Something Must Be Done

a political pathology ...

‘Something must be done …’ is a cry of political urgency but it can harden into an expectation that every concern must elicit from government a policy response. I consider this expectation and its consequences.

In a brilliant essay on ‘Everythingism’, Joe Hill from the think tank Re:State (formerly Reform) identifies “a pathology that holds back the State”. Everythingism is “the belief that every proposal, project, or policy is a means for promoting every national objective”. It is the close analogue of ‘mission creep’ and ‘policy overload’.

The essay illustrates this with compelling examples, thus “moving to safe and cheap nuclear power becomes impossible unless it also promotes the Welsh language, enhances biodiversity, and upskills the local workforce.” I hesitate to point to Industrial Strategy as a further example. The essay argues, convincingly in my view, that everythingism dilutes focus and obscures the need for tradeoffs. It adds complexity and diminishes capacity.

‘Something Must Be Done’ is a closely related pathology. It is the belief that every issue merits a policy response. Any matter that can yield a narrative that might excite sympathy or indignation, and in particular has the ability to mobilise a committed group of concerned individuals, must be responded to by action on the part of government. Given our current media environment, which fosters such narratives and gives small, committed groups a voice and reach that they might not previously have had, this means that policy is expected for well ... everything. ‘Something Must be Done’ is one of the primary roots of everythingism.

The consequences are obvious. Policy intent must be followed by the means to realise that intent. Action must be followed by regulation. Regulation must be underpinned by standards. Standards imply oversight and monitoring. Regulation also requires enforcement. Oversight and monitoring necessitate governance. And so on. A complex, costly bureaucratic engine imposing a substantial reporting burden must be put in place and then sustained. Policy of this kind rarely accommodates a systems approach even though what is called for is a ‘systemic response’. Policy capacity is strained giving rise to poorly thought through and weakly evidenced proposals. Reactive policy making tends to result in fragile, short-lived initiatives.

Rather than decreasing the political risks associated with the underlying concern, this approach actually amplifies that risk. Inherent in the use of policy as a primary instrument is an implicit acceptance that government is properly accountable. There is no way back and policy failure generally results in blowback. The irony is that for many of the things for which ‘Something Must Be Done’ ... something -should- be done.

Because government does not have either the capability or resources to actually address the issues of concern directly, they are effectively outsourced, first to organisations within the penumbra of government. Clearly, universities come to mind, but Local Government, Police and the NHS, are all equally subject to this. This is rarely accompanied by resources, but almost inevitably accompanied by an inflexible implementation scheme, unrealistic deadlines, and in the worst cases a hectoring tone. Drawing some examples from recent higher education policy and from amongst the innumerable guidance documents directed at universities, issues such as sexual misconduct, cost-of-living support, student mental health, all come to mind. Each clearly and properly issues that must be addressed by the sector, but poorly served by a policy-led approach.

The default approach taken by government is not necessarily the best way to secure action. Government has many means, short of policy, available to it: convening, role-modelling and path-finding, recognition of best-practice, fostering co-development, influence, institution-building, and so on. For many organisations, small but well-placed incentives can be highly effective in leveraging desired outcomes. Only where these means are exhausted, and the cause merits it, might it be best to reach for a policy-led approach.

I am not advancing a laissez-faire or small government agenda, but rather one that reframes progress as a dialogue with government and envisions a society in which institutions are engaged in a partnership to make things better. Governments that over-extend their policy capacity get diminishing returns. Effective government depends as much on prioritisation and trust in capable institutions as on policy.