Self-Governance 2050 is organized around three working groups focused on the federal government, plus a case study in Pennsylvania that tests how those ideas play out in a single state. Each group brings together people who don’t usually sit at the same table: scholars and practitioners, conservatives and progressives, veterans of Congress, agencies, and state and local government. We think the hard problems of self-government can’t be solved by people who already agree with each other.
Legislature & Legitimacy
This working group asks why Congress has stopped being the place where American disagreements get resolved, and what it would take to restore that role. Our premise is that the path to democratic legitimacy runs through Congress, and that reviving it is essential to everything else this project is working on, from how agencies use their authority to how services actually reach people.
Key questions
What is the biggest reason Congress struggles to resolve disagreements, and how much of it comes from members’ incentives versus the institution’s capacity?
What can Congress’s own history, and other legislatures, teach us about restoring that function?
What would need to be true, politically and institutionally, for meaningful change to happen?
Co-chairs
Lee Drutman (New America)
James Wallner (Foundation for American Innovation)
Administrative Process & Public Participation
This working group brings together legal scholars, former agency officials, civic technologists, and organizers to rethink how administrative processes can balance expertise and public input, so that government can make informed, timely decisions while staying accountable and open to a broader range of perspectives.
Key questions
What is public participation in the regulatory process actually for?
Who gets heard today, who is left out, and what would make people feel their participation mattered?
How should participation be redesigned for the age of AI?
Co-chairs
Sam Bagenstos (University of Michigan)
Kate Gage (Cooperative Impact Lab; Higher Ground Institute)
Joe Postell (Hillsdale College)
Service Delivery & Digital Infrastructure
This working group asks what institutional structures, data systems, and decision rules would let governments at every level deliver with accountability, and what credible paths forward exist under current political conditions. It currently works through two subgroups: one on the future of federalism (who should deliver what across federal, state, and local government) and one on the frontline caseworkers who connect people to services.
Key questions
Which services benefit from local delivery, and which suffer from local fragmentation?
When should government aim for uniform treatment, and when should it leave room for frontline judgment?
How can differences across states and cities inform stronger models of service delivery?
Co-chairs
Amira Boland (New America)
Marina Nitze (Layer Aleph)
David Wu (C. Boyden Gray Center)
Pennsylvania Case Study
States face a crisis of prioritization. As federal support shrinks and federal rules shift, states will have more room to act and fewer resources to act with, forcing hard choices among competing demands. That shift will test whether state governments can be engines of innovation or buckle under fragmentation and inertia.
Pennsylvania is an ideal place to study it: a politically divided state with a highly diversified economy, a tradition of pragmatic reform, and a decentralized system in which counties run many core functions. Our Pennsylvania work asks how changes at the federal level could require, and make room for, changes in state institutions, and it grounds the project’s broader ideas in the real structures and constraints of a single state. We are learning from people who work inside and alongside Pennsylvania government, and sharing what we learn through short case studies.