Contents

31 ModelEdit

The 31 Model is a framework for evaluating and guiding public policy across economic, social, and institutional dimensions. Named for its deliberate structure of 31 policy levers, it is designed to translate abstract principles into concrete actions that governments and civic institutions can pursue. Proponents argue that the model helps policymakers focus on what drives growth, opportunity, and national resilience, while keeping an eye on responsible governance and the long-term health of the economy. Critics, particularly those who emphasize broader social guarantees, contend that the model can underweight equity and neglect the effects of policy on vulnerable communities. Supporters respond that sustainable prosperity requires growth that lifts all boats, and that the model includes targeted tools to address disadvantage without sacrificing overall efficiency.

The 31 Model is most often discussed in the context of conservative and classical liberal policy discourse, where there is a strong emphasis on accountability, fiscal discipline, and the protection of individual liberty within a framework of strong, predictable institutions. It draws on ideas from fiscal policy, monetary policy, and regulation to balance growth with prudent governance. In debates over public policy, the model is frequently cited by advocates of school choice, robust property rights, and a streamlined regulatory environment as ways to unlock opportunity and improve social mobility. At the same time, it is part of a larger conversation about the proper size and role of government, the incentives created by public programs, and the best means of maintaining social cohesion in the face of rapid economic change.

Origins and Development

The 31 Model emerged from a convergence of policy thinking attributes in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, synthesizing ideas from free-market economics, welfare reform, and governance reform. It reflects a belief that government effectiveness improves when policy levers are clearly defined, rule-of-law pillars are strengthened, and competition is fostered across markets and services. Early articulations stressed the importance of aligning budgeting, regulation, and public programs with transparent performance standards, so that taxpayers can see how scarce resources are used and what gains are produced. The model also reflects a preference for decentralization and subsidiarity, arguing that decisions closer to the people who are affected tend to yield better outcomes.

In policy circles, the 31 Model is often discussed alongside public policy reform movements and institutional reform agendas. It takes inspiration from prior movements that emphasized federalism and local problem-solving, while incorporating modern insights about efficiency, accountability, and the role of markets in delivering public goods. As with many such frameworks, it has evolved through pilots, incremental reforms, and debates about trade-offs—especially between growth and equity. Within this tradition, 30s/40s policy debates provide a backdrop for understanding how the model positions itself relative to broader debates about the welfare state and the limits of government.

Core Principles

  • Growth with discipline: The model treats a robust, dynamic economy as the primary engine of opportunity, arguing that growth expands the pie for everyone and creates resources for social programs through a stronger tax base and higher incomes. This rests on the belief that economic policy should prioritize efficiency, innovation, and competitive markets.

  • Limited, predictable government: A core aim is to constrain the drift of public spending and administrative discretion through clear rules, caps, and performance benchmarks. The idea is to reduce the unintended consequences of perpetual policy tinkering and to restore trust in public institutions.

  • Rule of law and strong institutions: Secure property rights, independent courts, and transparent budgeting are central to the model. Sound institutions are viewed as essential for sustaining long-run growth and safeguarding liberty.

  • Opportunity over outcome: The model favors policies that expand access to opportunity—for example, through school choice, competitive healthcare markets, and portability of benefits—rather than attempting to guarantee uniform outcomes by force of law.

  • Decentralization and subsidiarity: Decision-making power is better exercised at the lowest practical level, with inputs from citizens and local actors, thereby increasing accountability and tailoring solutions to local conditions.

  • Merit-based reform and targeted safety nets: Reforms aim to preserve a safety net while discouraging dependency by emphasizing work, education, and mobility. When safety nets exist, they are designed to be targeted and time-bound where possible.

Throughout its discussion, the model uses a balance of market mechanisms and legal safeguards to sustain both efficiency and social trust. It relies on the assumption that well-designed incentives and protections can coexist, guiding society toward prosperity without eroding the social fabric.

Structure and Levers

The model organizes policy into 31 levers grouped into three broad domains: economic levers, social policy levers, and institutional levers. Each lever represents a policy tool that can be calibrated to achieve desired outcomes while remaining accountable to constitutional and legal constraints.

  • Economic levers

    • Tax policy: Simplification, lower rates where feasible, and broad tax bases designed to minimize distortions; emphasis on competitiveness and compliance efficiency.
    • Spending caps and fiscal rules: Binding limits on year-to-year spending growth to control deficits and debt.
    • Regulatory reform: Reducing unnecessary red tape, adopting sunset provisions, and focusing on performance-based regulations.
    • Competition policy: Strengthening antitrust enforcement where necessary to prevent market concentration, while avoiding excessive intervention that stifles innovation.
    • Labor market flexibility: Policies that encourage mobility and skills development, paired with strong training programs to reduce frictions in moving workers between sectors.
    • Energy and infrastructure policy: Market-friendly energy policy and targeted investments in critical infrastructure to support growth and resilience.
    • Trade openness and competitiveness: Maintaining fair trade rules that protect national interests while promoting efficiency gains.
    • Property rights and enforcement: Protecting ownership and enabling predictable investment environments.
    • Privatization where appropriate: Transferring underperforming services to competitive markets where public provision fails to deliver value.
    • Anti-cartel and competition enforcement: Keeping markets open to new entrants and preventing collusive practices.

  • Social policy levers

    • Education policy and school choice: Expanding opportunities through vouchers, charter schools, and parental choice to enhance learning outcomes.
    • Healthcare market reforms: Encouraging competition, transparency, and patient-centered care to lower costs and improve quality.
    • Welfare reform and work incentives: Aligning safety nets with work and training opportunities to reduce long-term dependency.
    • Targeted safety nets: Focusing aid where it is most needed, with clear exit ramps and measurable outcomes.
    • Pension and retirement reform: Ensuring sustainability and fairness in public pension systems.
    • Housing policy: Promoting affordable, quality housing through market-based tools and efficient regulation.
    • Immigration policy for skilled workers: Designing points-based or merit-informed pathways to attract talent while protecting national interests.
    • Criminal justice and public safety: Emphasizing fair, effective enforcement, rehabilitation, and measured sentencing reforms where appropriate.
    • Vocational training and apprenticeships: Expanding pathways to good jobs outside traditional four-year degree tracks.
    • Community investments and social capital: Encouraging private and nonprofit initiatives that strengthen civil society and provide pathways to opportunity.

  • Institutional levers

    • Budget rules and fiscal governance: Clear rules that limit waste and improve accountability.
    • Decentralization and subsidiarity: Strengthening local decision-making while preserving national standards.
    • Regulatory sunset provisions and performance audits: Regular reviews to ensure relevance and effectiveness.
    • Transparency and anti-corruption measures: Open data initiatives and strong enforcement to maintain public trust.
    • Civil service reform: Modernizing procurement, hiring, and evaluation to improve efficiency.
    • Constitutional safeguards and checks: Maintaining a robust constitutional framework to balance powers.
    • Public-private collaboration where effective: Encouraging partnerships that deliver value without undermining core responsibilities.
    • Intergovernmental coordination: Aligning federal, state, and local efforts to reduce duplication and conflict.
    • Administrative capacity building: Investing in skills and systems that improve policy delivery.

In practice, the 31 levers are not always deployed in a single package; policymakers select a subset appropriate to a given jurisdiction and political climate, always returning to the core priorities of growth, opportunity, and responsible governance. Throughout policy design, the model emphasizes alignment between incentives, governance capacity, and the rule of law, with a bias toward enduring reforms that can withstand political changes.

Debates and Controversies

Supporters contend that the 31 Model fosters prosperity by focusing on durable, market-friendly reforms that expand opportunity and improve public services through competition and accountability. They argue that growth is the best vehicle for reducing poverty and increasing social mobility, and that a well-constructed safety net, designed to encourage work and skill development, does not need to be sacrificed for efficiency.

Critics, especially those who emphasize equity and social justice, warn that a prioritization of growth can neglect the needs of marginalized groups or expose vulnerable populations to greater risk if safety nets are pared back too aggressively. They argue that some communities face barriers—geographic, educational, or systemic—that require more proactive, targeted interventions than broad market-based reforms alone can deliver. From this perspective, critics worry that a narrow focus on efficiency could erode social trust and long-run stability if people perceive that the system treats them as means to an end rather than as ends in themselves.

Proponents counter that the model is not opposed to equity; rather, they frame equity as a function of opportunity. They contend that policies aimed at expanding choice, improving education quality, and ensuring a fair, rules-based economy create a more level playing field in the long run. In their view, winnowing inefficiencies and reducing distortions actually makes room for more people to climb higher, while targeted interventions can address the most pressing disparities without undermining overall growth. They also critique criticisms framed as “woke” for at times overstating the costs of reform or for demanding expansive public programs that crowd out private initiative and entrepreneurial risk-taking.

Debates about the model also touch on implementation realities. Skeptics point to political economy challenges, such as aging populations, demographic shifts, and the difficulty of sustaining reforms in the face of electoral pressures. Advocates emphasize that the model’s emphasis on transparent rules, performance monitoring, and local tailoring helps policymakers respond to such pressures without abandoning long-run aims.

Implementation and Case Studies

In practice, jurisdictions experimenting with the 31 Model typically begin with a collaborative review of existing programs to identify overlapping goals and wasted resources. They then map the 31 levers to concrete policy actions, test pilots, and measurable performance targets, with an emphasis on accountability and public communication. Where possible, reforms are designed with sunset provisions or conditional triggers to demonstrate value and maintain legitimacy with taxpayers.

Several states and municipalities have pursued elements of the model—such as expanding school choice, reforming welfare programs, streamlining regulations, and instituting clear budget rules—while preserving essential social protections. Advocates highlight these efforts as proof that principled reform can produce tangible gains in both efficiency and opportunity, while critics caution that success depends on careful calibration to local conditions and sustained political support.

See also public policy discussions that mirror similar debates, federalism discussions about decentralization, and the broader literature on economic policy and institutional reform.

See also