What's Really 'Inherently Governmental'?

Stephen Goldsmith, former mayor of Indianapolis, one-time adviser to President Bush on management issues, and an advocate of privatization of government functions, raises a provocative issue in a new essay in The American magazine: "Even if we could agree on core government functions that had to be walled off from contractors," he writes, "we would be left with a thorny question: what happens when government turns out not to be very good at inher­ently governmental work?"

Goldsmith argues that the feds are simply too hung up on the issue of whether particular work is too important to be contracted out to seriously address this question:

It appears almost certain that any significant steps toward privatization are going to occur at the state level. Why? Because that’s where the most exciting work is going on right now, and because Washington appears allergic to public-private innovation. Congress not only clings to the view that gov­ernment workers must produce all government services, but also even tries to impede progress when it surfaces outside the Beltwayâ€"witness the provision tucked inside the 2007 farm bill that would prohibit outsourcing by states and require government employees to process all applications for food stamps.

I think Goldmsith's taking it a little too far -- I'm not convinced Washington's "allergic to public private-innovation," or that Congress thinks that "government workers must provide all government services." If he thinks that's true, I think he's missed out on an awful lot of innovation in recent years, and a tremendous amount of outsourcing of government functions that has occurred with the active or tacit approval of Congress.

Nevertheless, Goldsmith's core question is a valid one, and it would be worth some exploration during this year's presidential campaign, if the candidates ever decide to get serious about federal management issues. And lest you think that's a pipe dream, remember it's happened before, and Goldsmith was involved.