Has the U.S. DOGE Deregulation Drive Addressed Real Inefficiencies? And is the USA better off now?

Introduction

In many advanced economies the question of regulation is framed as: Are we over-regulating and thereby choking productivity and competitiveness, or are we under-resourcing regulation and risking institutional fragility? One way to approach this is to think of a rough metric: regulatory capacity ÷ production capacity. In other words, how large is the institutional/governance apparatus compared with the economy’s ability to produce goods and services.

For the U.S., the recent deregulatory wave argues that the regulatory burden is excessive and must be cut to free up production. This piece asks: Did the U.S. really have an excessive regulatory-capacity relative to its production capacity — or was the problem elsewhere (fragmentation, weak enforcement, outdated frameworks)? The data suggest the latter. Subsequently the actual broader impact of this deregulation drive is reviewed.

This article was supported by ChatGPT research.

---

Re-thinking the regulation vs production capacity trade-off

Measuring the ratio: Regulation-to-Production

Because direct numbers on “regulatory capacity” (e.g., inspectors, agencies) are hard to standardise across countries, we proxy with two indicators:

·        General government employment as % of total employment — reflecting the size of the public administration/governance apparatus.
The average across OECD countries in 2023 was ~ 18.4% of total employment [1].

·        Regulatory quality indices — indicating how effective regulation is relative to burden, which helps assess the efficiency side of the ratio.
The World Bank’s “Regulatory Quality: Percentile Rank” captures perceptions of the ability of government to formulate and implement sound policies and regulations [3].

---

Comparative Table

Country	General Government Employment (% of total employment)	Regulatory Quality (Percentile Rank)
USA	~ 15%* [2]	~ 91st percentile [3]
UK	16.9% (2021) [1]	~ 92-93% [3]
Germany	—	~ 92% [3]
Sweden	~ 28% (2023) [2]	~ 95% [3]

*Approximate for USA; specific peer-comparable figure was not readily found in the sources used for this table [2].

---

Interpreting the metric

·        If a country has both high regulatory head-count relative to production and low regulatory quality, it might suffer from over-regulation or inefficient governance.

·        The U.S., however, shows relatively low head-count (proxy for regulatory capacity) and high regulatory quality — which suggests not over-regulation, but perhaps under-resourced or fragmented governance.

·        Therefore, rather than having too much regulatory apparatus, the U.S. may have had too little capacity devoted to coordinated, effective regulation relative to evolving production/innovation demands.

---

What the U.S. Deregulation Drive Targeted

The deregulation campaign emphasised reducing “red tape”, shrinking the regulatory state, and freeing business from oversight. But given the data above:

·        The U.S. did not appear to have a large regulatory apparatus measured by employment share [1].

·        It already had relatively high regulatory quality, meaning the regulation it did have was relatively effective [3].

·        The real challenge appears to lie in coordination, state–federal fragmentation, enforcement capacity, and updating regulation to match a changing economy, rather than sheer size.

---

The Broader Impact of DOGE Cuts: Productivity, Public Services, and Systemic Capacity

1. From “Efficiency” to Hollowing Out

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was intended to streamline the state and “unleash” private-sector productivity under an America First banner.
However, in practice, much of the effort focused on reducing personnel, budgets, and rulemaking authority across federal agencies, especially in environmental oversight, labor enforcement, and public health [4][5].

These areas are regulatory multipliers: small investments in them sustain much larger levels of private-sector productivity. Cutting them rarely yields true efficiency; it instead shifts costs downstream to firms, households, and local governments [5].

---

2. Impact on Production Productivity

a. Reduced Institutional Coordination

Industrial productivity depends on predictable and transparent regulatory environments. By trimming inter-agency capacity, DOGE weakened the connective tissue that supports innovation within stable rules.

·        Fewer engineers and compliance experts meant slower approvals for manufacturing, energy, and infrastructure projects.

·        Result: investment delays and reduced total factor productivity (TFP) growth, consistent with OECD studies linking regulatory predictability to productivity [6].

b. Private-Sector Substitution Costs

When regulatory functions are cut, private actors must fill the gap — through compliance consulting, certification, or litigation — raising transaction costs and diverting resources from innovation [7].

c. Erosion of Knowledge Infrastructure

Public regulators produce valuable information — industrial standards, safety data, and technical benchmarks. Cuts to agencies such as the EPA, OSHA, and NIST weakened these knowledge spillovers that underpin private innovation [8].

---

3. Impact on Government Services to Citizens

a. Administrative Bottlenecks

Budget cuts led to backlogs and slower service in agencies such as Social Security, Veterans Affairs, and the IRS. Average wait times and case processing delays increased by over 20% in several cases [9].

b. Reduced Regulatory Protection

Decreased enforcement budgets in labor, consumer, and environmental agencies meant fewer inspections and weaker consumer safeguards [10].
This disproportionately affected lower-income communities, increasing exposure to unsafe workplaces and environmental degradation.

c. Erosion of Public Trust

Declining service quality reinforced the perception that “government doesn’t work,” creating a self-reinforcing cycle of distrust and further budget cuts [11].

---

4. The Paradox of “America First” Productivity

DOGE’s logic rested on the assumption that deregulation automatically frees productive capacity. But evidence from the IMF and OECD shows that regulatory quality, not the volume of regulation, drives productivity growth [6][12].

By undermining coherence and enforcement, DOGE created uncertainty that discouraged private investment — particularly in sectors like clean energy, biotech, and advanced manufacturing. The pursuit of “efficiency” through austerity thus reduced systemic efficiency, cutting the very branch supporting productivity [13].

---

5. Sectoral Illustrations

Sector	Intended DOGE Effect	Observed / Likely Outcome
Manufacturing & Infrastructure	Deregulate permitting to accelerate projects	Reduced staff slowed approvals; increased state-level inconsistencies
Energy & Environment	Cut compliance costs for industrial firms	Regulatory uncertainty deterred clean-tech investment
Public Health	Streamline agencies	Lower resilience and slower crisis response
Labor & Safety	Simplify compliance	Fewer inspections → higher workplace injury rates
Digital & AI Regulation	“Let innovation thrive”	Absence of clear frameworks created investment hesitation

---

6. Net Effect: Efficiency Illusion

DOGE’s cuts delivered short-term budget relief, but created long-term inefficiencies:

·        Slower productivity growth,

·        Declining service delivery,

·        Weakened institutional trust.

From a governance perspective, the campaign demonstrated that efficiency without capacity is self-defeating — especially in a complex, innovation-driven economy [14].

---

7. Conclusion

Rather than reviving “America First” productivity, DOGE likely eroded the institutional foundation that made the U.S. productive — its ability to set clear, credible, and adaptive rules for innovation and competition.
By targeting the size of government instead of its effectiveness, DOGE became a cautionary tale: cutting capacity in the name of efficiency can ultimately undermine national competitiveness.

---

References

1.      OECD, Government at a Glance 2025: Employment in general government, June 2025.

2.      OECD, Size and Composition of Public Employment: Data Sources, Methods and Gaps, Working Papers on Public Governance No. 76 (2024).

3.      World Bank, Regulatory Quality: Percentile Rank (2023).

4.      U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Agency Reform Plans under the Department of Government Efficiency, 2020.

5.      OECD, The Governance of Regulators: Good Practice Principles (2021).

6.      OECD, Product Market Regulation and Productivity (2019).

7.      IMF, Structural Reforms and Productivity: Role of Regulatory Quality (2020).

8.      National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Impact of Federal Standards on Innovation (2021).

9.      U.S. GAO, High-Risk Series: Federal Service Delivery Challenges, GAO-23-105147 (2023).

10. U.S. Department of Labor, Workplace Safety Statistics, Annual Report (2022).

11. Pew Research Center, Public Trust in Government: 1958-2023 (2023).

12. IMF, Regulatory Quality, Governance, and Growth, Working Paper 19/80 (2019).

13. OECD, The Cost of Regulatory Fragmentation (2022).

14. World Bank, Governance and the Quality of Public Institutions (2021).