The Market And Startup- Approach in Politics

The "market approach" in politics, when done correctly, can be beneficial - it can lead to:

• Increased Citizen Engagement: By treating citizens as customers and political parties as competing businesses, the market approach can incentivize politicians to be more responsive to the needs and desires of the people.

• Improved Efficiency and Accountability: Just as businesses strive to be efficient and profitable, a market-oriented approach to politics can encourage governments to be more efficient and accountable in their use of public resources.

• Greater Innovation: Competition in the marketplace can lead to innovation and the development of new and better products and services. Similarly, competition in the political arena can lead to new and innovative policy ideas.

A "tech approach" could further enhance politics is intriguing even more. Here are some ways technology could revolutionize the political landscape:

• Enhanced Citizen Participation: Online platforms can facilitate citizen input on policy issues, enabling more direct and deliberative forms of democracy.

• Data-Driven Decision Making: Governments can leverage data analytics to better understand citizen needs, track the effectiveness of policies, and allocate resources more efficiently.

• Increased Transparency and Accountability: Technology can make government operations more transparent, allowing citizens to track spending, monitor the progress of legislation, and hold elected officials accountable.

• Personalized Political Engagement: AI-powered tools can tailor political messaging and information to individual citizens, potentially increasing their interest and participation in the political process.

While the integration of market and tech principles into politics holds immense potential, it's essential to address potential challenges:

• Digital Divide: Ensuring equitable access to technology for all citizens is crucial to avoid exacerbating existing inequalities.

• Data Privacy and Security: Protecting citizen data from misuse and ensuring the security of online platforms is paramount.

• Misinformation and Polarization: The spread of misinformation and the use of technology to manipulate public opinion are serious concerns that must be addressed.

• Algorithmic Bias: Algorithms used in political processes must be carefully designed and monitored to avoid perpetuating existing biases.

I believe that by embracing market principles and leveraging the power of technology, we can create a more responsive, efficient, and engaging political system. However, it's crucial to proceed thoughtfully and address the potential challenges to ensure that these approaches benefit all citizens and strengthen our democracy.

1. The “Democratization” Frame and its Political Implications Tech companies often claim they’re “democratizing” an industry, meaning they’re lowering barriers to entry, giving more people access to tools or services previously restricted to a few players. In politics, this could mean:

• Lowering Barriers to Participation: Just as a platform might make it easier for small businesses to sell their goods online, a political system could be designed to make it far easier for citizens to meaningfully engage. Instead of relying solely on periodic elections or traditional town halls, imagine platforms for continuous policy discussion, direct proposal creation, and iterative feedback loops—akin to GitHub for legislation, or crowdfunding platforms for local public projects.

• Expanding the Range of Political Offerings: Startups flood a market with countless variations on a theme—whether new fintech products or AI-driven services. Similarly, a more “technological” political ecosystem might allow for a wider range of policy experiments, micro-pilots, and localized initiatives. By making it cheaper, simpler, and less risky to experiment with policy on small scales, we might encourage more creativity and “product diversity” in the political landscape.

• Increasing Quality Through Competition: In technology markets, competition often drives improvements in user experience and quality of support. A political environment designed to foster a market-like plurality of policy proposals could increase the competition for citizens’ attention and support. In theory, this competition could lead to more responsive political “service providers” (be they parties, representatives, or policy advocates), who must keep refining their platforms to maintain trust and engagement.

2. Overcoming the Critique of the “Market Approach” in Politics Critics argue that treating politics like a market turns citizens into consumers rather than engaged stakeholders. But a “technological approach” could modify this framing. Instead of citizens as “consumers,” think of them as “co-developers” or “co-producers” of policy solutions:

• Open-Source Governance: Borrowing from the open-source ethos, imagine policy proposals as open repositories of ideas where citizens and experts can contribute, comment on, and refine drafts. This process is inherently participatory, potentially overcoming the passivity that comes from a purely consumerist model.

• Agile Governance: Tech companies are known for agile methodologies—iterative development, constant feedback, rapid prototyping. Applying these methods to policymaking would mean that instead of locking into a four-year plan and trudging through it regardless of unforeseen obstacles, governments could adapt more readily, revisiting initiatives at defined intervals, incorporating public input, and “pushing out updates” regularly.

• Platforms for Idea Testing: Much as product designers conduct A/B tests, policymakers could test smaller interventions in controlled environments before scaling them up. This data-driven approach might reassure skeptics that decisions are informed by measurable impacts rather than abstract ideology. This could mitigate some of the criticism by grounding “market-like” competition in evidence-based improvements rather than purely brand-driven promises.

3. Expanding Political Imagination Through Technology-Inspired Models The tech sector’s ethos—disruption, innovation, and risk-taking—could help break political stagnation. For instance:

• Incubators and Accelerators for Policy Innovation: Just as startup accelerators offer mentorship, resources, and networking opportunities to entrepreneurs, one could imagine “policy accelerators” that gather civic groups, subject-matter experts, and government representatives to work through new policy proposals and bring them to a stage where they can be trialed.

• User-Centered Design in Public Policy: Tech product design is obsessed with understanding the user’s journey and pain points. A similar approach in policymaking would mean deep ethnographic research to understand citizens’ lived experiences and co-design policies that directly address real needs. This can expand political imagination by rooting it in nuanced, human-centered perspectives rather than top-down assumptions.

• Global Public Infrastructure as a Service: Thinking in terms of platforms, could governments create reusable policy frameworks or digital infrastructure that other regions or municipalities can adopt and adapt? Similar to how a common coding framework or an open-source tool spreads globally, this might foster a more networked and scalable approach to good governance.

4. The Potential Downside: Avoiding Technological Determinism We must acknowledge potential pitfalls. Tech-inspired approaches could inadvertently:

• Reduce Complex Social Issues to Techno-Solutions: Not all problems can be solved by a neat “app” or platform. Nuanced governance issues need context, empathy, and sometimes political courage rather than a quick user interface fix.

• Favor the Digitally Savvy Over Others: If new participation tools rely heavily on digital proficiency, we risk privileging younger, more tech-literate segments of the population. Accessibility and inclusion must be central design principles.

• Over-Emphasis on Speed and Iteration: Some policies need careful deliberation, consensus-building, and stability. Iterative or “disruptive” approaches might introduce too much uncertainty.

A Hybrid Approach The value might lie not in wholesale adoption of the market or technological models but in selectively borrowing practices that enhance participation, transparency, adaptability, and evidence-driven decision-making. Just as startups transform industries by lowering barriers, injecting competition, and focusing on user experience, politics could similarly transform by adapting these frameworks in a way that respects democratic values, social equity, and the long-term well-being of citizens.

In short, taking the best from the “market” and “tech” approaches—openness, innovation, continuous improvement, user-centricity—and shaping them into tools for political imagination could indeed reinvigorate public life. Instead of fearing that these approaches “depoliticize” citizens, we could hope that by making engagement more accessible, more interesting, and more responsive, we reconnect people with the political process in genuinely meaningful ways.

The "be like Steve Jobs" mentality in politics

The "be like Steve Jobs" mentality in politics can be detrimental. It often leads to grandiose, unproven plans that fail to address the real, on-the-ground needs of citizens. Even in the tech world, innovation is often built on a foundation of successful existing models. The "Chinese approach" to political development is compelling:

1. Identify Best Practices: Instead of reinventing the wheel, look for successful examples of public services, policies, or initiatives in other countries. Don't limit this to just Western democracies; explore solutions from around the world.

2. Replicate and Adapt: Learn how those successful models work, and adapt them to the specific context of your country. This will involve understanding the underlying principles, processes, and institutions that contribute to their success.

3. Iterate and Improve: Don't expect perfection from the start. Implement pilot projects, gather data, and continuously refine the approach based on real-world feedback.

4. Innovate and Scale: Once a successful model is established, explore ways to innovate and improve upon it. This is where the "Steve Jobs" vision can come into play, but only after a solid foundation has been built.

Benefits of this approach:

• Reduced Risk: By adopting proven solutions, you minimize the risk of costly failures associated with untested, grand schemes.

• Faster Implementation: Learning from existing models can significantly accelerate the implementation of effective policies and services.

• Increased Public Trust: Demonstrating tangible improvements based on successful examples can build public trust and confidence in the government.

• Focus on Practical Solutions: This approach shifts the focus from ideological debates to practical solutions that address real-world problems.

Examples:

• Urban Planning: Learn from cities like Copenhagen (cycling infrastructure), Singapore (public housing), or Curitiba (bus rapid transit system) to address urban challenges.

• Social Welfare: Study the social safety nets of countries like Sweden or Finland to develop more effective welfare programs.

• Electoral Systems: Explore different voting systems used in countries like New Zealand or Ireland to improve electoral processes.

This approach is not about blindly copying everything. It's about identifying specific "features" that work well in other contexts and adapting them to your own needs. It's about learning from the successes (and failures) of others to build a better future. I love how this framework encourages a more pragmatic and evidence-based approach to political development. It's a refreshing alternative to the often-abstract and ideological debates that dominate the political landscape.

The “Chinese Approach”: Learn by Copying First, Then Innovate

This logic mirrors the development trajectory of many Asian economies — particularly China — where the early stages of industrial and technological growth involved adopting best practices, reverse-engineering successful products, and importing proven models. Only after mastering the fundamentals and building robust supply chains, institutional structures, and know-how did these countries start innovating on their own terms and surpassing the origins of their borrowed ideas.

In politics, the notion is that you don’t have to draft an entire comprehensive blueprint like you’re drawing up a constitution from scratch. Instead, look at individual modules of successful governance from around the world and transplant them, piece by piece, into your local context.

Reverse Engineering and Idealistic Design

My reflection introduces a powerful methodology often observed in tech and innovative business models: starting with the ideal outcome and working backward, rather than incrementally improving an existing system. This approach, sometimes described as "reverse engineering the future," avoids the trap of getting stuck in incremental thinking—like piling more horses into a carriage rather than imagining the automobile.

1. Beyond Incrementalism The linear improvement mindset can lock you into merely refining what already exists, missing the radical possibilities that might lie beyond the current framework. In politics or public administration, this might mean simply making a bureaucratic process slightly faster or cheaper, rather than rethinking the entire structure of service delivery. It’s a bit like looking at a complicated filing system and deciding to color-code the folders instead of asking: “Do we even need physical files at all?”

2. The Ideal Use Case as a North Star When tech companies design a product, they often start by envisioning a perfect user experience—no friction, instant access, intuitive interfaces, low costs. They ask: What would a user’s ideal day look like if there were no constraints? By starting at the endpoint, they force themselves to consider what back-end changes, new technologies, policy shifts, or organizational structures need to be developed to achieve that outcome. This is the opposite of starting from “we have this technology, how do we make it slightly better?” Instead, it’s “we need it to feel like this for the user—now what do we need to build or rebuild to get there?”

3. Applying Reverse Engineering to Government Services Imagine applying the same approach to a government service—like obtaining a driver’s license, starting a business, or getting a pension. Instead of tinkering at the edges (longer office hours, simpler forms), ask: “In an ideal world, how would this experience look?” Maybe the answer is instant verification, minimal or zero paperwork, and digital self-service on any device. The next step is to reverse-engineer the entire administrative and legal architecture to support that vision. You’d identify outdated laws, legacy IT systems, or complicated approval chains that need to be replaced or rethought.

4. Lessons From IKEA’s Constraint-Driven Design IKEA’s founder, Ingvar Kamprad, famously flipped the furniture design process. Instead of starting with materials and craftsmanship and then pricing accordingly, he began by setting the target price point that an average family could afford and the margin the company needed. Designers then had to use their creativity and innovation to achieve something cool and functional within those constraints. This is a kind of reverse engineering: start with the ideal endpoint (a fully furnished home at a certain budget) and deduce what needs to happen (materials, packaging, designs) to make that scenario real.

5. Innovation by Constraints and Imagination In both tech and IKEA’s approach, the “ideal scenario” acts as a form of radical constraint. For tech, the constraint might be instantaneous, free financial transfers—so figure out how to build a system that supports that. For IKEA, the constraint is a fixed cost ceiling—so figure out how to design within that budget. For governments, it might be: “A person can register a business in under five minutes, from their phone, and at no cost.” Once you set such a vision, you force the system to bend and adapt to meet it, rather than accept incremental improvements as the limit.

6. Empowering Creativity and Cross-Disciplinary Input Hiring people from outside the industry—another tactic you mentioned—helps avoid “professional deformation,” where experts are too anchored in the current constraints to conceive of something drastically different. In policy, bringing in social entrepreneurs, technologists, behavioral scientists, and service designers can help imagine a system free from the gravity of legacy institutions. Their fresh perspective challenges conventional wisdom and opens the door for breakthroughs.

7. From Vision to Execution: Of course, the journey from idealized scenario to real-world implementation is complex. It involves identifying each barrier and systematically tackling it. This might mean passing new legislation, digitizing records, training civil servants in new systems, or changing accountability measures. But because the endpoint is clear and ambitious, each backward step is guided by a purpose. You’re not making random improvements—you’re making changes that inch you closer to the ideal.

concept of "technical debt" in public administration

The concept of "technical debt" in the software world has a striking parallel in public administration. Over time, laws, regulations, and institutions accumulate "legacy debt" – outdated practices, entrenched interests, and complex dependencies that hinder progress and adaptation. Just like a startup needs to occasionally rewrite its codebase from scratch to eliminate technical debt and embrace new technologies, societies may need to periodically re-examine their fundamental structures and "rewrite" their social contract to address evolving needs and challenges.

Clinging to the past can be a significant impediment to progress. The fear of losing what we have, the attachment to tradition, and the resistance to change can prevent us from envisioning and building a better future. Navalny's example is telling. While his critiques of the current system are valid, perhaps his focus on fixing what's wrong within the existing framework limits the scope of his vision.

My call for a "clean slate" approach is bold and thought-provoking. It challenges us to break free from the constraints of history and imagine a society built from the ground up, based on principles of justice, equality, and sustainability. Here are some key takeaways from my analysis:

• Acknowledge Legacy Debt: Recognize that existing systems carry baggage that can hinder progress.

• Embrace Disruptive Innovation: Don't be afraid to challenge the status quo and reimagine fundamental structures.

• Start with a Clean Slate: Envision the ideal society without being constrained by the past.

• Focus on First Principles: Base the new system on fundamental values and principles, not on historical precedents.

• Be Agile and Adaptive: Build a system that can adapt to changing circumstances and embrace future innovations.

This approach requires courage, vision, and a willingness to let go of the past. It's not about erasing history, but about learning from it and building upon it to create a better future.

the "toothbrush" analogy

It encapsulates the importance of starting small and focused, especially when embarking on ambitious endeavors like societal change - I'm trying to tackle everything at once is a recipe for disaster. It's like trying to build a skyscraper without first laying a solid foundation.

Politicians often fall into the trap of trying to be all things to all people, promising grand solutions to every problem. But as you pointed out, what truly builds trust and momentum is demonstrating competence and delivering results, even if it's just in one specific area. The "toothbrush" approach offers several advantages:

• Focus and Clarity: It forces you to prioritize and focus on what's most important.

• Tangible Results: It allows you to demonstrate tangible benefits early on, building credibility and momentum.

• Iterative Improvement: It provides a platform for learning and iteration, allowing you to refine your approach based on real-world feedback.

• Scalability: Once you have a successful "toothbrush," you can gradually add new features and services, expanding the scope of your impact.

For politicians, this could mean:

• Focusing on a specific policy area: Instead of promising sweeping reforms, focus on delivering concrete improvements in one area, like education, healthcare, or infrastructure.

• Piloting innovative solutions: Implement pilot projects to test new approaches and demonstrate their effectiveness.

• Building trust through transparency: Communicate clearly about the goals, progress, and challenges of the "toothbrush" initiative.

By demonstrating competence and delivering results in one area, politicians can build trust and credibility, paving the way for broader systemic change.

Applying the MVP Mindset to Politics

The lesson here is: political innovators should embrace the incremental, MVP-style approach. Instead of unveiling a massive reform package or rewriting the entire governance code from day one, pick one domain where positive impact is both achievable and demonstrable. Show the world your “toothbrush.” If that simple starting point works, it can serve as a foundation for more ambitious projects.

In short, don’t try to answer every question at once or reshape the entire political landscape overnight. Start with a single, tangible improvement that proves your capability. This approach can create the trust and momentum needed to tackle bigger reforms over time.

Building Governance Like a Startup

I’ve drawn a (hope, that sharp) parallel between startup methodology and political innovation: both involve a grand vision of the future, but the route to that future involves starting small, focusing on a specific set of customers (or constituents), and delivering a minimum viable service. In startups, it’s common sense. In politics, it’s not yet the norm—but it could be, and it might just break the cycle of overpromising and underdelivering.

1. Vision vs. Plan A startup typically has a grand vision—how it will redefine an industry, what massive market it aims to serve—yet it doesn’t start by trying to capture that entire market at once. Instead, it defines a very small segment and a minimal product to validate. Similarly, a political movement can have a long-term vision of a better society but doesn’t need a fully articulated top-to-bottom plan for achieving it. The world is too dynamic to rely on big, rigid blueprints. Instead, what’s needed is an evolving roadmap: short sprints, tangible goals, and the courage to say, “We’re only focusing on this group and this problem right now. We’ll prove we can do this well, then we’ll scale up.”

2. Identifying Your First “Unit” In a startup, the “unit” might be the first 100 customers in a single city using a stripped-down feature set. In politics, the “unit” could be a single municipality, a neighborhood, a demographic group, or a targeted issue. For example, rather than trying to fix national healthcare all at once, focus on a single clinic or a pilot program addressing a narrowly defined health concern for a specific population. Show you can improve outcomes there.

3. Know Your Early Adopters Startups know exactly who their early adopters are: a certain kind of user who desperately needs the solution, is willing to try something new, and will give feedback. Politicians often try to be “everything to everyone,” losing the sharpness and loyalty that come from targeting a well-defined base with a particular problem that can be solved now. A politician-innovator might say: “We’re focusing on young families in this district who need childcare solutions.” By delivering meaningful improvements for this defined group, they create a proof point. This might alienate some who aren’t in that group—but that’s okay. Just as startups accept that not everyone is their customer right away, political innovators can accept that not everyone will be thrilled at first. Real trust and credibility come from delivering tangible results to a specific audience.

4. Sprints, Not Marathons In the startup world, development happens in sprints—short, focused bursts of building, testing, and iterating. Politicians could adopt a similar rhythm. Instead of promising to “solve education nationwide” in a vague, open-ended process, commit to a short sprint: “Within six months, we’ll partner with three local schools to implement a new tutoring program and measure its impact.” At the end of those six months, assess what happened. If it worked, expand. If not, revise and try again. This incremental, test-and-learn approach is more agile and transparent than vague, all-encompassing reform agendas.

5. Embracing the Courage to Disappoint Some, For Now Startups don’t fear telling non-target customers, “We’re not building for you right now.” Politicians could say, “In this first phase, we’re focusing on a particular set of problems and people. We know others have needs too, but if we spread ourselves too thin, we’ll solve nothing well.” This honesty is rare in politics but could differentiate new political actors from the traditional players. It sets realistic expectations and can build stronger, more authentic trust. The goal isn’t to ignore the rest forever, but to establish momentum, credibility, and a pattern of delivering on promises before scaling up.

6. Scaling Bottom-Up: Once you’ve proven success in one unit or with one group, you can ask for “investment”—in politics, that might mean broader public support, more volunteers, philanthropic funding, or political capital—to expand your model. You can go deeper (adding new features and services to the community you’ve already served) or go broader (replicating the solution in other regions or for other groups). By the time you scale, you’re not selling a dream; you’re showing a record of results.

Linking Vision and Operations

None of this rules out having a grand vision. The best startups have a distant North Star—a larger ambition for how they want to transform the industry. Governments, too, can aspire to large-scale social improvements, but the day-to-day work is about running experiments, scaling what works, cutting what doesn’t, and continuously improving “product-market fit” between citizens’ needs and state services. Over time, these small successes stack up and gradually push the system toward the grander vision.

• Break the state into distinct services and treat them like product lines.

• Decide which services truly belong under state responsibility and which can be let go.

• Start small with pilot units to prove that your new approach works in practice.

• Use clear metrics and measurable outcomes—like cost, speed, reliability, user satisfaction—to judge success.

• Scale incrementally, funding growth step-by-step, and accept that some pilots fail.

• Maintain a flexible vision, not an inflexible master plan.

• Over time, these incremental successes replace the old, legacy-ridden system with a more responsive, citizen-centered form of governance.

By approaching public administration in the same iterative, data-driven, customer-focused way that tech innovators approach building products, new politicians and government officials can foster genuine, lasting change—without getting lost in the impossible task of solving everything at once from the top down. Separating the "what" from the "how" is crucial for effective governance. I'm proposing a decoupling of:

1. Policy/Politics (Vision): Defining the overall goals and direction of society. This is where the big picture vision and long-term aspirations are articulated.

2. Politics/Struggle for Power: The process of gaining and exercising political power to implement the chosen vision. This involves elections, political parties, and the competition for leadership.

3. State Administration/Service Delivery: The actual implementation of policies and the provision of public services. This involves the day-to-day operations of government agencies and the delivery of services like education, healthcare, and security.

My emphasis on decomposing the state into discrete services is key. By separating these functions, we can:

• Focus on outcomes: Evaluate the effectiveness of government based on the quality of services delivered, rather than political rhetoric or ideology.

• Promote accountability: Hold those responsible for service delivery accountable for their performance.

• Encourage innovation: Allow for experimentation and competition in the delivery of public services.

• Empower citizens: Give citizens a greater voice in shaping the services they receive.

This allows for a more granular and measurable assessment of government performance. Each service can be evaluated based on clear metrics:

• Accessibility: How easy is it for citizens to access the service?

• Affordability: How much does the service cost?

• Quality: How well does the service meet the needs of citizens?

• Customer service: How responsive and helpful are the service providers?

This approach encourages a customer-centric mindset in government, where citizens are treated as clients and services are designed to meet their needs. My suggestion of identifying core services and potentially outsourcing others is also worth exploring - this could lead to:

• Increased efficiency: Private companies may be able to deliver certain services more efficiently than government agencies.

• Reduced costs: Competition in the marketplace could drive down the cost of service delivery.

• Improved quality: Citizens may have more choice and better quality services if they are not limited to government providers.

Of course, careful consideration must be given to which services are suitable for outsourcing and how to ensure accountability and quality control.

P.S. A Lean, Iterative Approach to Politics

My observations suggest a radical shift in how political programs are formed, communicated, and implemented. Rather than treating governance as a centuries-old institution to be modified incrementally, treat it like a technology product in a fast-moving market: test small, scale quickly, discard legacy baggage, and be unapologetically user (citizen) focused.

This approach could potentially re-energize political imagination and citizen engagement. By delivering tangible results promptly, and not being afraid to admit that not everyone will be served at first, it contrasts starkly with the traditional political model of top-down grand schemes and hollow promises. Instead, it offers a path to building trust and legitimacy over time—service by service, sprint by sprint—just as successful startups win customers by building the simplest, best product they can and gradually expanding from there.

1. "Democratizing" Politics:

I'm spot on about the potential of a "technological approach" to make politics more accessible and responsive to citizens. Imagine a world where:

• Digital platforms facilitate citizen engagement: People could propose policies, vote on initiatives, and provide feedback to their representatives in real-time.

• AI-powered tools enhance transparency and accountability: Algorithms could track campaign finance, analyze legislation for potential biases, and even flag potential conflicts of interest.

• Data-driven decision-making becomes the norm: Policies are crafted based on real-time data and citizen feedback, not just ideology or guesswork.

2. The "Chinese Approach" to Political Innovation:

Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, why not learn from what works in other countries? This "reverse engineering" approach could be incredibly valuable. Here's how it might work:

• Identify best practices: Study successful policies and programs from around the world, focusing on specific issues like homelessness, education, or healthcare.

• Adapt and implement: Tailor these solutions to the local context, piloting them in smaller units before scaling up.

• Continuous improvement: Gather data, analyze results, and iterate on these programs to optimize their effectiveness.

3. "Reverse Engineering" Ideal Use Cases:

Imagine starting with a vision of an ideal future and then working backward to figure out how to get there. For instance:

• Imagine a society with zero poverty: What policies, programs, and technologies would be needed to achieve this?

• Envision a world with universal healthcare: How could the current healthcare system be reimagined to make this a reality?

4. The "Legacy Problem" in Government:

Governments often get bogged down in outdated systems and "technical debt." A fresh start could be beneficial in some areas, but it's crucial to balance this with the need for stability and continuity. Perhaps a hybrid approach could work:

• Identify outdated systems: Analyze existing laws, regulations, and institutions to pinpoint areas ripe for disruption.

• Create parallel systems: Develop and pilot new approaches alongside existing ones, allowing for a gradual transition.

• Sunset legacy systems: Phase out old systems as new ones prove their effectiveness.

5. "Quick & Dirty" - Start with the Toothbrush:

Focusing on a single, well-executed service is a great way to build momentum and demonstrate competence. This "toothbrush" could be anything from a streamlined digital ID system to a pilot program for affordable housing.

6. Unit Economics and Scale:

This is a crucial point. Governments need to think about the "unit economics" of their services - how much does it cost to deliver a particular service to a specific group of people? This will help them determine which services to prioritize and how to scale them effectively.

7. Defining the "Customer" and the "Sprint":

Politicians often try to be everything to everyone, which can lead to diluted efforts and unmet expectations. Instead, they should:

• Identify their target audience: Who are they trying to reach with their policies and programs?

• Set clear goals for each "sprint": Focus on achievable objectives within a specific timeframe, rather than promising to fix everything at once.

Decomposing the State and Outsourcing

Breaking down the state into individual services and outsourcing those that can be better delivered by the private sector is an intriguing idea. This could lead to increased efficiency and improved service quality. My ideas are thought-provoking and offer a valuable framework for reimagining how governments operate. By adopting principles from the tech startup world, such as "reverse engineering," "unit economics," and "sprints," governments can become more agile, innovative, and responsive to the needs of their citizens.

The essence of my reflection is about importing the lean, iterative, vision-driven methodologies of startups into the political and public administration realm. Instead of huge, top-down reforms, we might try small, well-defined policy experiments. Instead of being paralyzed by legacy systems, we might adopt the courage to start from scratch and design governance as if it were a new product. Instead of pleasing everyone, focus first on a particular unit and demonstrate value there, then scale. By thinking like tech innovators—focusing on MVPs, sprints, user experience, and disruptive innovation—we may find fresh paths to political renewal and effective administration. It’s a provocative and refreshing angle. Will it work in the messy real world of entrenched interests and complex historical legacies? Hard to say. But it certainly provides a more flexible, experimental, and future-oriented framework than traditional top-down political planning. It might be exactly the kind of conceptual toolkit needed to inspire new political thinkers and practitioners.

Christensen’s “disruptive innovation” logic applies here. The political establishment, if it sticks too rigidly to legacy structures, risks being outpaced by new players or systems. Jobs’ forcing Apple to forget its past product lines and think from scratch gave birth to something new. Similarly, political actors or reformers might need to drop the baggage of historical narratives and start fresh, freed from the mental constraints of “how things must be because they’ve always been so.”