For all its brinksmanship, the U.S. government shut-down is part of an ongoing battle over how to right-size government. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
President Donald\u2019s Trump\u2019s approach, both in this instance and with DOGE, draws heavily on the idea of using creative destruction to generate economic progress.\u00a0<\/p>\n
But Trump\u2019s version of public sector creative destruction should serve as a cautionary tale to those in charge of cutting budgets in Ottawa<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s version is indeed messy and painful, and it seems unlikely to leave Americans better off. In pursuing personal vendettas, resorting to the intimidation of vast swaths of the U.S. public service and exalting in cutting for cutting\u2019s sake, Trump is certainly maximizing the destruction. What\u2019s left is neither creative nor improved. \u00a0<\/p>\n The degradation of world-leading American institutions in academia, science, national security and foreign aid among others will be lamented for generations to come. What\u2019s most strikingly absent in the Trump administration\u2019s approach to right-sizing government is a sense of stewardship. Whereas a steward cultivates institutions, Trump repeatedly demonstrates disdain for them. He sees institutions as extensions of himself or, at minimum, as needing to kow-tow or serve him. \u00a0<\/p>\n A true steward believes that government organizations can and should serve the public purpose of supporting citizens. Crucially, they put themselves in the background, not the foreground, of any debate on right-sizing government.\u00a0<\/p>\n There is a better alternative to Trump\u2019s destructive approach to institutions which also avoids the slow death of stay-the-course stagnation. Let\u2019s call it the \u201cPeace, Order and Good Government\u201d reform alternative.\u00a0<\/p>\n This approach has been used successfully over the past 50 years by both Conservative and Liberal governments to reduce federal government expenditures to the tune of $535 billion, according to some estimates.\u00a0<\/p>\n Over the years, spending reduction exercises have gone by different names: from the \u201cNielsen Task Force\u201d under the government of the prime minister Brian Mulroney to the \u201cProgram Review\u201d and the \u201cStrategic and Operating Review\u201d under prime ministers Jean Chr\u00e9tien and Stephen Harper respectively. \u00a0<\/p>\n At the root of these cutting exercises has been public support coupled with a serious-minded commitment to reducing government to meet fiscal circumstances based on what are called the \u201csix tests.\u201d \u00a0<\/p>\n These six tests consider the public interest, the role of government, the appropriate level of government, possible private and voluntary sector alternatives, efficiency considerations and affordability. Throughout it all, there was a focus on what works and fast-follower adoption. Part of the magic from other spending reduction exercises was drawing good ideas from other governments and the private sector. \u00a0<\/p>\n Canada retains muscle memory on how to trim decisively its costs to reflect its budget circumstances. The government of Prime Minister Mark Carney has had a strong-minded approach to Canada Post<\/a>, which appears to show a willingness to make tough, but necessary decisions. \u00a0<\/p>\n In contrast, Trump\u2019s approach operates with a divisive hedge fund ethic accompanied by a dollop of cult of the personalities. Despite the serious consequences, this is not a serious approach. \u00a0<\/p>\n The unfolding spectacle in Washington is akin to applying a solution to government normally reserved for a glitchy computer: shut it down and reboot. Just ask Americans waiting for benefits cheques or services if they think the approach is working.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n What\u2019s required instead is an institutionalist, and reform-minded, perspective which seeks to create lasting solutions and build institutions that, while remaining nimble to changing circumstances and needs, remain positioned to support citizens for generations to come.\u00a0<\/p>\n In Canada, we are in the early stages of launching an effort to reduce spending and right-size government. Carney\u2019s government has embarked on cutting the operational budgets of most federal departments and agencies by 15 per cent over three years<\/a>. \u00a0<\/p>\n To be successful, it will need public support as well as coordinated political and public service leadership. \u00a0<\/p>\n In the current \u201celbows up\u201d movement, there is a willingness for collective sacrifice. This would need to be channeled by savvy political leadership and a public service that understands its supportive stewardship role to build for the future. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n As is increasingly the case, we should not look south for solutions; we should look to ourselves.\u00a0<\/p>\n