There are several ways to interpret “The government should be run like a business.” The subtleties and caveats on that statement aren’t usually considered. Instead, the statement is usually used as a cudgel to endorse parties or politicians perceived to be “pro-business” or “good businessmen.” Today I examine the assertion that government should resemble a business:
Most businesses are run for-profit. The government equivalent would be a combination of raising taxes and cutting services. Both of those are historically unpopular.
Moreover, businesses are run to benefit the people running them, not necessarily to benefit consumers. Businesses, especially small businesses, have to consider if, when and how to shut down, especially if it’s no longer working in the interest of the CEO, the stockholders, and the upper management. However, they can all try investing in different companies, shifting to other industries, or learning new skills. Similarly, the employees can try working for the business’s competitors or striking out on their own. Consumers tend to be a minor concern when shutting down a business: If there were many consumers who relied on the company as the sole source of their goods & services, and regularly spent substantial money with it, the business would have monopoly power and would be unlikely to shut down. Shutting down a government would be disastrous for both the officials and the populace as a whole. “Run the government like a business” is thus an argument for diverting more money and power to those holding office, while making them less accountable to the populace at large. Democratic and republican governments, traditionally, are run by people elected by the people, to work for the people. Peaceful, gradual change with clear & open arguments for and against, is a better way to improve the government’s operation. The corporate “move fast and break things” mentality may work if there is only a minor risk of breaking the important things. It does not work when the risks are life and death for a nation.
A privately-held company is not accountable to the public. A government should be. The CEO of a privately-held company can damage the company’s operations if he so chooses, and he need not be honest with the public about his motivations or achievements. The President of a nation should be removed from office if he places his own desires over the good of the country.
When pressed, those who argue for running a government like a business might say they just mean that it should cut waste and pay its debts. The US government has mechanisms to identify and remove waste, fraud and abuse - which the current Administration is seeking to subordinate. US law also provides protections so that officials and prosecutors don’t pad their resumes or wage personal vendettas by claiming fraud where none exists. Meanwhile, most Americans routinely overestimate government waste and spending on unpopular priorities.
Saying the government should be run like a business and declining to provide detailed, specific evidence of fraud is dishonest and takes advantage of voters’ ignorance about both business and government.