Shutting Down Isn't Reform: How Public-Private Partnerships Let Us Strip Down Government Smarter

Cutting government waste sounds like common sense, but the federal grant freeze enacted under the Trump administration, promised as a way to “cut back unnecessary spending,” proves to be far more complicated. The decision wasn’t merely an administrative pause, it was a political band-aid put in place of thoughtful reform. If we truly believe in stripping down to rebuild, then we must choose precision over reckless elimination.

Shutdowns can be seen as bureaucracy’s version of an impulse control failure, stopping operations in response to political pressure rather than strategic planning.. One example is the 35-day shutdown of 2018–2019, which was the longest in U.S. history. The Congressional Budget Office estimated it reduced fourth-quarter GDP by three billion dollars and slowed first-quarter output even further. In Washington, D.C., the economic impact amounted to seven percent of regional GDP, affecting programs, furloughing workers, and creating a wide range of delays on local businesses. Beyond the economy, families who rely on federal nutrition programs had their benefits suspended, small universities lost grant support, and scientific research projects lost their funding, leaving careers upended. These are not strategic trims, but rather indiscriminate freezes that halt our nation’s progress.

One proposed solution to the disruptions caused by shutdowns is decentralization. This proposes shifting certain federal programs to block grants, allowing states to manage funding distribution. Research shows that local governance can increase innovation and responsiveness. States may adjust programs to regional needs, test out new approaches, and respond more quickly than federal bureaucracies. However, the challenges that come with decentralization affect states' varying abilities to handle complex programs, which could lead to inefficiencies. While decentralization offers flexibility and smoother transitions at the state level, it may also cause service disruptions during the government transitions. Congress may struggle to implement such policies, as concerns about fairness and consistency across states can block bipartisan support. The Government Accountability Office consistently flags expired funds, administrative burdens, and uneven capacity across jurisdictions. A state with a strong infrastructure may thrive under a block grant, while a state lacking resources can collapse, leaving vulnerable communities without support. In practice, decentralization can create discrepancies. The answer cannot be mere redistribution of responsibility — it must be strategic reform.

This reform could take the shape of Public-Private Partnerships. PPPs advocate for partnering with the private sector to manage non-essential government services, increasing efficiency and reducing wasteful spending. By privatizing areas like IT, administration, and facility management, market forces could improve performance and reduce redundancies. Performance-based funding incentivizes accountability and innovation while avoiding mass layoffs, promoting forward-looking policies. Meta-analyses suggest that well-governed PPPs can deliver projects around twenty percent faster and at fifteen percent lower cost, by utilizing market-driven innovation and performance-based models. In healthcare and infrastructure, PPPs have improved access and quality while managing budgets more effectively. Hospitals that contracted support services through PPPs saw reduced patient wait times and increased equipment uptime. Administrative functions in some city governments have improved efficiency when managed through competitive partnerships, with staff retrained for higher-value roles rather than being laid off entirely. It is key to have strong contracts that include accountability and identify clearly assigned roles, shared risk, and built-in flexibility.

However, the negative risks of PPPs can obscure public obligations and externalize risks.  Therefore, downsizing must come with precautions. Contracts must tie payments to measurable performance. Transparency is non-negotiable, including public audits, open procurement, and accessible reporting. If a program consistently underperforms or wastes resources, leadership must choose to either overhaul, restructure, or retire. Governance literature emphasizes that resilient PPP projects stem from institutional integrity and long-term commitments, all factors that preserve public value. Effective oversight ensures that private expertise serves the public interest rather than becoming a cost-shifting mechanism or profit-first venture.

Another priority is the communities that lean heavily on government services. Stripping those resources away to create a leaner budget would appear to save money in the short term but ultimately generates greater costs, causing a false economy. We must avoid a new framing that conflates efficiency with obsolescence. Cutting waste does not have to mean sidelining safety and security. PPPs can free up government resources to focus on essential programs to ensure that the most vulnerable populations receive uninterrupted care and support. This can be done by using private sector partners for non-critical operations while maintaining strong public oversight of essential services like Social Security, veterans’ benefits, and public health initiatives.

Shutdowns demonstrate why the government requires smarter, more deliberate reform strategies. Economists rely on timely data to make decisions, and shutdowns disrupt that critical flow. During the 2018–2019 closure, agencies like the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Census Bureau paused data collection, leaving policymakers and analysts without the information needed to respond to economic shifts or public health needs. When this occurs, the data pipelines freeze, federal dollars are spent less efficiently, and local programs suffer. These disruptions ripple through the economy and through society. The government should not default to freezing itself when inefficiencies arise — instead, it should design mechanisms that cut waste without stopping services, to ensure that reform is transparent and efficient. But we can do better. We should advocate for policies that dismantle wisely and rebuild with intention. Ensuring decentralization where local systems demonstrate strength and privatize when market performance brings measurable and observable value. And we can advance transparency and accountability in areas of government where they currently feel out of reach. That is how a government becomes lean but not hollow. By harnessing PPPs responsibly and reinforcing oversight, we can create a smarter, more effective government. One that is capable of serving its citizens in a rapidly changing world without resorting to complete shutdowns. The path forward is not through halting all activity, but instead it is through thoughtful restructuring that strengthens both efficiency and public trust.

DomesticSophia BaezComment