Elon Musk has long been a disruptor, challenging industry norms from electric vehicles to space exploration. His latest target: government inefficiency. Musk has taken to social media to call out the bureaucratic inefficiencies that plague public institutions and to advocate for applying private-sector performance standards to government operations. In a recent post on X, he said, “Just apply the same standards to public vs. private workforce. Fair rules for all.”
Musk’s call for government accountability resonates in an ongoing debate: Should public institutions operate under the same performance and efficiency expectations as private companies? While the idea of streamlining government operations may appeal to American taxpayers—53% of whom believe the federal government does too much and is inefficient—it also raises significant concerns about job security, equity, and the overall purpose of public service.
Government inefficiency is a serious concern. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report shows that waste, fraud, and bureaucratic redundancy costs taxpayers billions annually. Musk argues that government inefficiency stems from a lack of performance-based accountability—a sharp contrast to the private sector, where businesses are compelled to operate efficiently or risk going bankrupt. The private industry often relies on a rational decision-making model, ensuring that accountability and efficiency drive operations.
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), established through an executive order by President Donald Trump and led by appointed director Musk, has attracted widespread public interest. With a public-voted “league table” ranking agencies by efficiency, Musk positions this as a tool for transparency in federal spending.
Experts at the Harvard Kennedy School think private companies thrive on efficiency and cost-cutting, but public institutions operate under a different mandate—ensuring fairness, accessibility, and social equity. Unlike businesses, government agencies serve populations that may not be profitable to assist, such as low-income families or veterans needing specialized care.
The question is whether a smaller government is inherently more efficient than a larger one. In an interview between myself and Vanderbilt University Distinguished Professor David E. Lewis, he stated that “The goal isn’t to make the government more efficient, it’s to stop the government from doing things that they don’t like.”
Professor Lewis advocates for a more measured approach to government reform, and when I asked him about handling a larger agency like IRS, he added that “the preferred method with the IRS would be to try pilot projects with different technologies to sort of get more information before making a massive transformation and the reason for that is that the costs of mistakes in government are incredibly high.”
This measured approach acknowledges his observation that unlike private companies where “if a company goes out of business in the U.S. it goes out of business the market will replace it,” government exists precisely “because there isn’t a market for those kinds of activities.”
“When they try to reduce the size of the public sector workforce, they are acting in a way consistent with their philosophy,” said Vanderbilt University Distinguished Professor Daniel Cornfield in a recent interview with The Plain Dealer.
Musk supports a smaller workforce, believing it to be more efficient, effective, and capable of offering greater control over operations—an approach that aligns with his broader push for streamlined government reform in the public sector. While applying private-sector efficiency metrics to public institutions holds potential, there is a concern that it could undermine essential social goals on a larger scale.
However, it’s still too early to make definitive conclusions, especially given the unique nature of public service, which prioritizes societal welfare over profit-driven outcomes. A historical example is the privatization of public utilities in the 1990s, which increased rates and limited access for low-income families. If Musk’s framework is adopted without safeguards, similar consequences could follow.
A major concern with Musk’s approach is its potential impact on public employees. Introducing corporate-style performance metrics could increase job insecurity, pushing public servants to meet unrealistic efficiency targets. Conversely, reducing the inefficient workforce could save agencies on extra expenses, which is beneficial.
Musk’s approach could significantly reduce government waste, saving American taxpayers billions of dollars a year. McKinsey & Company reports that public-private partnerships can help the federal government reduce cost overruns and improve efficiency by 20-30%. Taxpayers could see financial benefits if similar accountability measures were applied across agencies.
The 119th Congress hearing on “Rightsizing Government” prioritized greater transparency in federal spending. This goal aligns with Musk’s league tables ranking government efficiency, which could pressure agencies to improve operations and eliminate unnecessary spending.
Further, prioritizing efficiency over long-term social value could lead to short-term cost-cutting measures that harm vulnerable populations. A question remains unanswered: How do we ensure accountability without sacrificing accessibility?
A middle-ground approach is necessary to bridge the gap between Musk’s decision-making process and public concerns. DOGE took a data-driven decision-making approach and technological advancements to enhance efficiency without compromising public welfare.
One proposal includes hybrid efficiency models, in which government agencies maintain oversight while integrating private-sector innovations. For example, Estonia’s digital government initiative has reduced bureaucratic inefficiencies without privatizing core public services.
Instead of solely adopting corporate accountability metrics, policymakers should design performance-based models tailored for public service, balancing efficiency with the need for universal access.
Musk’s initiative to apply private-sector standards to government institutions has brought a public debate on efficiency, accountability, and social responsibility. While public-sector inefficiencies undeniably exist, government agencies serve functions that cannot be reduced to corporate-style productivity metrics.
Efficiency and accessibility must be weighed together. Can public institutions be streamlined without undermining their role in ensuring social equity? Musk’s challenge to bureaucracy is valuable, but reform must be carefully structured to uphold accountability and public service.
