In discussions like this I feel there's a big bias in favor of what's called "institutionalism". This is a theory that the attributes of the institutions people

In discussions like this I feel there's a big bias in favor of what's called "institutionalism". This is a theory that the attributes of the institutions people work in, such as budget, governance, size, etc., most determine outcomes. While there's a lot of truth to this, I think it's overused as an explanation because blaming the institution is less painful when there's a failed outcome. Talent, on the other hand, is less used as an explanation because when there's a bad outcome, it hurts more to blame those, even partially, who were executing towards the goal. However in some endeavors talent matters a lot, and software is one of them. The Mythical Man-Month is a great book that examines software project failure, whose conclusions are that "institutional" solutions to software problems, such as more staff or more budget, aren't as good as "talent" solutions, such as hiring the best person in the world for an absurdly high salary and having them do most of the work. That's a long-winded answer to why the private sector is better than the public sector at some things: it does a better job at rewarding, and thus attracting, talent. The public sector, by contrast, is more likely to promote based on seniority and base political values, which in a democracy include equality and solidarity.