What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Government Fails So Often: And How It Can Do Better
How government can implement more successful policies, more often
From healthcare to workplace and campus conduct, the federal government is taking on ever more responsibility for managing our lives. At the same time, Americans have never been more disaffected with Washington, seeing it as an intrusive, incompetent, wasteful giant. Ineffective policies are caused by deep structural factors regardless of which party is in charge, bringing our government into ever-worsening disrepute. Understanding why government fails so often―and how it might become more effective―is a vital responsibility of citizenship.
In this book, lawyer and political scientist Peter Schuck provides a wide range of examples and an enormous body of evidence to explain why so many domestic policies go awry―and how to right the foundering ship of state. An urgent call for reform, Why Government Fails So Often is essential reading for anyone curious about why government is in such a disgraceful state and how it can do better.
From healthcare to workplace and campus conduct, the federal government is taking on ever more responsibility for managing our lives. At the same time, Americans have never been more disaffected with Washington, seeing it as an intrusive, incompetent, wasteful giant. Ineffective policies are caused by deep structural factors regardless of which party is in charge, bringing our government into ever-worsening disrepute. Understanding why government fails so often―and how it might become more effective―is a vital responsibility of citizenship.
In this book, lawyer and political scientist Peter Schuck provides a wide range of examples and an enormous body of evidence to explain why so many domestic policies go awry―and how to right the foundering ship of state. An urgent call for reform, Why Government Fails So Often is essential reading for anyone curious about why government is in such a disgraceful state and how it can do better.
488 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2014
31 people are currently reading
546 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
January 2, 2015
A lot of people will look at the title and get turned off because they think this is a screed from some conservative nutter. But Professor Shuck is far from that - he actually served in the Carter Administration and now teaches at Yale.
Several times throughout the book I was reminded of the great work of James Q. Wilson - who did a magnum opus called simply "Bureaucracy". Both books are excellent jumping off places, in Wilson's case to the functioning of bureaucracies and in Shuck's piece to figuring out why it is so tough to get government programs right. Like other books of its type there are small places where I might quibble with some of Shuck's conclusions. For example, I think his understanding of the literature of public choice economics is superficial. He tries to contrast public choice with something called public interest theory (sounds a lot like the drivel of Herbert Crowley) and the comparison falls flat. I was also a bit turned off by his constant use of ping pong like references - "as I will say in Chapter 12, or as I said in Chapter 3...." There are two other problems which I thought were a bit more important. First, at several points he seems to point to Hayek's theory of the uses of knowledge in society (and while he mentions Hakek and gives him some credit - he seems to miss the point of one of Hayek's most important papers. I am also not sure whether he leaps over inherent flaws in the human character which may prevent governments from being successful in many areas. I was also concerned that he dismissed the work of Mancur Olson on the inherent inertia that comes into democratic systems.
But those flaws are minor compared to the systematic discussion of the ranges of issues that tend to limit possibilities for success in many areas of government activity. In each of the first 10 chapters he raises a set of issues then presents examples of policy failures. His discussion of the problems with student loans, an area where I have some expertise, is excellent. He then takes the next two chapters and presents both some successes and some alternatives for reform or restructuring. The final chapter is a summation of his a couple of long term operating principles which could improve chances for success.
Let me be clear, there are some areas where professor Shuck has a lot more confidence that government can correct some flaws than I do. But his analytical discussion of the issues challenges one to think about whether those solutions are possible of desirable. At several points in the book I had to put it down to think about Shcuk's conclusions. But the compelling nature of his text made me pick it up again. As I went through it, I thought of at least a dozen doctoral dissertations or good focused books that could be written with Shuck's work as a beginning.
There is one other issue which I could not discover in searches on the net. Shuck gives a lot of credit to the scholarship of James Q. Wilson - who had a distinguished career at several major universities. I am not sure whether Shuck was ever a student of Wilson - his writing style is similar and he could have been at Harvard at the same time. Regardless, this is a book that should stand as a base for those who want to think about how to make government programs function better (which is indeed the small type at the end of the title).
Several times throughout the book I was reminded of the great work of James Q. Wilson - who did a magnum opus called simply "Bureaucracy". Both books are excellent jumping off places, in Wilson's case to the functioning of bureaucracies and in Shuck's piece to figuring out why it is so tough to get government programs right. Like other books of its type there are small places where I might quibble with some of Shuck's conclusions. For example, I think his understanding of the literature of public choice economics is superficial. He tries to contrast public choice with something called public interest theory (sounds a lot like the drivel of Herbert Crowley) and the comparison falls flat. I was also a bit turned off by his constant use of ping pong like references - "as I will say in Chapter 12, or as I said in Chapter 3...." There are two other problems which I thought were a bit more important. First, at several points he seems to point to Hayek's theory of the uses of knowledge in society (and while he mentions Hakek and gives him some credit - he seems to miss the point of one of Hayek's most important papers. I am also not sure whether he leaps over inherent flaws in the human character which may prevent governments from being successful in many areas. I was also concerned that he dismissed the work of Mancur Olson on the inherent inertia that comes into democratic systems.
But those flaws are minor compared to the systematic discussion of the ranges of issues that tend to limit possibilities for success in many areas of government activity. In each of the first 10 chapters he raises a set of issues then presents examples of policy failures. His discussion of the problems with student loans, an area where I have some expertise, is excellent. He then takes the next two chapters and presents both some successes and some alternatives for reform or restructuring. The final chapter is a summation of his a couple of long term operating principles which could improve chances for success.
Let me be clear, there are some areas where professor Shuck has a lot more confidence that government can correct some flaws than I do. But his analytical discussion of the issues challenges one to think about whether those solutions are possible of desirable. At several points in the book I had to put it down to think about Shcuk's conclusions. But the compelling nature of his text made me pick it up again. As I went through it, I thought of at least a dozen doctoral dissertations or good focused books that could be written with Shuck's work as a beginning.
There is one other issue which I could not discover in searches on the net. Shuck gives a lot of credit to the scholarship of James Q. Wilson - who had a distinguished career at several major universities. I am not sure whether Shuck was ever a student of Wilson - his writing style is similar and he could have been at Harvard at the same time. Regardless, this is a book that should stand as a base for those who want to think about how to make government programs function better (which is indeed the small type at the end of the title).
June 5, 2025
This is a pretty remarkable book. I've read a lot of public choice literature on "government failure." But I've never seen anything as comprehensive as this book. Schuck covers an impressive breadth of scholarly literature and marshals a vast array of examples, exploring the different sources and types of government failure and arguing for the rather disappointing (to many) conclusion that government's failures are deeply structural and largely unavoidable.
I learned a lot from this book, and appreciate Shuck's "militant moderation" and the non-ideological way in which he approaches the issue. I think it would make a great book for classroom use. I'm surprised that it's not better known and more widely admired for the accomplishment it is!
I learned a lot from this book, and appreciate Shuck's "militant moderation" and the non-ideological way in which he approaches the issue. I think it would make a great book for classroom use. I'm surprised that it's not better known and more widely admired for the accomplishment it is!
January 12, 2019
I honestly didn't finish this book and don't know if I'm going to be able to. I recently read an article tweeted by Steven Pinker entitled The Source of Bad Writing. You should read that paper before attempting this book.
Maybe just see (Youtube it) how delicately Jon Stewart treats talking about it.
The strategy is to lay out an assessment of federal government programs and provide an explanation of whether or not they were successful. The problem is that in doing so, every inch of the theory and methodology for doing so is stated over and again. It reads like an academic paper that also goes on way too long. It comes across as a high school paper that's trying to sound too smart for what it's doing.
Example:
"Finally, I provide the prescriptive context for applying CBA (cost-benefit analysis) to actual policy decisions by elaborating fourteen normative guidelines or principles for policy makers and those who would assess their decisions."
Oh boy! Fourteen normative guidelines! It's not that the sentence doesn't make sense, it's that I had to quote it and re-read it to even start to lay out what I'm going to eventually run into 20 pages later in the chapter. Ironically, government probably fails because people like Schuck are so smart and regimented that they can't convey what it is they're actually wanting to do to "normal" people. And in the interest of honesty and accuracy, there isn't a colloquial way to break that down to keep the point.
I, at least, was motivated to skip over paragraphs, found it extremely hard to digest even a few lines at a time, and felt wanting of like a graph or analogy that could create a picture. This is a 400 page book, the first 40 of which go "I'm about to do x in the context of y and over chapters blah you'll see p, q, and enough r to make you reconsider what you want to believe about this very specific definition of 'federal,' whilst keeping in mind the extra paragraph of footnotes I give you on literally every other page."
The bobbing up and down doesn't break the monotony, it just makes an already cumbersome book feel that much heavier. I imagine if you have a ton of patience, or really want to argue about specific federal programs over the last 8 or so years, this will be an awesome read. I may take a few swings at it a chapter or so at a time and provide more as I'm sure it's filled with good information, just, damn.
Maybe just see (Youtube it) how delicately Jon Stewart treats talking about it.
The strategy is to lay out an assessment of federal government programs and provide an explanation of whether or not they were successful. The problem is that in doing so, every inch of the theory and methodology for doing so is stated over and again. It reads like an academic paper that also goes on way too long. It comes across as a high school paper that's trying to sound too smart for what it's doing.
Example:
"Finally, I provide the prescriptive context for applying CBA (cost-benefit analysis) to actual policy decisions by elaborating fourteen normative guidelines or principles for policy makers and those who would assess their decisions."
Oh boy! Fourteen normative guidelines! It's not that the sentence doesn't make sense, it's that I had to quote it and re-read it to even start to lay out what I'm going to eventually run into 20 pages later in the chapter. Ironically, government probably fails because people like Schuck are so smart and regimented that they can't convey what it is they're actually wanting to do to "normal" people. And in the interest of honesty and accuracy, there isn't a colloquial way to break that down to keep the point.
I, at least, was motivated to skip over paragraphs, found it extremely hard to digest even a few lines at a time, and felt wanting of like a graph or analogy that could create a picture. This is a 400 page book, the first 40 of which go "I'm about to do x in the context of y and over chapters blah you'll see p, q, and enough r to make you reconsider what you want to believe about this very specific definition of 'federal,' whilst keeping in mind the extra paragraph of footnotes I give you on literally every other page."
The bobbing up and down doesn't break the monotony, it just makes an already cumbersome book feel that much heavier. I imagine if you have a ton of patience, or really want to argue about specific federal programs over the last 8 or so years, this will be an awesome read. I may take a few swings at it a chapter or so at a time and provide more as I'm sure it's filled with good information, just, damn.
January 11, 2016
Interesting but a little dry.
December 26, 2017
Engaging Analysis of the Problem - improvements suggested - important.
Liked the detailed, analytical narrative concerning his review of US Government Programs effectiveness and efficiencies and failures.
Should be of interest to individuals of all political stripes - concerning how gov't could be more effective - unrelated to spending more money.
A reference point for me during the 2016 Republican Primaries then candidate Carly Fiorina suggested that all government agencies be subjected to a zero based budget reviewed by an outside third party. Additionally the concept of government programs having a set "Sunset Date" is an idea worth reviewing.
It's said ..."the people get the kind/type of government they deserve - this book indicates that there is "much room for improvement in government performance...."
Carl Gallozzi
Cgallozzi@comcast.net
Liked the detailed, analytical narrative concerning his review of US Government Programs effectiveness and efficiencies and failures.
Should be of interest to individuals of all political stripes - concerning how gov't could be more effective - unrelated to spending more money.
A reference point for me during the 2016 Republican Primaries then candidate Carly Fiorina suggested that all government agencies be subjected to a zero based budget reviewed by an outside third party. Additionally the concept of government programs having a set "Sunset Date" is an idea worth reviewing.
It's said ..."the people get the kind/type of government they deserve - this book indicates that there is "much room for improvement in government performance...."
Carl Gallozzi
Cgallozzi@comcast.net
Read
April 7, 2016I didn't plan to read this -- the book I wanted wasn't on the shelf, this was in the same call section, and one should never leave a library emptyhanded.
Schuck's editor should have named the book "why bureaucracies are everytime, always always bad, and I won't change my mind." It would have better fit his text. He admits government has a role in our society and often does it well, but takes great efforts to indicate the implementation of government -- not the goal of government -- is the villain. It's a long read, but not hard. He writes well and follows an evident outline. I disagree pretty strongly with his thesis, but I don't disagree with his observations.
He failed to give enough attention to one of his strawman arguments. He describes the power that blackmarkets play in undermining government policy, and that good entrepreneurs will spring up every time the government forbids a good or practice. He accepts it as fact. He does argue for greater simplicity in law (which makes bureaucracy smaller, therefore -- his interp "better") and calls for laws that permit discretionary decision making. I'm not opposed to that.
I can't recommend this for most of my friends. Policy wonks might enjoy it.
Schuck's editor should have named the book "why bureaucracies are everytime, always always bad, and I won't change my mind." It would have better fit his text. He admits government has a role in our society and often does it well, but takes great efforts to indicate the implementation of government -- not the goal of government -- is the villain. It's a long read, but not hard. He writes well and follows an evident outline. I disagree pretty strongly with his thesis, but I don't disagree with his observations.
He failed to give enough attention to one of his strawman arguments. He describes the power that blackmarkets play in undermining government policy, and that good entrepreneurs will spring up every time the government forbids a good or practice. He accepts it as fact. He does argue for greater simplicity in law (which makes bureaucracy smaller, therefore -- his interp "better") and calls for laws that permit discretionary decision making. I'm not opposed to that.
I can't recommend this for most of my friends. Policy wonks might enjoy it.
September 18, 2015
This was definitely not an easy book to read, but it was well worth the time and effort. Despite being a self-proclaimed Democrat, Schuck takes a relatively non-partisan approach to his analysis (and at many points he sounds much more like a tried and true conservative than a liberal). He definitely writes like a lawyer, organizing everything systematically and in well defined categories. It can get a bit depressing, as each page seems to add to a sense of hopelessness and doom, but its important to face reality here and he does provide a number of proposed solutions, so it does not appear that all is necessarily lost. Most of the analysis is heavily supported by empirical research, which can get a bit dense at some points, but overall the book provides many perspectives that are often overlooked and will benefit readers of all political persuasions.
September 22, 2015
Peter Schuck does a great job explaining why most of the U.S. government's domestic programs have failed. Although he leans Democrat, his diagnoses draw on several free-market thinkers, including Friedrich Hayek! Nevertheless, he seems convinced that "big government is here to stay" and near the end of the book he gives some recommendations on how government can be made to function better. I wasn't convinced. I was hoping that he would recommend that some major government programs be simply scrapped. But overall, I highly recommend this book.
July 16, 2015
A detailed description of failure sources in policy & implementation. I think the book is worth having on hand as a reference - to be referred to when called upon to assess a program. It provides a helpful lexicon and categorization of problems, if not so many solutions. I don't think solutions are the aim of this book, though, as Schuck approaches the topic scientifically. Solutions would have to be tailored narrowly to the problem and policy at hand.
September 30, 2017
I picked up this book as it appeared to give ways the government could work better. It was 7/8 complaining, 1/16 programs that work, and 1/16 ways to make things better. The vast majority of ways to make things better were "Like, duh" moments. Unfortunately, we need to elect more leaders that don't want to build a wall but hire more immigration judges.
August 11, 2014
Lots of depressing information packed into each chapter. Had to take breaks and reward myself for getting through them. But good for policymakers to know the major failures and successes, and the reasons why.
June 23, 2014
I would give this book 6 stars if I could.
November 15, 2015
Probably didn't need to be as long as it was.
January 3, 2026
Pretty astonishing book that goes into great detail about how poor government is at running things. Very academic and in depth. I would not recommend unless you like economics a a lot. Took me forever to finish but here’s what I’ve learned.
1. Most government programs do not even evaluate their performance.
2.The vast majority of funds are untraced and poorly tracked leading to titanic levels of waste fraud and abuse.
3. Government officials do not consider market incentives. Some are so incompetent they don’t even understand what difference a market system would make.
4. The bureaucracy is not a neutral organization but a class with its own interest, often hostile to the interests of regular people and reformist politicians.
5. Once a bad program is added, it takes a while to notice its effects and is essentially impossible to remove or reform.
6. government failures are systemic and structural. It’s not related to elections or certain individuals.
7. There are so many bureaucrats that different agencies trip over each other. Many programs are duplicates.
8 programs have many actors, many of whom have veto power which can seriously hobble or completely kill a project . The probability of all of them getting along collapses as more actors are added.
9. There are obvious areas for reforms that can should and must be taken. These are not new but these complaints are ignored or sidelined.
10. There are successful programs but these might not have been the most effective way to achieve a goal.
1. Most government programs do not even evaluate their performance.
2.The vast majority of funds are untraced and poorly tracked leading to titanic levels of waste fraud and abuse.
3. Government officials do not consider market incentives. Some are so incompetent they don’t even understand what difference a market system would make.
4. The bureaucracy is not a neutral organization but a class with its own interest, often hostile to the interests of regular people and reformist politicians.
5. Once a bad program is added, it takes a while to notice its effects and is essentially impossible to remove or reform.
6. government failures are systemic and structural. It’s not related to elections or certain individuals.
7. There are so many bureaucrats that different agencies trip over each other. Many programs are duplicates.
8 programs have many actors, many of whom have veto power which can seriously hobble or completely kill a project . The probability of all of them getting along collapses as more actors are added.
9. There are obvious areas for reforms that can should and must be taken. These are not new but these complaints are ignored or sidelined.
10. There are successful programs but these might not have been the most effective way to achieve a goal.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews