By Mert Geyiktepe
In a moment of institutional strain and public distrust, questions about how governments can deliver social and economic support effectively have become increasingly urgent. At the fourth event in the Economics in Beyond series, moderator Elizabeth Linos convened Don Moynihan and Jennifer Pahlka to examine the future of state capacity. Drawing on personal experiences, academic research, and lessons from civic technology, the panel explored how administrative burdens, technological systems, procurement structures, and the civil service shape the government’s ability to act. Here are the takeaways from the conversation:
- The administrative state is overburdened and those burdens shape citizens’ lives
A central theme was how administrative burdens hinder access to public programs and undermine trust in government. Moynihan described how his work with Pamela Herd emerged from personal struggles with government systems, from immigration paperwork to navigating disability-related benefits for their child. These experiences crystallized a framework around learning, compliance, and psychological costs that affect how people experience public services. As he noted, the framework resonated quickly because people immediately recognized what it named. It also provided common language across disciplines and allowed government practitioners, especially in civic tech, to see themselves as addressing a shared structural problem.
Moynihan emphasized that administrative burdens are often strategic rather than accidental, describing them as policymaking through other means. He warned that newly enacted policies such as heightened work requirements and error rules would likely generate a fresh wave of burdens for both families and state administrators. Pahlka connected this to what she called procedural accretion: decades of well-intentioned guardrails that have accumulated into systems too complex to operate effectively. Her example of a state unemployment insurance system with 7,119 pages of regulations illustrated how even rules meant to ensure fairness or oversight can collectively paralyze delivery, especially in moments of crisis. For both speakers, rethinking state capacity requires confronting these layers of friction directly.
- Technology without ownership fails — breaking vendor capture
The second major theme focused on how governments build and maintain technology and the structural problems created when they outsource too much. Pahlka argued that implementation decisions embedded in code and user interfaces are themselves policy choices, determining who receives benefits and how. Yet governments frequently hand these decisions to vendors, weakening their own capacity. She recounted a striking example: a government leader built a simple website in about an hour, while a vendor proposed charging $8 million for the same functionality. For her, this encapsulated vendor capture and the consequences of a system that lacks the in-house expertise and authority to challenge unreasonable proposals.
To overcome this, Pahlka urged governments to move from a project model to a product model — one that aligns budgeting, staffing, oversight, and decision-making around long-term stewardship rather than one-off procurements. Moynihan echoed this, noting that the metaphor of “make or buy” misleads policymakers into thinking capacity can be purchased off the shelf. As he put it, to change a product, the government must understand and own it at a fundamental level. Both speakers suggested that procurement reform, internal technical capability, and political willingness to confront entrenched vendor interests are essential to rebuilding technological capacity in the public sector.
- State capacity begins with people and civil service reform is essential
The final theme emphasized that people are the foundation of state capacity. When asked what worries her most, Pahlka pointed to the civil service system itself, which has not been substantially reformed since 1978. She noted that when she asks groups of civil servants which foundational element matters most for reform, one answer consistently stands out: “the people.” This reflects structural issues: slow hiring processes, rigid job classifications, limited mobility, and performance systems that make it difficult to reward excellence or manage persistent underperformance. Many talented public servants, she observed, are constrained not by ability but by misaligned roles and outdated processes.
Moynihan added that these systemic weaknesses now interact with heightened politicization, making public service less appealing for the next generation. Concerns about job stability and shifts in administrative priorities discourage young talent from joining government at the very moment they are most needed. Looking ahead, Pahlka argued that future public servants must be equipped not just to navigate the existing system but to change it — often by identifying which constraints are statutory, regulatory, or merely habitual, and by using new tools to reinterpret and simplify them. Moynihan encouraged students to enter government now, arguing that those who do so during periods of institutional uncertainty will have the opportunity “to play some role in shaping that outcome.” Together, the panelists made clear that any vision for inclusive economic transformation must begin with rebuilding the workforce that sustains the state.
