DARPA races offer model for government-industry relations

The relationship between the government and the auto industry is about to be transformed. But into what?

Eight years ago, that relationship hardly could have been more awkward. Two of the Detroit 3 were begging Congress for a lifeline. The federal government would later fire General Motors' CEO, orchestrate a bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler and emerge as a shareholder in both -- a highly un-American arrangement that would lead to a successful recovery, yes, but also lingering tensions and shame.

The relationship is different now, but it's not necessarily better. The Obama administration shed the stake in the car companies but has wrapped its tentacles more tightly around the industry in many ways, including strict consent decrees to monitor safety and tough targets for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions.

The underlying motives are compelling. Americans deserve safer cars and a healthier environment, and it's the government's job to advocate for them, not for the shareholders of GM or Volkswagen. But the approach hasn't always been amenable to the kind of win-win partnerships that can align shareholder and public interests.

On the eve of a new presidential administration, those searching for a more fruitful and enduring model of government-industry relations might look back to 2007, when the Pentagon's research arm invited auto companies and academics to complete an urban obstacle course with unmanned vehicles and compete for a $2 million prize. The money was pocket change, but the impact was profound.

That DARPA Challenge race, richly described in Automotive News last week, ignited the movement toward self-driving cars and the voracious search for innovative safety solutions that's now taking place at every automaker. Billions of dollars have been invested in this quest by automakers and their academic and supplier partners, not because of a strict government mandate but because of a basic principle of business: Competition gets the juices flowing. It fuels the desire to excel. It drives companies not just to meet a challenge but to do it better, faster or more creatively than anyone else.

It's why auto racing is a thing.

We're not suggesting the government get into racing or abandon its role as an enforcer. But the DARPA model is a useful prism through which to envision how the industry and the federal government, under a deregulatory Trump administration, can cooperate to make more meaningful progress on safety, fuel economy, climate-change mitigation and other issues.

The government can only force so much change on the industry before killing its spirit. On the other hand, igniting robust competition can begin a virtuous cycle that inspires automakers to forge boldly forward -- not because there's a financial penalty for losing but because the rewards for competing and winning are immeasurable.