Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, will take over the newly created Department of Government Efficiency alongside fellow software billionaire and former national member Vivek Ramaswamy on November 12th, according to president-elect Donald Trump’s announcement on November 12. The new office will be tasked with reining in state government, curbing federal spending, and reducing rules.
Musk has been vocal in his support of Trump’s campaign, which included probably illegal monetary “giveaways” to citizens. Although Musk is relatively new in electoral politics, technology companies and their leaders have made numerous attempts to restructure public policy and governance, ranging from housing and transportation to city planning.
By looking more closely at some of these efforts, we may be able to get a preview of what Musk’s Department of Government Performance may try to do, what government-by-tech may seem like, and what might go wrong.
Replacing public service
In 2013, Musk himself proposed a new form of public transportation called the “hyperloop” to join Los Angeles and San Francisco. And Musk’s SpaceX aims to outsource the rocket-building business to the government.
But another tech firms have had similar interests.
Uber has made a series of attempts to replace people transport. Companies like Sidewalk Labs, a subsidiary of Google’s parent company, have created” intelligent cities” that collect and analyze information about people’s behavior in order to make decisions about providing services, making attempts to replace urban infrastructure.
Perhaps an analyst suggested that public libraries may be replaced by Amazon bookstores. In fields as diverse as cover, personality identification, and education, tech firms have challenged people products.
The boundaries of disturbance
One thing some government-by-tech jobs have in common is a perception that government is inherently inefficient, and that (unregulated ) technology can offer better options.
Silicon Valley software companies have huge espoused “disruption“, the idea of overthrowing a dead standing status with technology. Unlike people agencies, the reasoning goes, companies is “move fast and break things” to discover new and more effective ways to deliver services and price.
Tech firms that adhere to this theory have undoubtedly provided service that many of us use frequently in our day-to-day lives and generated significant profits. But this does n’t mean the Silicon Valley model makes sense for public administration. In reality, the information suggests something more like the same.
A record of disappointment
Tech’s attempts to provide public companies have had mixed results.
Innisfil, Canada, switched to Uber in 2017 to replace all of its public transportation options. The result was a rise in city costs ( in Uber’s fees ), more cars traveling, and more expensive transportation for low-income residents.
After encountering concerns regarding protection and planning, Sidewalk Labs ‘ smart-city trial in Toronto was abandoned in 2021.
The software industry’s disruption has worsened existing issues, with Airbnb and other short-term rental firms playing a role in the housing crisis.
Small solutions for slim problems
Additionally, tech firms typically concentrate on a select few issues. Silicon Valley has helped us to find a car, choose a restaurant for dinner, manage quickly around a town, transfer money to our friends, and search for the best rental for our vacation.
It has provided fewer options for getting low-income cover, providing treatment for the younger, or reducing our power usage. There are significant benefits to this: technology companies want to tap wealthy buyers with disposable income to generate income.
These disparities even reflect Silicon Valley’s lack of diversity, though. Tech remains mostly white, mostly female, generally upper-middle course, typically highly educated. This affects the troubles and answers Silicon Valley finds.
The secret business will suffer from all of this. However, the government’s primary function is to look after all of its citizens, not merely owners or buyers ( or even just those who voted for it ).
The couple get a dozen services.
The issue is that Silicon Valley’s “efficiencies” and solutions may end up delivering the few at the price of the many. Some “inefficiencies” of public service arise from the truth they are designed to get as many people into accounts as possible.
Rules and protections for older people, for those with disability, for those who may not speak English as a second language, for instance, all create the need for more government and more rules.
Musk has compared the public transportation system to a “pain in the pussy” where possible serial killers must be positioned next to one another. Of course, in some places public transportation carries no such discrimination. Additionally, many people who prefer to travel by private jet ( or even Tesla ) may have no other choice but to rely on a public bus for their needs.
One of SpaceX’s aims is to reduce the cost of a trip to Mars to under US$ 1 million. This would be a extraordinary success, but it means that Musk’s imagined Mars settlement may be very wealthy. As a form of public policy, spacecraft and hyperloops are terribly insufficient.
Unromantic needs
The technology sector itself depends on existing facilities and institutions, even though the idea of disruption attempts to minimize its impact.
Uber depends on roads and vehicles, as well as the institutions that maintain them, and Airbnb depends on brick-and-mortar construction, as do Amazon and eBay, which rely on postal service and travel system.
All tech companies rely on solid, enforceable financial, property, and tax laws. These outdated institutions and infrastructures may not be attractive or even effective.
However, these so-called inefficiencies have often evolved in ways aligned with fairness, justice, and inclusivity. Silicon Valley tech companies ‘ past records do not support their positions on these issues.
Hallam Stevens is professor of interdisciplinary studies, James Cook University
The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.