The Illiberal Logic of Mission-Directed Governance

It requires overriding or sidelining dissenting voices.

By Research Director of the Hayek Program at the London School of Economics, Bryan Cheang

Mission-directed governance has emerged as a popular framework for tackling society's most pressing challenges, from decarbonising the economy to achieving public health breakthroughs. Advocates like Mariana Mazzucato propose a proactive state that unifies society around ambitious missions, offering direction and stability in a world of uncertainty. Yet, while the vision appears transformative, its underlying logic conflicts with the pluralism and diversity that characterise democratic governance.

Mission-directionality seeks singularity of purpose: a state-chosen mission that aligns social actors toward a shared goal. However, this focus inevitably curtails democratic processes, which thrive on debate and disagreement. Proponents claim compatibility with democracy, emphasising stakeholder engagement and citizen participation. But the reality is that achieving mission-directionality requires overriding or sidelining dissenting voices, if indeed the ideal is consistently pursued. This central contradiction challenges the feasibility of mission-directed governance within liberal democracies and raises significant concerns about its authoritarian potential.

The appeal of mission-directionality lies in its promise to solve the uncertainty and fragmentation inherent in decentralized, market-based systems. Advocates argue that grand societal challenges—such as climate change or the digital divide—cannot be addressed through piecemeal or reactive policies. Instead, governments must provide a guiding "North Star," uniting public and private actors toward systemic change.

Yet, the logic of mission-directionality depends on limiting the multiplicity of competing goals. If diverse priorities are allowed to persist, the coherence and stability that the mission demands are undermined. This requires state actors to make subjective decisions about which missions take precedence and to enforce alignment, often in ways that override democratic processes.

Democratic systems, by contrast, are designed to accommodate pluralism. Citizens hold divergent views about societal priorities, and governments must balance these interests through deliberation and compromise. Mission-directionality, with its emphasis on singularity and focus, clashes with this democratic pluralism. The result is a fundamental tension: the state cannot simultaneously respect the diversity of democratic debate and enforce the coherence needed for mission-directionality.

A Fragile Commitment to Democracy

Proponents of mission-directed governance assert that their approach respects democratic principles, often emphasizing stakeholder collaboration and public engagement. Mazzucato, for example, describes a vision where citizens help design and implement missions, ensuring that governance reflects societal values.

However, such claims are undermined by the requirement that the state must first "pick a direction." This prioritization subordinates democratic deliberation to predetermined goals, reducing stakeholder engagement to a rubber-stamping exercise. Conversely, if citizen participation is fully incorporated into the mission-selection process, the pluralism of democratic debate undermines the singularity required for mission-directionality. Competing interests and conflicting priorities make it virtually impossible to sustain the focus that mission-directed governance demands.

This dilemma reveals an unresolved contradiction: either the mission becomes diffuse and ineffective, or democratic processes are curtailed to preserve its coherence. Advocates often sidestep this issue, assuming that consensus around societal goals will emerge organically. Yet, the reality of democratic politics is one of constant contestation, where consensus is rare and transient.

Climate Change as a Case Study

The framing of climate change as a "planetary emergency" illustrates the risks of mission-directionality. While the urgency of addressing climate change is undeniable, the language of crisis often marginalises dissenting views and alternative approaches.

Proposals such as Green New Deals exemplify this tendency. Advocates often dismiss modest strategies—like carbon taxes or adaptive policies—as insufficiently ambitious. Yet, these alternatives may better balance costs and benefits, particularly for developing nations disproportionately burdened by aggressive decarbonization mandates. Mission-directed approaches, by contrast, demand systemic transformation at high cost, rendering dissenting perspectives as obstacles to progress.

Militaristic rhetoric compounds these risks. The invocation of "war" to combat climate change legitimizes top-down control, from production quotas to personal carbon rationing. While such measures may achieve rapid results, they also erode democratic norms, framing resistance as betrayal rather than legitimate debate.

The lesson from climate policy is clear: framing grand challenges as singular, totalising missions risks subordinating democratic pluralism to technocratic authority. While the stakes are high, the means of addressing them must respect the open-ended, deliberative nature of liberal democracy.

What Advocates Ignore About East Asia

Supporters of mission-directed governance frequently cite East Asia’s developmental states—Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore—as examples of successful state intervention. These nations, it is argued, demonstrate how to combine market forces with state planning, achieving rapid economic growth through targeted industrial policies.

However, advocates often overlook a critical feature of these states: their mission-directionality rested on authoritarian foundations. The developmental state model, with its singular focus on economic growth, required mechanisms of control that suppressed dissent and concentrated power.

For example, South Korea and Taiwan relied on authoritarian regimes during their developmental phases to enforce alignment with state-led industrialization. In South Korea, labor movements were repressed, and workers were subjected to coercive workplace cultures framed as patriotic duty. In Taiwan, land reforms were carried out with heavy-handed state intervention, eliminating opposition from landed elites. Even Japan, often viewed as a democratic developmental state, relied on bureaucratic autonomy that insulated decision-makers from public accountability.

Singapore provides the clearest contemporary example of mission-directed governance sustained through authoritarian practices. The People’s Action Party (PAP) used tools like land acquisitions and public housing policies to control the population and align societal goals with state-defined missions. These measures illustrate how mission-directionality often requires deep intrusions into civil society to maintain focus and discipline.

While East Asia’s developmental states achieved impressive economic outcomes, their methods are incompatible with liberal democratic norms. The authoritarian mechanisms that underpinned their success highlight the risks of pursuing mission-directed governance in societies that value individual freedom and pluralism.

Mission-Directionality’s Authoritarian Drift

Even outside the East Asian context, the logic of mission-directionality risks authoritarian outcomes. Bureaucratic discretion, central to this model, places immense power in the hands of unelected officials, who must define societal goals and enforce alignment. This concentration of authority undermines the checks and balances that sustain democratic accountability.

Moreover, the framing of societal challenges as emergencies often fosters a climate of conformity. Alternative perspectives are delegitimized, and dissenting voices are cast as barriers to progress. Recent public health responses to COVID-19 illustrate how emergency narratives can justify extraordinary restrictions on individual freedoms, sidelining debate in favour of "following the science." The same logic applies to mission-directed governance: the need for coherence and urgency can justify measures that erode democratic norms.

Conclusion

Mission-directed governance presents itself as a visionary approach to societal challenges, but its logic conflicts with the principles of liberal democracy. The singularity and focus it demands are incompatible with the pluralism and debate that define democratic governance. Proponents must either abandon their commitment to systemic directionality or accept the authoritarian risks inherent in enforcing it.

Liberal democracies, with their diversity of values and interests, are ill-suited to the methods required for mission-directionality. Instead of imposing singular missions, policymakers should embrace the decentralized, adaptive nature of democratic systems. Modest, market-oriented strategies that respect pluralism offer a more sustainable and legitimate path forward. In addressing grand challenges, the cost of mission-directionality may ultimately prove too high.

For further elaboration, see newly published paper here “Why mission-directed governance risks authoritarianism: Lessons from East Asia” in the Journal of Institutional Economics.

--

Bryan Cheang is the Research Director of the Hayek Program at the London School of Economics and a Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Governance and Society at King’s College London, where he obtained his PhD in Political Economy. He is also a Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute. His current research is on the political economy of development, and the epistemic challenges of industrial planning.