Building a More Effective, Responsive Government: Lessons Learned from the Biden-Harris Administration – The Roosevelt Institute

Report on Reforming Public Institutions for Sustainable Development

Introduction: Aligning Governance with the Sustainable Development Goals

An analysis based on the findings of the Roosevelt Institute’s report, “Building a More Effective, Responsive Government,” reveals critical deficiencies in public institutions that hinder progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The effective use of public power is essential for achieving broadly shared economic growth, universal access to services, and countering market imbalances. However, a multi-decade trend of neglecting public institutions has compromised their ability to serve the populace, directly undermining SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), which calls for effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

Analysis of Institutional Failures and Their Impact on the 2030 Agenda

The Erosion of Public Power and Institutional Capacity

For decades, a bipartisan failure to utilize public power ambitiously has led to significant consequences that are antithetical to sustainable development. This systemic neglect has resulted in:

• Increased Inequality: The concentration of wealth and power has enriched a select few while diminishing security for the majority, directly opposing SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).
• Weakened Service Delivery: The hollowing out of government agencies through budget and staff reductions has crippled the state’s ability to meet public needs and respond to emergencies, affecting outcomes related to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).
• Stifled Economic Progress: Deference to private markets and corporate influence has prevented the harnessing of national potential for inclusive and sustainable economic growth, as envisioned in SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

Systemic Barriers to Inclusive and Responsive Governance

The report, drawing on interviews with over 45 former public servants, identifies deep-seated institutional cultures and practices that prevent effective governance. These barriers are a direct impediment to achieving the targets of SDG 16.

1. Risk-Averse Operations: A default mode of operating that is incremental and overly cautious stifles the bold action required to address complex challenges.
2. Process over Outcomes: An institutional fixation on process at the expense of tangible results for the public leads to widespread disengagement and frustration.
3. Exclusionary Design: Federal institutions are often structured to receive input from well-resourced corporate lobbyists, rather than being optimized for connectivity with ordinary citizens. This fails the core principle of SDG 16.7 to ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making.

Case Study: The Federal Trade Commission and Participatory Policymaking

Objective: Aligning Economic Regulation with SDG 8 and SDG 10

A practical example of attempting to overcome these barriers occurred at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) during the revision of its merger guidelines. These guidelines are a primary tool for constraining corporate concentration, which is critical for fostering competitive markets, promoting decent work (SDG 8), and reducing economic inequality (SDG 10).

Methodology and Institutional Resistance

The FTC leadership initiated a process to democratize the revision of these guidelines, moving beyond the traditional engagement of corporate law firms and lobbyists. The new methodology included:

• A public Request for Information that generated over 5,000 comments.
• Proactive outreach and listening sessions with stakeholders often excluded from the process, including workers, farmers, small business owners, and creators.

This approach, designed to make the institution more inclusive and responsive, faced significant internal resistance. Staff, citing concerns of “bias” and the need to preserve “government expertise,” argued against affirmatively reaching out to less powerful market participants. This reaction exemplifies the institutional culture that obstructs the implementation of participatory governance mechanisms essential for SDG 16.

Recommendations for Building Institutions Fit for the 2030 Agenda

Fostering a New Paradigm of Democratic Governance

To achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, it is imperative to move beyond defending anemic and frustrating institutions. The focus must shift to designing and building modern, nimble, and truly democratic institutions that can channel public aspirations into tangible results.

Strategic Imperatives for Institutional Reform

1. Embed Inclusive Participation: Institutions must actively create and utilize meaningful channels for public participation, ensuring that decision-making is responsive and representative, in line with SDG 16.7.
2. Cultivate Bold Civic Leadership: A concerted effort is needed to develop leaders across government, advocacy, and academia who can build coalitions and execute strategic change, reflecting the multi-stakeholder approach of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).
3. Adopt a Campaign-Oriented Approach: Policymaking should be viewed not merely as a technical exercise but as a campaign that builds broad public momentum to drive implementation and ensure lasting impact.
4. Reorient Institutional Culture: Overcome the internal resistance to change by reframing the mission of public service around bold action and public benefit, rather than risk aversion and bureaucratic procedure.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article extensively discusses the need for “effective, responsive government” and reforming democratic institutions. It critiques the current state where institutions are “risk-averse, incremental, and wed to process at the expense of outcomes.” The core theme is about building strong, accountable, and inclusive institutions that serve the public rather than corporate interests, which is the central aim of SDG 16.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article highlights the problem of “immense concentrations of wealth and power for the few, and an ever-decreasing sense of security for the many.” It argues that concentrated private sector power can “rig the economy” and enrich those at the top. This directly connects to SDG 10, which aims to reduce inequality within and among countries by addressing unequal opportunities and outcomes.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • The article’s main focus, as stated in the title of the referenced report “Building a More Effective, Responsive Government,” is on improving institutional performance. It criticizes the hollowing out of government’s ability “to meet people’s needs, provide basic services, and respond to emergencies” and calls for “modern, nimble institutions that channel people’s concerns and aspirations into tangible results.” This aligns directly with the goal of developing effective and accountable institutions.
2. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
   • The article provides a specific example of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) working to “democratize our agenda-setting and create meaningful channels for public participation.” The effort to revamp merger guidelines by actively seeking input from “workers, farmers, small business owners, creators” instead of just “well-resourced corporate lobbyists and insiders” is a clear illustration of promoting inclusive and participatory decision-making.
3. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory policies and practices.
   • The article addresses how current institutional practices favor powerful corporate interests, creating an unequal playing field. It notes that federal institutions are often designed to “passively receive inputs from well-resourced corporate lobbyists and insiders, rather than being optimized for connectivity with ordinary Americans.” The FTC’s effort to revise merger guidelines is presented as a way to “constraining corporate power” and counteracting a system that can “rig the economy,” thereby promoting more equal opportunity for all market participants.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicator for Target 16.7: Proportions of positions in public institutions that are filled by diverse groups, and the extent of public participation in decision-making.
   • The article provides a concrete, measurable example of an indicator for public participation. When the FTC sought public input on its merger guidelines, it “received more than 5,000 comments.” Furthermore, it conducted a “series of listening sessions” to “affirmatively [reach] out to affected people.” The number of public comments and the number of targeted outreach sessions with underrepresented groups can serve as direct indicators of progress toward more participatory decision-making.
2. Indicator for Target 16.6: Public satisfaction with government services and responsiveness.
   • While not a quantitative metric, the article implies this indicator through its description of public sentiment. It mentions that “the American public has been so frustrated with these institutions for so long” and that “people feel disengaged with and unseen by their government.” An improvement in public satisfaction and a decrease in feelings of frustration and disengagement would be a key qualitative indicator of progress toward more effective and responsive institutions.
3. Indicator for Target 10.3: Implementation of policies to constrain corporate power and influence.
   • The article implies that the successful revision and implementation of policies like the FTC’s merger guidelines serve as an indicator of progress. The goal of this revision is to create a “first line of defense against increasing concentration in the economy” and to constrain corporate power. Therefore, the adoption of such regulations designed to level the economic playing field can be used as an indicator for ensuring more equal opportunity.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: rooseveltinstitute.org