In a recent podcast, a year after Abundance’s publication, Ezra Klein, Derek Thompson and Marc Dunkelman took stock of where things stand. They largely agree that their core vision – “the promise not just of more, but more of what matters”  – has gained traction. And they remain ‘all in’ (as do I….)  on their critique of current progressive approaches to governance as doing more harm than good. However, they continue to frame the implementation challenge of getting from here to there in a way that, while useful, is ultimately too narrow –  their conversation repeatedly returns to a familiar contrast between an earlier generation of progressive success via top-down public action and a contemporary progressive pre-occupation with formal process as the way to give voice to citizens.

Implementation need not be approached in this constricted way. On the contrary, as this piece will argue, taking a more expansive view of how to make the journey from vision to action helps strengthen the case for Abundance.

For many of today’s hardest problems, the challenge is not simply to plan and then act. It is to get multiple actors to work together in settings where goals overlap but do not fully align.  Practitioners  who have spent decades working around the world on the challenge of integrating governance reform and practical strategies for improving peoples’ lives have learned the hard way that “just do it”  top-down approaches  can all-too-often be a recipe for hubris, disappointment, and subsequent cynicism.  Gradually, after repeated cycles of high ambition and dashed hopes, hard-won lessons in practicality have taken hold, and a distinctive approach to achieving results amid broader messiness has emerged. Its contours can be most clearly seen by contrasting them with more conventional approaches.

Consider, then, two contrasting pathways to results-focused renewal: a top-down, plan-then-implement “engineering” approach, and an approach centered on problem-driven coalition-building and social learning. They differ in their answers to two fundamental questions: what should be the focus of reform, and how should it be pursued?

On the question of “what”: Top-down approaches typically focus on improving formal management systems. Strengthening the institutional architecture of government is a worthy endeavor—but it gains traction only when political power is relatively coherent, and usually yields practical results only over the medium term. Where the broader context is messy (as it is in most places, most of the time), system-wide reform efforts all too easily get lost in bureaucratic minutiae and achieve little.

By contrast, a problem-driven approach provides a more immediate focal point for action. As per its champions, the approach offers 
“…..a  ‘true north’ definition of ‘problem solved’ to guide, motivate and inspire action…. A good problem cannot be ignored, and matters to key change agents; can be broken down into easily-addressed causal elements; allows real, sequenced strategic responses.” 

(Abundance’s focus on housing, transportation, energy, and health—on “the goods needed to build a good life”—lends itself naturally to this kind of problem-focused reform.)

The contrast between the two approaches extends beyond what reforms to target to how reform is pursued. The top-down approach combines rule-centered process compliance with insulation of the public sector from ongoing interaction with civil society. This can work for logistical tasks if the political economy is supportive. But it is poorly suited to multifaceted challenges that require continual adaptation.

A problem-focused approach is ideally suited for the latter. It centers around  getting multiple actors—public agencies, different levels of government, and nongovernmental organizations—to learn to co-operate around a shared purpose, despite overlapping but not identical goals, in ways that hold together politically as well as operationally. The aim is not process for its own sake, but building problem-focused coalitions that can align action, adapt to the unexpected, and sustain momentum over time.

Central to a problem-focused approach is the way in which it engages with power. Rather than assuming that space for reform is determined primarily through electoral outcomes, it works to expand that space through problem-level coalition-building. Some stakeholders are natural allies; others are potential spoilers, seeking to capture or undermine reform efforts. Building coalitions that are strong enough to advance shared goals—and resilient enough to withstand predation—is thus a core task.

This, in turn, calls for shifts in how actors interact. For civil society, it can mean setting aside—at least in part—the allure of adversarialism in favor of more collaborative engagement. For the public sector, it requires moving, in some domains, from a purely legalistic perspective toward a more deliberative mode of interaction. The latter is both  valuable in itself, and also key to enabling the kind of sustained cooperation that complex problem-solving demands.

Approaches along these lines have demonstrated their potential across a wide range of settings—from participatory health provision in Ceará, Brazil, to South Africa’s globally-renowned HIV-AIDS Treatment Action Campaign, to improvements in learning outcomes in parts of Kenya,  Peru, Ghana and Bangladesh. Within the United States, there is a rich literature on the promise and limits of collaborative governance. (See here, here and here.) Of more immediate relevance, however—especially given its usual status (including in Abundance) as Exhibit Number One of progressive failure—is Los Angeles’ recent and still unfolding effort to address homelessness. These efforts offer a vivid—and surprising—illustration of what can be achieved through an approach that engages complexity directly, focuses on results, and works to align fragmented actors over time—and what might be its limits.

In 2016 and 2017,  LA voters approved two ballot initiatives to finance homeless services and new affordable housing.  However, within a few  years it became apparent that these initiatives fell far short of what was needed.  As I detail in a recent piece published on the Persuasion platform,  in the wake of the failure of these efforts, LA’s political and civic leaders embraced  an innovative combination of hierarchical and horizontal governance reforms that, together, are transforming the region’s approach to homelessness.  Recent gains include:  The collaborative crafting and formal political approval of a set of ambitious and achievable targets for 2030;  the creation of a powerful new county-wide Department of Homeless Services and Housing; and difficult service cuts – made under fiscal pressure, but nonetheless in ways that secured broad stakeholder acceptance.  

To be sure, what comes next is uncertain. LA has to balance unexpected fiscal stringency and the massive, ongoing needs of an effective system to combat homelessness. More efficient and effective use of resources  will be key  to finding that balance.   Whether LA’s hard-won, innovative and results-focused center can hold in the face of the adversities that are sure to come remains to be seen –  but the achievements fly in the face of the ‘punching bag’ narrative through which LA’s efforts to address homelessness generally are framed.

More broadly, when it comes to addressing ‘wicked’ problems,  top-down efforts are not enough. Without perceived fairness and credibility, even technically sound solutions can unravel – so legitimacy is central. But as is hopefully now evident,  problem-level legitimacy need not come only through  burdensome formal participatory processes or high visibility actions to hold government to account. Problem-level legitimacy   can also come from a vision of implementation centered around  cross-cutting, problem-solving coalitions. And this broader perspective continues to be left out of the Abundance  discourse.  

Abundance was written with transformative intent, not to provide yet another policy manual –  it aimed to  connect viscerally as well as intellectually. By that measure, it has succeeded brilliantly. But a consequence has been that it has framed the challenge of implementation in overly narrow terms. 

But widening the aperture  by taking complexity seriously need not weigh down the message with a surfeit of detail.  On the contrary, attention to the practical can inspire – through its focus on concrete gains, its evocation of human agency and the power that can come from cultivating shared (problem-level) purpose to get things done. Taking the workaday seriously need not detract from  Abundance’s vision. It can align with it – and, in its practicality, enhance its potency.