Adhocracy: A Failed Regulatory Strategy
How to Address this Source of Poor Policies and Lost Public Trust
Over the last 50 years, Western regulators have developed an ad hoc approach to public policies that has confused consumers, destroyed trust and generated unfair opportunities to a wide range of special interests. It has gone unnoticed because it has never been given a name, a critical analysis or a viable alternative. Let this conversation on adhocracy begin this discussion.
The word “adhocracy” was coined in the 1960s to describe a more flexible approach to regulations (rather than a rigid bureaucracy tied to a procedural system or political ideologies). It has rarely been discussed but the evolution from a bureaucracy to adhocracy has marked policymaking over the last 50 years. This regulatory opportunism has been abused by interest groups (lobbyists, NGOs, lawyers, industry, special interests…) trying to impose their will on particular laws to the point that regulations have become temporary fixes and short-term solutions regularly updated as the winds change direction.
Adhocracy refers to a ‘flexible, adaptable, and informal form of organization defined by a lack of formal structure’. Rather than laws and regulations, an adhocratic system would have specialized multidisciplinary teams assess each situation on a case-by-case or ad hoc basis. It has lurked behind political strategies from Realpolitik to recent experiments in citizen assemblies.
Coined by Warren Bennis in 1968, in his book The Temporary Society, to refer to flexible, temporary structures as an alternative to slow, cumbersome bureaucracy, it was popularized by Alvin Toffler in his 1970 book, Future Shock, to represent the need to evolve toward dynamic structures to cope with rapid technological and societal change. Many would think this is the perfect regulatory tool for today’s tech revolutions, but the term “ad hoc” has not weathered the generational shifts.
How have our regulatory processes become adhocratic, and where is the problem? Some examples:
The European Union is in the process of passing a regulation on New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) for plant breeding that would replace their controversial GMO Directive. The new law is a series of ad hoc or patchwork responses to stakeholder concerns, trying to allow easier approvals for some techniques, but not others; limiting patents on some techniques but not others; insisting on traceability even though in some cases there are no means to differentiate the modified seeds; and relegating all herbicide-tolerant seeds under the more restrictive regulatory category (only because some activists campaigned against glyphosate). Even more ad hoc, this new NGT regulation aims to incentivize technologies that support EU sustainability goals. I cannot think of any seed innovation that does not fall under this qualification, but no doubt it leaves the decision to some “adhocrat” to hold a finger up to the wind when the time comes.
Recent American decisions on food safety have been adhocratic. Certain food additives have been randomly targeted because of longstanding activist Moms campaigning against sciency-sounding ingredients rather than scientific evidence. An ad hoc definition of processed food (dubbed “ultra-processed food”) has been created as a label to blacklist foods produced by large food conglomerates, regardless of ingredients, nutrients or calories. Food in its natural state is favored over processed food because of a mistrust of human intervention (hence the rising popularity of raw milk and beef tallow). The US Department of Health and Human Services recently turned the Food Pyramid on its head, with many decisions justified more by the special interest groups funding the advisors than by actual health benefits.
Tobacco and nicotine regulations are adhocratic by nature. For decades, tobacco was recognized as a major public health risk, but regulators looked the other way, imposing soft restrictions because their governments relied on the tax revenues. When clear alternatives hit the market that significantly reduced harm (e-cigarettes, Snus, nicotine pouches…), the regulatory reaction was less than rational. Well-funded activist campaigns built on prejudice against the legacy of Big Tobacco companies have led to public confusion over these safer alternatives to smoking. Rather than promoting a wider uptake of tobacco harm reduction products, there is widespread pressure to ban, restrict or disincentivize their use, despite the clear evidence of their benefits.
None of these adhocratic regulations could be said to have built trust with the public.
The Appeal of Adhocracy
Regulators have admitted they will consider regulatory routes on an ad hoc basis, if anything, just to simplify their lives. An EU official admitted at a recent conference that the European Commission would take the hazard-based approach if banning a substance or process would not cause consumer, political or trade issues, but he would propose the risk-based approach if invoking the precautionary principle would leave no alternatives or public outrage. This is not sound, rational or credible, but it makes for an easier time for regulators.
Another appeal to adhocracy would be to free policy from ideology or value systems where regulations are pushed through not because they are the best solutions but because they comply with political dogma (capitalism, socialism, mercantilism, religion...). Agroecology is a good example of where Marxist dogma applied to agronomy had catastrophic effects in countries like Sri Lanka or Cuba. Where religions determined public policies in the Middle Ages, today we have the irrational cult of naturopathic environmentalism. Adhocracy is a reaction to the force of these dogmatic ideologies.
The adhocracy concept was developed in the late 1960s at the height of the Cold War where ideological madness ruled over common sense and reason. Today we seem to have returned to that global state of unreason. There were also similar societal upheavals reacting to technological change, as we have today, putting strain on Western governance models.
Adhocrats as regulatory opportunists would adapt their solutions to the situations free from ideology. Some would say this is the appeal of Donald Trump’s ad hoc economic strategy, moving from free market deregulation to socialist consumer protectionism to a command-control resource strategy, often on the same day. Others would argue that the ideology of transactional narcissism is what is driving Trump’s strategy.
What are some of the consequences of this adhocracy?
With no policy predictability, interests just move out or move on. This is presently happening with former US trading allies.
Consumers become confused. The public hears incongruous statements on food safety, for example, and loses trust in regulators.
Researchers and companies cannot invest in long-term solutions if regulations are made on an ad hoc basis.
The economy suffers as opportunists like lawyers, NGOs, industry and special interest groups take advantage of the irrational and unpredictable adhocratic regulations to extract undue wealth and influence.
Can people ever actually be ideologically agnostic? Perhaps adhocracy is an excuse for non-committal pragmatism (ie, regulatory laziness or indifference).
The Need to Restore Rationality
I have been arguing for the European Commission to produce a White Paper on Risk Management to restrict the ad hoc regulatory approach. An equivalent guidance document is also needed in the United States once the policy chaos of the present administration is committed to history.
As regulations are essentially about risk management, a clean analysis and list of guidelines on how policymakers need to manage risks would remove the worst elements of adhocracy. Evidence and scientific methods would return to the policy process, regulations would become more predictable and rational. A strong guidance handbook would limit the influence of special interest groups who could plant their points into the fog of an adhocratic regulation and extract bespoke benefits from interpreting policies with no clear logic.
At the moment, we have a regulatory process open to abuse, opportunism and unfairness. Adhocracy is not rule-based but rather situational and overly flexible. A White Paper on Risk Management would not impose an ideology on regulators but rather provide all actors with a shared set of rational principles (a rulebook) to limit the irrational outcomes and hopefully restore some level of trust in the process.