The Economist’s recent essay on “Buckaroo government” struck a chord. Its metaphor of politicians piling ever more burdens onto the same weary policy mules until they finally kick out – in the style of the eponymous children’s game of the 80s, is both vivid and depressingly familiar.
Over the years, governments have indeed treated housing, energy, education and business regulation as if they are expected to carry the weight of every national ambition. Housing policy must deliver growth, inclusion and biodiversity. Energy policy must decarbonise and tackle poverty. Education must be the engine of growth and greater social mobility. Every lever must pull double or triple duty until, inevitably, the mule collapses.
It’s an elegant argument and contains more than a grain of truth. However, it risks drawing us towards the wrong conclusions.
The problem isn’t that government seeks to do too much. It’s that it doesn’t design or prioritise well enough.
“Everythingism” and the illusion of focus
The Economist’s Buckaroo theory has a close cousin in a term coined by the think tank Re:State: “Everythingism” is the idea that every policy must serve every goal at once.
Both critiques identify a real pathology in government: the inability to make decisive choices. But they also share a dangerous nostalgia for simplicity: a longing for one-dimensional policymaking that no longer fits the world we live in.
Modern government operates in systems, not silos. Housing affects health and climate. Energy affects inequality and productivity. Education and skills shape everything. These are not distractions; they’re the reality of governing a complex state.
Pretending we can cleanly separate them isn’t reform – it is regression.
The real reason the mule keeps bucking
If policies are overloaded, it’s rarely because ministers want to play “Buckaroo.” It’s because the state lacks the capacity and coordination to join things up in other ways.
Departments operate with misaligned budgets, short-term incentives and little capacity for cross-cutting design. When the Treasury resists transparent fiscal settlements, governments bolt redistributive goals onto regulation or planning obligations instead. When political space is tight, officials are told to “make it work” with the levers they already have.
In other words, Buckaroo government isn’t a failure of intent. It’s a failure of design.
The National Audit Office has highlighted how weak systems and underinvestment in digital capability continue to limit public sector transformation. The Global Government Forum’s recent interviews with permanent secretaries paint a similar picture: a state trying to manage 21st-century complexity with 20th-century machinery.
As we have argued recently in in our other blogs, strategy isn’t the constraint but capability is.
Simplification is not the same as coherence
The instinct to simplify policy has an obvious appeal. But when simplicity becomes the goal, we risk swinging from overload to overcorrection.
The art of modern governance is to focus on a few priorities while executing them well, not least by ensuring effective co-ordination; alongside clarity about purpose, realism about trade-offs and institutions designed for integration.
That means:
- Explicit priorities. Be clear about the few outcomes that matter most and stop pretending every programme can solve every problem.
- Capability at the centre. Digital, data and delivery need the same weight in leadership as finance or policy.
- Transparency over stealth. If something’s worth funding, fund it openly. Stop hiding public goods in the fine print of utility bills or planning rules.
- System stewardship. Reward leaders for building long-term resilience and coordination, not just short-term successes that make for good announcements.
These principles don’t make government smaller or simpler but they make it more intelligent and resilient.
The politics of overload
Buckaroo politics thrives because the system rewards slogans over structure. “Joined-up government” has become a mantra, rather than a method.
Every government wants to show it’s doing something new but few want to confront the trade-offs that coherence requires. It’s easier to pile new priorities onto the same overburdened levers than to reform the way government itself works.
The real fix lies in political honesty: acknowledging that good policy design means making hard choices visible, not hiding them behind regulatory clauses or one-off deals with business.
Beyond Buckaroo and Everythingism
Both “Buckaroo” and “Everythingism” diagnose the same condition: a state that confuses motion for progress. But their cure which is to strip policy of ambition and complexity risks making the patient weaker, not stronger.
The goal should be coherence, not simplicity. Integration, not overload. Clarity, not denial.
Modern government can’t escape complexity. The challenge is to govern it well through capability, coordination and courage.
Because the real problem isn’t that our mules are carrying too much. It’s that we’ve forgotten how to build a cart.
Patrick Diamond is professor of public policy at Queen Mary University of London and a former head of policy planning in No.10. Vijay K. Luthra is a public service transformation specialist and former civil servant, local government councillor, school governor and NHS NED