Table 3 Value Destruction initiated by... | Emerald Publishing

Table 3

Value Destruction initiated by DOGE

	Destruction of Public Value Outcomes
Major DOGE Initiatives	Outcome Achievement	Trust & Legitimacy	Service Delivery Quality	Efficiency (Resource Use & Cost-Effectiveness)
Aggressive Deregulation	Weaker protections result in increased injuries, illnesses & deaths in society due to the rollback of health, safety & environmental rules.	Eroded legitimacy of regulation. Decisions are seen as favoring corporate interests, not the common good.	Decline in regulatory service quality. Less enforcement of existing laws & slower introduction of new safeguards.	Illusory efficiency because higher social costs outweigh the modest compliance cost savings.
Aggressive Deregulation	A greater likelihood of failed policy goals & no net benefits.	Lower trust in agencies as enforcement slackened, & skepticism of government oversight.	Greater policy instability (constant rule changes), reduced the reliability & professionalism of regulatory services.	Resources spent repealing rules instead of a focus on mission-oriented work will lead to process inefficiencies.
Federal Workforce Cuts	Hindered missions across agencies: insufficient staff to meet mandates, causing lost output & lost revenues (e.g. uncollected taxes).	Lower public trust due to service backlogs & staff shortages will make the government seem ineffective.	Degraded service quality: longer wait times, processing delays, & errors due to overburdened staff.	Not cost-effective and agencies will rely on higher cost contractors and consultants
Federal Workforce Cuts	Talent drain undermined future performance (recruitment of skilled professionals stalled).	Workforce demoralization & politicization (e.g., Schedule F) and undermining the legitimacy of a nonpartisan civil service.	Critical services (benefits, inspections, customer support) will be delivered less reliably, failing to meet public needs.	Hiring freezes lead to skill gaps & misallocated labor
Agency/Program Eliminations	Forfeited public outcomes such as the loss of research activity (e.g., NSF, NIH), minority business support, community development funds, & homelessness coordination	Cuts are perceived as unjust/illegitimate: targeting DEI programs for minorities	Service disruptions and declines caused by the elimination of agencies will lead to immediate service gaps, as grants, guidance, and support programs are halted.	Targeted programs account for a very small share of the federal budget shares but will affect high-impact services.
Agency/Program Eliminations	Communities lose lifelines – e.g. fewer resources for rural internet, small businesses, & vulnerable groups	Stakeholder alienation: state/local partners & affected groups lose faith in federal commitments & the fairness of resource allocation.		Higher downstream costs are likely as unmet needs (e.g., homelessness, business failures) require emergency or remedial spending later.
Cutting Advisory Committees	Evidence-blind policymaking will risk policies being ineffective or harmful, failing to solve problems & leaving issues like climate change unaddressed.	Public distrust in decisions: absence of independent advisors invites fears of political interference & bias, reducing faith in science-based policy making	Lower quality services/policy: e.g. science programs without guidance target less relevant topics, & regulations crafted without stakeholder input are less workable – reducing effectiveness & user satisfaction.	Short-term ‘savings’ on meeting costs, but long-term inefficiency: increased risk of policy errors & costly failures due to lack of expert guidance.
Cutting Advisory Committees	Loss of diverse ideas & rigorous review means fewer innovative solutions to public challenges.	Legitimacy deficit caused by scientists left out of the process, making policies less credible or accountable to the public interest.	Less transparency in decision-making (fewer public meetings & reports), weakening the quality oversight of government services.	Loss of low-cost expertise – advisors often serve for free or little cost, so eliminating them yields negligible savings but higher information costs.

	Destruction of Public Value Outcomes
Major DOGE Initiatives	Outcome Achievement	Trust & Legitimacy	Service Delivery Quality	Efficiency (Resource Use & Cost-Effectiveness)
Aggressive Deregulation	Weaker protections result in increased injuries, illnesses & deaths in society due to the rollback of health, safety & environmental rules.	Eroded legitimacy of regulation. Decisions are seen as favoring corporate interests, not the common good.	Decline in regulatory service quality. Less enforcement of existing laws & slower introduction of new safeguards.	Illusory efficiency because higher social costs outweigh the modest compliance cost savings.
Aggressive Deregulation	A greater likelihood of failed policy goals & no net benefits.	Lower trust in agencies as enforcement slackened, & skepticism of government oversight.	Greater policy instability (constant rule changes), reduced the reliability & professionalism of regulatory services.	Resources spent repealing rules instead of a focus on mission-oriented work will lead to process inefficiencies.
Federal Workforce Cuts	Hindered missions across agencies: insufficient staff to meet mandates, causing lost output & lost revenues (e.g. uncollected taxes).	Lower public trust due to service backlogs & staff shortages will make the government seem ineffective.	Degraded service quality: longer wait times, processing delays, & errors due to overburdened staff.	Not cost-effective and agencies will rely on higher cost contractors and consultants
Federal Workforce Cuts	Talent drain undermined future performance (recruitment of skilled professionals stalled).	Workforce demoralization & politicization (e.g., Schedule F) and undermining the legitimacy of a nonpartisan civil service.	Critical services (benefits, inspections, customer support) will be delivered less reliably, failing to meet public needs.	Hiring freezes lead to skill gaps & misallocated labor
Agency/Program Eliminations	Forfeited public outcomes such as the loss of research activity (e.g., NSF, NIH), minority business support, community development funds, & homelessness coordination	Cuts are perceived as unjust/illegitimate: targeting DEI programs for minorities	Service disruptions and declines caused by the elimination of agencies will lead to immediate service gaps, as grants, guidance, and support programs are halted.	Targeted programs account for a very small share of the federal budget shares but will affect high-impact services.
Agency/Program Eliminations	Communities lose lifelines – e.g. fewer resources for rural internet, small businesses, & vulnerable groups	Stakeholder alienation: state/local partners & affected groups lose faith in federal commitments & the fairness of resource allocation.		Higher downstream costs are likely as unmet needs (e.g., homelessness, business failures) require emergency or remedial spending later.
Cutting Advisory Committees	Evidence-blind policymaking will risk policies being ineffective or harmful, failing to solve problems & leaving issues like climate change unaddressed.	Public distrust in decisions: absence of independent advisors invites fears of political interference & bias, reducing faith in science-based policy making	Lower quality services/policy: e.g. science programs without guidance target less relevant topics, & regulations crafted without stakeholder input are less workable – reducing effectiveness & user satisfaction.	Short-term ‘savings’ on meeting costs, but long-term inefficiency: increased risk of policy errors & costly failures due to lack of expert guidance.
Cutting Advisory Committees	Loss of diverse ideas & rigorous review means fewer innovative solutions to public challenges.	Legitimacy deficit caused by scientists left out of the process, making policies less credible or accountable to the public interest.	Less transparency in decision-making (fewer public meetings & reports), weakening the quality oversight of government services.	Loss of low-cost expertise – advisors often serve for free or little cost, so eliminating them yields negligible savings but higher information costs.

Source: By authors