Let policy evolve

One reason why solutions to our social and environmental problems are slow to appear is that we do not let evolution operate:

The defining features of an evolutionary system are variation generation (e.g., a new cell phone design, a new word), inheritance (characteristics are passed on through time), and differential success (some variants do better than others). It doesn’t matter if some new variants were produced with intent, or of there are no gene-like things involved. (My emphasis.) Mark Vellend on Everything Evolves (interview), 11 August 2025

Our current policymaking regimes do not systematically favour the most efficient policies. One reason is that time horizons are too short; in democracies particularly, any gains from implementing effective policies are likely to be way beyond the time horizons of most politicians. Well-meaning public servants will do their best, but they are unlikely to advocate for policies over which their department has no remit. As well, while they would prefer to see their most effective policies adopted, they typically do not benefit financially when that happens. 

Another reason, is that, as Stephen van Evera writes: 'states widely fail to evaluate their own ideas.' Citing Aaron Wildavsky, van Evera writes:

Evaluation promotes innovation and change. This threatens the jobs and status of incumbent members of the organization. Hence incumbents often seek to hamper or prevent evaluation and to punish evaluators. These incumbents tend to dominate the organization's decision making, so evaluation finds itself with stronger enemies than friends within the organization. Hence self-evaluation is often timid and ineffective. 

A Social Policy Bond regime would be different. It would not take existing organisations as given, and it would aim for outcomes that can be achieved only in the long term. (Because they would be tradable, people could benefit by holding the bonds for a short period.) Importantly, bondholders would have the time horizon and incentive to experiment with new approaches, choosing to follow only those that are most promising. For our most urgent national and global challenges, I believe it's essential that we take the long-term view and put in place a regime that encourages diverse policy approaches, and then selects only those that are most promising. 

Ruling the void

Fintan O’Toole, writing in the New York Review of Books, quotes Peter Mair who wrote, in Ruling the Void: The Hollowing of Western Democracy (2013):

The age of party democracy has passed. Although the parties themselves remain, they have become so disconnected from the wider society, and pursue a form of competition that is so lacking in meaning, that they no longer seem capable of sustaining democracy in its present form. The Lingering Delusion, Fintan O'Toole, New York Review of Books, dated 20 November 2025

The reasons for the disconnect have to do with the rise of a self-contained political profession whose participants are expert in just two things: gaining power and retaining it. They might have started out as idealistic, but those who rise to the top rarely do so on merit. Within the pool of potential representatives we make our choices on the basis of their looks, sound-bites, personality, promises, or tribal origins. The consequences - the inability to sustain democracy - are becoming increasingly clear as society becomes more complex and government's role in our lives becomes more significant. 

Much less clear is what to do about it. My suggestion is that we learn to express our long-term social and environmental goals in terms of broad outcomes that are meaningful to ordinary people. As a way of closing the gap between people and politicians, a political party could give explicit, verifiable goals: for example: by the end of our term in office crime will have fallen by x percent. 

Under a Social Policy Bond regime, we'd agree on a set of broad outcomes, such as universal literacy, improved general health, reduced crime rates or, on a global scale, the elimination of violent political conflict (war and civil war), or catastrophe, whether natural or man-made. Then government, or a consortium of private-sector bodies, would issue bonds that will reward people for solving these problems, however they do so. In short, target outcomes and don't focus too much on the identity or media performance of people who promise to spend taxpayer revenue on our behalf. Rely, instead, on a motivated coalition of bondholders, who will have every incentive to subordinate all their activities to the achievement of society's targeted goals.

I don't think we can look to the political class to change our politics in such a way, except perhaps by giving grants to bodies that have a long-term vision. Our global problems and many of our national problems are too big, though, for  existing bodies to take on. My thinking is that we should look to alternative sources of funding for our long-term social and environmental goals: enlightened, visionary philanthropists come to mind, perhaps supplying initial funding that could attract funds from other sources, including ordinary citizens. Unfortunately I have no entree into the world of such people.