[ad_1]
2022 passed historic legislation to address climate change, but by the end of the year we knew why such investments were necessary. The year ended with widespread infrastructure and organizational failure as snowstorms trapped people in their homes and cars and many froze to death. Rolling blackouts were common across the Southeast, and travelers were trapped at airports across the country for days. Questions remain. Can we deploy this once-in-a-generation mega-investment effectively and efficiently to address the climate challenge?
Doing so relies on a set of actors and systems not always ready for the task, and the public, who need to change their own minds about governments, private industry, and taxpayers’ use of dollars. It’s easy to spend our tax money to build new things — we taxpayers generally accept it, but now we’re spending less on new things and more investment to update and modernize existing ones. We need more. Over the past few weeks, we’ve seen how vulnerable our existing systems are.
Bringing about the transformative social and technological evolution needed to respond to this moment requires massive changes in organizational culture and behavior, from both the private sector and public institutions. Neither governments nor private companies can do this alone. they need each other. Our history with electrification, transportation and sanitation, to name a few, tells us that we can do this. can.
This change starts with the taxpayer. I often hear people say that public institutions should be treated like private companies. Those who say this are looking for lean, innovative and efficient public institutions. But failing to recognize the core differences between public institutions and private companies lays the foundation for massive failures in the way this staggering investment is managed and implemented.
One of the crucial and important differences between public institutions and private companies is their purpose. Public institutions serve the public interest. We do not pursue profits like private companies. This difference is not a bad thing. This means that the mandate and work of public institutions will be consistently maintained and immune to the volatility of the market and the frequently changing whims of the political environment, but the flexibility found in the private sector. It also means that it is difficult to reproduce in public institutions. agency.
Private industry leaders can more easily upgrade their aging infrastructure and practices without much backlash from boards and investors. public agency? Taxpayers are not so kind. We are not thrilled to upgrade existing power lines to carry larger loads of solar power energy. We love to see new construction and demand strict accountability from public authorities. Get results from a modern, flexible public sector with a young, innovative and highly skilled workforce without growing “big government” or offering competitive salaries I hope. We rarely believe that raising civil servant salaries is a good use of taxpayer money.
Most importantly, private industry is largely innovative because failure is not a bad thing. Private industry has embraced the concept of ‘failure’, which greatly benefits us all. But a public institution? His one misuse of taxpayer funds could be a career-ending proposition for many of the leaders of public institutions. This does not create the modern and flexible environment that taxpayers expect from public institutions. As taxpayers, it’s time to see for ourselves how we view public institutions and how we treat public servants. Public institutions should be allowed to adopt private sector innovations and technologies. We also need to update our hiring practices to help recruit and retain the best talent.
How can this be done? First, the legislative branch must fund the modernization of state agencies and infrastructure, and where possible, leverage investment and activity from a single agency. It requires interagency cooperation and resource sharing to accommodate a whole-of-government approach. Second, the private sector needs to review and rethink its practices so that it can be a conscientious partner of public institutions. Proprietary products make it very difficult for public agencies to maintain or upgrade their current systems. Especially after the provider goes out of business. And finally, without taxpayer demands, these changes will not happen.
As taxpayers, we should encourage legislators and public sector leaders to adopt the latest practices and technologies developed by private industry. As consumers, we need to encourage private industry to partner with public authorities in good faith. When the next disaster strikes, we want our communities to be more resilient and able to recover quickly. This requires modern infrastructure with diverse energy sources, modern technology systems that facilitate access to government services, and effective partnerships between governments, private industry and communities. The protracted recovery that we do each day, week, or month has significant and long-term consequences for the economic health, physical, mental and emotional well-being of individuals and communities.
This is our moment. Responding to this moment requires modernized systems to easily and effectively connect citizens to public services, and requires public-private partnerships to encourage and harness innovation. And we need to evolve our own way of thinking about each role.
Ashley Ward is a Senior Policy Associate in the Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment and Sustainability at Duke University.
[ad_2]
Source link
