Gavan Reilly: Government must remember the small stuff when sat at the big table

A couple of things have popped up in recent weeks which, I think, explain a lot of the difficulties being faced by the government right now. Those in charge have developed a peculiar habit, which has become almost instinctive.

When faced with a problem, the State reaches for the big picture. Listen to any government response and you’ll hear about a national trendline; the aggregate numbers; the system-wide fix.

I understand how it becomes instinctive for ministers to think like this. When you’re running the country via table-top exercises in Dublin, the macro-level view is all you have. The rising tide must, you imagine, lift all boats.

The problem with this approach is that life is not lived in aggregates. People’s everyday lives – the micro-level experience – is lived out in homes, hospitals, classrooms, waiting rooms. And when you zoom in from the macro to the micro, the picture can look very different indeed.

The fallout from the SNA crisis of the last fortnight is a good example. At a national level, officials have a blunt and constant refrain: SNA numbers are not being cut; in fact, even before last week’s political fudge, the number of SNAs next September would be 1,717 higher than now. That’s fine in the aggregate, but tell that to the individual schools who were losing SNAs, and the parents whose children were faced with losing an indispensable support.

That tension, between macro promises and micro reality, runs across much of public policy. Look at housing: at the macro level, the Government’s story is positive: more homes were built last year than since the Celtic Tiger, no government has ever spent as much money on public housing, and billions are now being invested in the water system and power grid to serve the homes of tomorrow. But tell any of that to the 55,000 adults who found themselves in emergency accommodation in the last decade, or the 17,000 people who were living in hotels and shelters at the end of January.

The same tension applies to the rent reforms that took effect last weekend. On their face they offer increased security for renters – most landlords now cannot kick out a tenant for six years, once the tenant is meeting their own obligations – but at a micro level, any new tenancy will cost around 25% more than it previously did. Security of tenure is fine if you can afford the rent; it’s useless if you’re priced out of a new home. The same goes for health: record spending and investment is of little use when your only experience is of a waiting list.

The State measures inputs, but people only experience outcomes. You can publish strategies and set targets and allocate budgets however you like. Individual outcomes aren’t a table-top exercise: they’re messy, and demand accountability in a way that system-wide indicators rarely accommodate.

When the macro becomes the primary measure of success – and the primary way the State communicates with its people – those experiencing the micro begin to withdraw their trust. At a time when so much is outside the government’s direct realm of control, they’d do well to remember that.