but gradual change is feasible and could make the machine of government more efficient. A critical assumption of incrementalists is that government should operate as a machine, with reform focused on pulling levers and optimizing.
Radicals instead reject this assumption. They argue that the existing system is fundamentally flawed. Incremental changes fail to address the deeper problems that require structural changes. Smoothing over the cracks of a broken system is not only distracting but also can deepen the influence of inequitable policies, norms, and institutions. Radicals call for a critical examination of the role of government and other actors, including themselves, in contributing to today’s problems.
It’s a very important challenge that I take to heart. It resonates with a recent post where I reflected on how well-intended beliefs I used to hold could actually cause more harm than good. Questioning my role and discussing with a diverse group of people how to best bring about positive change, while admittedly difficult, has been quite an energizing experience.
Context of our legitimacy crisis
At the summit, I learned that many others share my view that the complexity of today’s problems requires a radical, not incremental, approach. It is important to understand the context in which our desired change is occuring. If we lived in a world where most people trusted government, then incremental changes could strengthen a system that works for everyone. In this world, applying radical changes could lead to mistrust and discontent.
However, we live in a world with a growing legitimacy crisis, where confidence in government is plummeting. In this context, applying incremental changes in a broken system will likely further strengthen and ingrain unjust actors, making them more difficult to overcome. Given that people increasingly feel government is not equipped to address modern problems, I believe that radical change is needed.
A call for pragmatic radicals
At the summit, I felt the healthy tension between these approaches created energy around pragmatic radicalism. “Radical” because it involves a big, bold vision that goes beyond incrementalism and acknowledges structural issues with existing approaches; “pragmatic” because people can immediately translate the vision into specific “what can I do now to make this happen” actions.
Nesta’s radical vision collection launched at the summit provides several examples of what a reimagined government could look like. Simon Parker called for a more participative government, where a four day work week enables residents to work together to build community. Rachel Burgon proposed flipping parliament on it’s head by empowering a lower house of non-elected experts and citizens. A common theme among these visions was the need to more equitably involve frontline staff and residents in decision making.
In our team’s radical vision, we contrast the idea of government as a machine with government as a living network that shares power. We have seen this vision brought to life by pragmatic radicals at Wigan Council, Gateshead Council, the Dutch home care provider Buurtzorg, and many more here and abroad.
The future is already here
Hillary Cottam, the social entrepreneur who inspired the audience with her closing remarks, embodies radical pragmatism. In her vision for government, she redefined the role of government to be a gardener who tends to the wellbeing of all of the organisms in the ecosystem. The most important part of the ecosystem, she noted, was the earthworm buried deep down, emphasizing the need to radically redistribute power to the lowest levels.
What made Hilary’s energy so infectious is that this vision of a more empathetic, community-driven, relationship-focused government is not some utopian society out of touch with reality. Rather, it is a world she has already helped to bring to life through prison reform, reimagined schools, and relational welfare.
Hilary gives me faith that is is possible to reject failing institutions and bring a way to life through bold action. While the legitimacy crisis is a big challenge, she and others around the world have demonstrated that through defining a bold vision, instilling a sense of practical optimism, and igniting the public imagination, it can be overcome.
Many thanks to my colleagues Danny Buerkli, Elena Bagnera, and Carmella Grace De Guzman, who helped me pull this piece together.
