Burnham must remember: more regulation is not the best way to improve public services | Phillip Inman
Andy Burnham has delayed significant public service reforms until the 2030s, including local government reorganisation and water industry overhaul. The author argues that policymakers should prioritise customer satisfaction over regulation when reforming public services, as excessive regulation tends to entrench tick-box cultures rather than improve outcomes.
Drawing on economist Sir John Kay's concept of "Obliquity", the article contends that organisations should focus on delivering the best service or product for their customers, after which profits or savings follow naturally. The author cites NHS improvements in appointment booking and failures like the Environment Agency's tree-planting scheme (where National Highways lost three-quarters of 850,000 saplings planted in 2020) as examples of how regulation-driven systems fail, whilst advocating against calls from figures like Sir Jon Cunliffe for more intensive oversight.
- Burnham has delayed major public service reforms to the 2030s
- Customer satisfaction should be the focus, not regulation
- Excessive regulation entrenches tick-box cultures rather than improving outcomes
New here? Start with this
Andy Burnham is a senior politician overseeing local government and public services in parts of England. He has announced that significant reforms to local government and the water industry will not go ahead until the 2030s, partly reflecting disagreement over how best to improve public services.
A key debate in public service reform concerns whether organisations improve most through stricter regulation and oversight, or by focusing on delivering good outcomes for the people they serve. Proponents of outcomes-based approaches argue that heavily regulated systems can encourage organisations to prioritise meeting formal requirements rather than pursuing continuous service improvement.
The question matters because public services affect millions of people daily, from healthcare to water supplies. How these reforms proceed will influence whether they emphasise regulatory oversight or outcomes-focused service delivery.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Excessive regulation of public services tends to create compliance-driven organisations focused on meeting bureaucratic requirements rather than delivering excellence to customers. When institutions concentrate on their core mission—serving users well—improvements follow naturally, along with efficiency gains. Regulatory frameworks often entrench rigid systems that stifle innovation and responsiveness, whereas trusting organisations with clear mandates and holding them accountable for actual service quality produces better outcomes.
The case against
Public services differ fundamentally from commercial enterprises because vulnerable populations cannot exit to alternatives when standards slip. Regulation establishes universal baseline protections ensuring equitable access and protecting citizens from exploitation through profit-maximisation or underinvestment. Without robust frameworks and oversight, history demonstrates repeated failures in essential sectors; regulation grounded in clear standards and genuine accountability remains necessary to prevent market failure and protect the public interest.