Kristin Wolff

The April 20, 2010 explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon precipated an oil leak now streaming 210,000 gallons of crude into the Gulf of Mexico each day, endangering wetlands, wildlife, and the livelihoods of hundreds of coastal communities.

While public officials from President Obama to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal continue to emphasize BP's responsibility for the disaster - and the cost of cleaning it up - Americans expect the US Government to respond. And it does, naming Coast Guard commandant Admiral Thad W. Allen to oversee the federal response, including the efforts of Environmental Protection Agency Admininistrator (and New Orleans native) Lisa Jackson; Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano; Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar; and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Science Administrator Jane Lubchenco, among dozens of state and local agencies and emergency services.

While this event is extraordinary, Government faces many challenges like it - so-called "wicked problems" characterized by their complexity, scope, scale, and resistance to narrow solutions. Unemployment, the credit crisis, climate change, food safety, economic revitalization, the competitiveness agenda - these are difficult issues that citizens expect their Governments to address, even as Government options for managing them are limited.

Why the expectations gap?

Donald Kettl, author of The Next Government of the United States, argues that in the US, this gap stems from the "vending machine" view of Government most citizens hold: the idea that we pay-in (through taxes) and in return, we expect specific solutions (legislation, resources, agencies, regulations, programs, etc.) for which we can hold Government accountable.

This (mechanistic) approach is highly efficient (and appropriate) for simple, predictable, work - processing passports or unemployment claims, for example. When it doesn't work, we 'bang it around' (like the vending machine) by complaining, protesting, or calling our Congressional representatives. But for most of what Government does, this model is not only inappropriate, it's an inaccurate reflection of how actually Government functions.

First, Government services are often aimed at wicked problems and increasingly provided through vast networks of contractors (private for- and not-for-profit organizations) as well through cost-sharing agreements with state and local agencies. This makes many Government services hard to discern on the ground, providing a possible explanation for protest signs like this one:

Second, Government typically sets standards and then relies on the participation of citizens, residents, firms, and communities to meet them, and to report exceptions. The US Food and Drug Administration's approach to food safety is a good example of this. The Government  does not test every vegetable for bacteria before it is shipped to  grocery stores or restaurants (nor could it). But when hazardous bacteria are found and reported, Government establishes bans, announces recalls, and exercises its power to prevent further damage and expose the causal chain.

Third, and increasingly, Government coordinates, even collaborates, with citizens directly to generate ideas and partner on solutions to shared challenges. While new and experimental, social technologies are beginning to reconnect people to Government in ways that set the stage for new models of Government - more transparent, more participatory, more accountable, and sometimes, unexpected, as in this suggested grassroots approach to cleaning up the Gulf oil slick:

This meme, the evolution of Gov2.0 and the remaking Government and public policy, will be a regular topic here at Networked Publics.