by Sreeja Nair
Each time a crisis hits, be it a natural disaster, pandemic or a corruption scandal, several ad hoc units are assembled by governments for quick action, only to be dismantled soon after the crisis becomes manageable or settles. Are these groups deployed as a signal of assurance to the public that indeed some action is being taken, or to bypass long-drawn bureaucratic processes in favour of quick action or to efficiently assemble and utilise resources under crisis? Perhaps all of the above. The possibilities of how ad hoc groups can be structured and the range of functions these can offer are plenty.
The term ‘adhocracy’ first featured in the book titled ‘The Temporary Society’ (Bennis and Slater, 1968) to describe flexible, unstructured and adaptable organisational models, which operated in stark contrast to a typical bureaucracy. Owing to their transient nature, policy learning opportunities brought about by ad hoc groups, have received little attention in public policy literature. Our new article in Policy and Politics presents insights from an exploratory study to understand the diverse institutional roles played by ad hoc groups deployed during crisis.
To ground this work empirically, we compared the deployment of ad hoc groups during two health crises- SARS and COVID-19, that affected five economies in Southeast Asia. Despite the seemingly random creation of multiple ad hoc bodies such as task forces, committees and steering groups, we observed some similarities in their structure and function in the five cases between the two crises. Helmed under the highest political order at the union level, these ad hoc groups were observed to take on three common roles. Firstly, they collated critical information during both health crises so that quick and prioritised action could be undertaken. Secondly, they enabled coordination among multiple agencies for timely action. And thirdly, they shared the additional burden on the routine functions of administrations during the crisis periods.
While ad hoc groups are characterised by their organic evolution and development, tracing policy learning opportunities by studying them across similar crises can allow for more fruitful deployment of these groups over time. Upon close observation, it is apparent from our exploratory analysis, that ad hoc groups reveal patterns in their structure and function that can be leveraged for improved crisis management in future, and thus these remain more than a ‘quick fix’ under crisis.
Table of contents for special issue blog series on Policy Expertise in Times of Crisis
Policy beliefs, belief uncertainty, and policy learning through the lens of the Advocacy Coalition Framework
Matthew C. Nowlin
Policy and organisational learning in judicial reform: evidence from Italy
Jonathan C. Kamkhaji and Giancarlo Vecchi
The relative effects of diversity on collective learning in local collaborative networks in Belgium
Nadège Carlier, David Aubin and Stéphane Moyson
Types of learning and varieties of innovation: how does policy learning enable policy innovation?
Nihit Goyal and Michael Howlett
How do governments learn from ad hoc groups during crises? From SARS to COVID-19
Sreeja Nair and Akshat Garg
Why policy failure is a prerequisite for innovation in the public sector
Philipp Trein and Thenia Vagionaki
Policy & Politics Journal Blog 