Afterword

Subramanian Rangan

Literally and metaphorically, we are no doubt in a ‘new age’. And governments are, for all the evident reasons, going to continue to play an important role in the vitality, fairness, and the future of society. How constructive and consequential a role they will play will depend on the extent to which they adapt to the needs and demands of this new age. As awareness and aspirations evolve, so too will the vision and workings of government.

There is no neat end, no full stop. And so it is with this afterword for Government for a New Age. Rather than attempting the finality of an end point or closure, I will, as requested by the authors, outline some questions in the spirit of an au revoir rather than an adieu.

Any undertaking of change in society is demanding. In the world of government, where economies still grapple with the business cycle, and where day-to-day politics can exert undue influence, change is fraught with challenges. It is hard work.

And it is complex. Realizing a durable transformation requires a cluster of changes. Privatizing industry does not lead to productivity if competition is not also encouraged. Investing in education is great if labour markets are not over-regulated or if entrepreneurship is not stifled. Transformation is built on a multi-pronged foundation; it is about complementarity and coherence in changes.

At the same time, it is clear that individual leaders and their energies matter hugely in enacting transformation. Transformation is endogenous to leaders. There are many examples of innovative practice cited in Government for a New Age; all required leadership to make them happen. Bringing about transformation in government is not just about breeding a new digitally savvy generation of technocrats; it is about leaders with political energy backed with the resources and architecture to make transformation a reality. There is not one recipe; rather leaders bring their own creativity, pragmatism, and principles for change.

There is also, I note, a vision side to government, which is often under-rated. Government leaders are stewards of the future. While most of us are focused on the here and now, they envision and embrace the future. Without vision, resource allocation becomes solely pragmatic; all aspects of government become emergent, the moment dominates.

This gets to the heart of what constitutes government and effective government. To this, we may add another burgeoning role of government: partnering; whether it’s regional partnering, as in the European Union or in the ASEAN, or partnering with other nations or institutions, to combat climate change, human trafficking or financial stability. For traditional government, built on centralized power over a circumscribed territory, the growing inter-dependence of issues, technologies and peoples will require more coordinated and collaborative responses.

This too signifies a new age for government. To adapt to the demands of this new age, governments will need to transform themselves. Previous debates concerned the quantity of government. Now the debate rightly centres on the quality of government. Transforming the quality of government will require changes in the composition, capabilities and culture of government.

What is encouraging is that governments clearly have an appetite for change. There are a number of reasons for this. One is the notion of contested legitimacy. Greater transparency, decentralization, the impact of modern technology, and declining faith in politicians all mean that governments sometimes feel more exposed than ever before. The rise in the number and influence of competitiveness rankings is also shaking things up. The performance of governments is there for all to see, whether you are talking about well-being, how long it takes to set up a company, or the educational attainment of citizens.

Whether it is youth unemployment, dealing with epidemics, or other global threats and insecurities, the nature of the problems is changing. Governments, too, must adapt to convincingly address these challenges.

As government grapples with the above, we must also contemplate these questions:

How can governments act as a complement, rather than as a substitute? The role of government in society should be as a complement – to enterprise, to family, to faith – but not a substitute for these things.

How do we get better global governance in the absence of (and ideally without) global government? Though many people appear to wish for more local government, many of the issues that governments have to tackle are regional and global. It’s not yet clear in a multi-polar world of nations what shape the arrangements need to take. International institutions are a logical and useful start despite their well-documented limitations.

Should governments focus on progressing in one dimension or should they aim for progress across multiple dimensions and risk not making progress on any? This is really a methodological challenge for human society. How can we effectively embrace progress if progress is multifaceted? The notion of well-being, for example, has at least ten inter-related dimensions. Employment is an important aspect of well-being but it clearly relates to the state of the economy which may relate to climate change and so on. Should we concentrate on one aspect at a time or pursue all dimensions? Can we do better than arbitrary muddling?

What is societal progress? As the cogent review in the previous chapter suggests, this has become a timeless question. In principle, when we close the gap between what ought to be and what is then we may say that we are making progress, whether it is in our society, company, community or family. To progress is to reduce this gap in intentional and durable ways.

Some progress gaps may be considered universal, such as ensuring minimum living standards, dignity and fairness, or enabling the capabilities of all on the planet. Other gaps may be more particular, influenced by geography, culture and history. Context and preferences are heterogeneous.

Even with the universal gaps it is tempting to draw up a long list of goals to be achieved. One of the great challenges facing governments is how to prioritize efforts. Societies and their governments would benefit from more robust and inclusive approaches and better methods for deciding where to direct time, talent, and resources.

Governments (and all of us) have access to more data than ever before. But the knowing-doing gap is not all. Between knowing and doing lies choosing. And, as yet, we have few satisfactory methods for collective choice. This is partly why conventional politics appears polarized, often confronting us with either/or alternatives.

We may meanwhile agree on certain principles. For instance, it is now understood that no matter how we proceed our progress should not be incompatible with the capacities and advancement of others (especially future generations). We may also agree that not all progress may be represented in summary statistics. We tend to focus on measurable consequences – unemployment levels, educational attainment levels – more than on the expressive and humanistic attributes that defy conventional quantification but that make us more human and are often at the heart of progress. If time, social relations, and meaning are the currency and core of life, then governments ought to approach societal progress in ways that enable people to become so oriented.

Regarded this way, societal progress may appear philosophical and distant from the pressures of day-to-day life. This is simply a reflection of the fact that progress is not a monolithic, fixed idea, a stationary utopian destination in the distance. It needs to be – and can be – both pragmatic and profound. If governments can integrate this apparent (but not true) contradiction then the new age will also be a better age.