Note to file from discussion on <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7218511945652391937?commentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A%28activity%3A7218511945652391937%2C7218874724955693056%29&replyUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A%28activity%3A7218511945652391937%2C7219931261908176898%29&dashCommentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afsd_comment%3A%287218874724955693056%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7218511945652391937%29&dashReplyUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afsd_comment%3A%287219931261908176898%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7218511945652391937%29" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">Linked-in</a>: Thanks Glenn <blockquote>I'm not sure what you're suggesting regarding the Evaluator General, though for the purposes of understanding what my challenge to Krystian is, I suspect it's better to leave it in the background and focus on the first two points of my solution set out at the end. </blockquote><blockquote>My central challenge was a more fundamental one. For decades all developed countries I know of have had this kind of backstory</blockquote><blockquote>"Our approach to addressing disadvantage includes non-government service delivery, and though it is far from a perfect commercial market, nevertheless, where there is obvious outperformance, the system will notice it and start wanting more of it". </blockquote><blockquote>But not only doesn't this seem to happen. When you look more closely, the most basic things that you'd expect to be there if we were to take the idea seriously (rather than have it sitting comfortably in the back of our heads) are not there. </blockquote><blockquote>The first two of my three concluding points suggest a simple way of trying to make ourselves accountable to the logic of expanding what does well and doing less of lower impact activities. </blockquote>