Results, Assurances, Hopes, and Fears
One Takeaway
When public programs face weak accountability, they can continue receiving support without demonstrated results. Without results, we justify that support with assurances, hope, and when all else fails, fear. None of these tell us whether the program is actually working.
Different Activities, Different Rules of the Game
Economists often use the word institutions to mean the rules of the game: the laws, norms, incentives, and constraints that shape how people and organizations behave.
This article is not about institutions in that broad sense. It is about government activities — public programs, agencies, regulations, and other taxpayer-supported efforts — and the rules that affect how much they have to prove.
In the market arena, businesses have to keep convincing customers (or investors) to hand over money voluntarily. If they stop producing something customers value, revenue falls. A restaurant that repeatedly disappoints customers loses them. Losses eventually force adaptation, contraction, or exit. The flow of resources is continually being tested.
Taxpayer-funded programs work differently. Their funding is determined through political and administrative processes. Their resources are not automatically tied to whether they can show results.
That does not mean public programs face no accountability. Elections, oversight, audits, courts, and independent watchdogs all matter. But those mechanisms are more indirect...and much weaker. A bureaucrat does not face an election. When a program underperforms there’s no direct external feedback to shape their choices. An agency does not automatically lose its budget because its results disappoint. Taxpayers cannot move their share of the funding to a competing provider.
Failure can create consequences in these public activities eventually. It just does not automatically do so. And in some cases, failure leads to the opposite of what it would in a market — government activities can see their budgets and responsibilities grow.
That difference opens the door for something other than results to justify continued support.
How the Justification Shifts
Government activities usually begin in response to real problems. And some of those activities produce results that may justify their continued support.
But there is a difference between why a program was created — its intent — and why it should continue receiving resources today — its results.
When we trace the justification for continued support, it can come from four places.
Results. It works. The program has delivered. There is a record of performance that can be evaluated. Simply put, it achieves what it sets out to achieve and does so efficiently.
Assurance. It will work. A policymaker, agency, or expert tells us the program will produce the intended result...eventually. Support rests on a promise about future performance rather than demonstrated performance.
Hope. It could work if we get it right. Maybe it needs better leadership, more funding, or another reform. Nobody promised us this time. We simply believe in the idea itself.
Fear. We cannot risk finding out what happens without it. Even if results are unclear and assurances have lost credibility, the alternative feels more dangerous than continuing with what we have. This can be true even in times of clear failure.
These are not mutually exclusive. But they are not equal. Only results directly tell us whether the activity is producing what it was created to produce.
The shift does not usually happen all at once.
If results are weak, assurance can take their place:
“We know this did not work as intended, but the next reform will.”
If repeated assurances fail to produce improvement, support can shift again:
“I KNOW the idea is right. We just need to tweak how we go about it, who is in charge, and how much we spend.”
That is hope.
And after enough reforms, funding increases, and new leaders fail to settle the question, even hope can weaken:
“But what is the alternative? We can’t have NOTHING.”
That is fear.
This is how trust and justification gradually creep away from demonstrated results and toward reasons that rest on less and less evidence.
Why We Don’t Notice
There are several reasons this shift is easy to miss.
The first is that most public programs and regulatory structures have been around for a long time at this point. Very few of us participated in the original decision to create the agencies, licensing systems, regulations, or administrative processes we live with today. They were already here when we arrived.
When something has always existed, the natural question becomes:
How do we make this work better?
That sounds reasonable. But it quietly skips an earlier question:
Does this work well enough to justify continuing it in its current form?
The first question assumes the existing arrangement. The second tests it.
The second reason is that many people working inside these systems are genuinely committed to what they are doing. Their sincerity can be completely real. I’ve seen it firsthand. But, I’ve also seen public workers who are genuinely committed to being mediocre be rewarded in the same way as those who care.
The thing is: sincerity is great, but it does not equal performance.
Good people can operate inside systems with weak feedback. Better leadership may improve a program or agency, but leadership cannot substitute for a system that tells us if performance actually improved.
The third reason is that the alternative is usually invisible.
If a public program underperforms, we do not get to observe the parallel universe where a different approach was used instead. Supporters can argue that things would have been worse without the program. Critics can argue that something else would have worked better.
Neither side gets a time machine.
That makes measurement, comparison, experimentation, and accountability more important, not less. Without them, uncertainty leaves room for assurance, hope, and fear to carry the argument forward.
What This Looks Like
A simple example of this is occupational licensing. Its stated purpose is straightforward: protect consumers from unqualified people. No one wants a fake doctor taking out their spleen. That is a legitimate concern.
But the relevant economic question is not whether consumer protection matters. It is whether a particular rule actually improves consumer outcomes enough to justify the costs and restrictions.
If the evidence is weak, assurance carries the policy: “These requirements protect the public.” If problems remain, hope takes over: “We need better enforcement or stronger requirements.” And when someone questions too much, fear closes the discussion: “You cannot just let anyone practice without oversight. So stop asking us to get rid of our safety measures.”
Simply identifying a legitimate problem does not prove that a particular government response is solving it.
Intent explains why a program exists. Results tell us whether it works.
Stopping the Creep
This creep stops when continued support encounters a meaningful checkpoint. A moment when a program has to show results rather than rely on another assurance about the future.
That can mean defining measurable outcomes before a program begins, reporting what money was spent on and what changed, comparing alternatives through pilots, or requiring programs to justify renewal rather than continue automatically.
Accountability creates consequences. Consequences create information. Information allows justification to be tested.
The Bottom Line
The next time you are asked your thoughts on a public program, agency, regulation, or policy, ask what the justification actually rests on.
Results: What has happened? What outcomes can I point to?
Assurance: Am I relying mainly on someone’s promise about what will happen?
Hope: Do I believe it could work even if I cannot show that it currently does?
Fear: Am I defending it primarily because the alternative feels dangerous or uncertain?
If your answer points to results, there might be some legitimacy. But if you point primarily to someone else’s assurance or your own hope or fear, then we may need to re-evaluate.
Assurances, hopes, and fears all have a legitimate place. But none of them should be allowed to do the work that only results can do.