Re: Self certification?
That’s one economic view of it. Another is that most people, most of the time, are honest. If you double-check every purchased item yourself, then you will duplicate what your (likely) honest supplier has already done in QA.
For easily qualifiable criteria, as here, “Trust, but verify”, would be a better model where you carry out random spot checks and the legal framework provides for recourse when the test fails because it’s a sign of fraud
For things like 737 Max where there are complex aspects to fitness for purpose AND hefty risks, self-certification is more hazy. You want a 2nd opinion, the same way it is inherently risky to allow a programmer to self-QA. So self-certification is really abdicating your responsibility as a government.
For things like drug qualification tests it’s actually a bit easier even if the risks are high: you want low impact side effects AND recognized efficacy. But both of those are quantifiable in nature and given a suitable validation protocol self-cert can be relied upon, barring fraud.
Sufficiently egregious fraud should be assumed to run to the top of a company, meaning hefty _personal_ legal risks to C-levels. Add the risk of big corporate fines and you would make not cost-effective to cheat.
But saving money by systematically dismantling regulatory oversight, as you see with the FAA or the US PTO is a fool’s game. There’s more than enough fat in the overall bloated US Federal budget to trim to cover these departments' ultimately small outlays. Trimming elsewhere would interfere with pork however, as well as the US electorate’s tendency to vote for high services (6-700$B defence among others) and low taxes.
Pork, graft and corruption happens happily under capitalist or socialist systems BTW. Under communist systems it is almost guaranteed.