The Speed of Government

Government moves slowly. That can be a good thing. It can help preserve institutions, ensuring they weather dramatic shifts in political winds. Slow, bureaucratic processes are also purposely designed to create barriers for rushed, poorly thought-out policy, which is important given the immense power of government and how hard it can be to undo bad policy. 

The glacial speed of Government can also create opportunities to take time to engage people impacted by policy changes, especially marginalized people without easy access to those in power, with the goal of fully vetting ideas and then implementing them in a thoughtful way. That’s not usually what happens, of course. The slow speed of government isn’t due to a desire to engage people. It’s usually just the result of plain old bureaucracy, a prioritization of paperwork and process over the actual needs of people. Engaging the people impacted is either a minor, deprioritized step in the process or not done at all. 

As a society, we need durable institutions, whether public or private. But we also need change, both to policy and the institutions themselves. If an institution is based on a foundation of racism, for example, its durability actually becomes the problem. If the challenges people face change dramatically due to, say, a global pandemic, tech revolution, or changing climate, then an institution that is slow to change to meet those different or changing needs is not just inefficient; it becomes obsolete, and it’s failure leaves a gaping hole in our social structure. 

The challenges Americans face have changed, dramatically. The wealth divide in America has widened, especially along racial lines. The financial security of individuals, families, and whole communities has been negatively impacted by fast-moving forces way beyond their control, whether that’s globalization, automation, the pandemic, or wildfires, floods, and hurricanes. The pace of change isn’t slowing either. 

Can government move quick enough? 

I’ve seen it happen. In response to the growing retirement savings gap, David John and Mark Iwry co-authored the concept of the Auto-IRA. It went from idea to implemented program in Oregon in 11 years. 

That might not seem fast, but it is when you consider what was involved, advocating the idea and shopping it around, getting legislation passed, designing something from the ground up, piloting, and rolling it out. Last year, OregonSaves, the first operational Auto-IRA, passed the milestone of $100 million in assets. 

The Auto-IRA isn’t a silver bullet to solve the issues created by the changes in how we work and save, but it shows governments can embrace innovation and tangibly move the needle for people in a relatively short amount of time. That’s why I got involved in OegonSaves - the chance to make change happen. We also made engaging those impacted one of our highest priorities, using what time it did take to create a program to focus on what’s truly important - the thoughts and needs of people we serve.

There are plenty more innovative ideas out there. Many governments are experimenting with concepts like universal basic income. There’s plenty of debate about its effectiveness, especially if folks think it’s a silver bullet, but it was particularly interesting to me to see California’s state Senate and Assembly unanimously pass a $35 million program to provide universal basic income of up to $1,000 to California foster youth leaving the system. The potential impacts could be significant. $1,000 a month would make a huge difference for those youth. It could mean a better chance at life, less future strain on systems, and reducing generational cycles of poverty, abuse, and neglect. It will be incredibly interesting to see what happens. 

One thing that has changed for governments that could help the speed of change is the technology to implement solutions and the ability to track the data afterward. Think of how quickly pandemic relief payments hit people’s bank accounts during the pandemic. That’s pretty amazing, especially since the IRS doesn’t exactly have the most innovative technology systems. And because data is increasingly easier to collect and analyze, there’s already been some very interesting research about the impact of those payments for families. 

During these times of accelerating change, we’ve seen the importance of our institutions, their limitations, and, importantly, ways that they can change and act quickly. It’s worth learning from the examples of change, because it’s likely we’re going to need more of it going forward.

More to come! / Joel

Columnist and Senior Associate Joel Metlen is based in Oregon. Joel is a pioneer of the state facilitated retirement savings space, woven into a career of public service and innovation. At OregonSaves, Joel’s responsibilities ranged from marketing and employer engagement to operations and data analysis. You’ll see his insights from that experience, and more, here.

This piece was featured in the January 13, 2022, edition of Retirement Security Matters. For more fresh thinking on retirement savings innovation, check out the newsletter here.