on the equality-efficiency tradeoff in democracy

On a flight to California, I am reading Xavier de Souza Briggs’ important book Democracy as Problem Solving (MIT Press, 2008), plus a set of yet unpublished chapters by diverse authors on similar themes. They are making me critical of a basic distinction in political theory. Often, we think that a process is “democratic” if everyone has an equal voice or impact–or at least an equal right to have an impact–on public decisions. Government is “efficient,” on the other hand, if it works well, generating public goods and reducing public “bads.”

These two values may conflict. Mussolini is said to have made the trains run on time. I am on a plane, so I cannot check whether that is true, but if it is, it would be an example of efficiency without democracy. On the other hand, an endless meeting may be democratic but is not efficient. Given the complexities of administering large institutions, it seems that democratic values should predominate when major decisions are made (usually in elections and legislation). Efficiency should become paramount at the phase of implementation or administration, when the people’s will is enacted by professionals.

That is a standard theory, but here is the problem. What people actually talk about and try to accomplish when they participate democratically is solving problems. Politics is not a sport, in which rival teams compete for the love of the game. It is a purposive activity that matters only to the extent that problems are solved. A democratic process that is totally inefficient is worse than annoying and discouraging. It is actually a kind of contradiction. People can’t come together as equals to solve problems but not solve the problems. The proper measure of “democracy” encompasses efficiency as well as equality.

Several points follow. First, if there is a tradeoff between equality of voice and efficiency, the conflict is internal to democracy. We may sometimes have to bite the bullet and reduce equality to enhance efficiency, in the name of democracy. On the other hand, if we value both, we should work to reduce the tradeoff. When equal voice enhances efficient outcomes, we have a clear win.

Second, there is no good reason to distinguish between legislation and administration, or deliberation and implementation, or talk and work–because all these are problem-solving activities. The same pair of values, equality of voice and efficiency of outcomes, should be maximized at all times. Concretely, that means promoting public engagement in administration as well as in law-making unless efficiency suffers excessively as a result.

Finally, I would like to register a small resistance to the rhetoric of “problem-solving.” Political action can be directed at solving problems, conserving what exists, exploiting new opportunities, defining common identities, or creating goods. If we insist, we can call all those purposes “problem-solving,” but I think the word “problem” invokes too narrow a set of issues.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized on by .

About Peter

Associate Dean for Research and the Lincoln Filene Professor of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Tufts University's Tisch College of Civic Life. Concerned about civic education, civic engagement, and democratic reform in the United States and elsewhere.