Let’s take the UK for example. Grayling, the transport minister, is currently getting pressure from all sides and definitely from the public to quit his post be

Let’s take the UK for example. Grayling, the transport minister, is currently getting pressure from all sides and definitely from the public to quit his post because of his poor decision making that led to a 33m pound out of court settlement. Theresa May, the Prime Minister, is facing questions and tremendous public pressure on a daily basis for her austerity led decisions to cut the police budget (something that would be unheard of in the US). They have tremendous incentives to cut costs. In fact, the UK, which was also booming (growth which has slowed since the Brexit vote, however) over the past 5-6 years, continues to be engaged in austerity measures. Clearly something there is incentivizing UK politicians to pay attention to costs. I think part of the reason is that in the UK you have (a) a populace that believes that government should be providing services where it is effective, and as a result, considers reductions in services a major negative against the government, and (b) you have actual ministers who ar directly responsible for specific areas, such as transport, who can be held accountable by the public. Not being able to control costs means not being able to provide services effectively, which in turn leads to the government failing in elections. In the US, there isn’t a transport minister to point to when the California HSR fails, which means responsibility and blame is diffused. Maybe that’s where the difference lies. Also, contrary to what some believe, most people who believe in government providing certain services don’t believe in the government being inefficient in doing so, and will hold that inefficiency against the government since it means they get less, or substandard services.