Taskforces: a cure for all policy ills?

An advantage of taskforces is their flexibility and capacity to mobilise high-level skills for short-term mandates. However, taskforces are not a panacea for all policy ills. An article in Policy Design and Practice answers the question of what types of advisory systems suit what type of crisis. It assesses the suitability of the taskforce model and compares expert advice provided to decision-makers during the financial crisis and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis shows that one size does not fit all and the distinctive characteristics of crises must be considered to find a fit-for-purpose approach. 

The role of taskforces

Taskforces gather authoritative experts to help governments address specialised issues requiring cutting-edge knowledge. They burgeoned in the wake of the COVID-19 as taskforces were established in countries worldwide to provide governments with state-of-the-art evidence.  

As much as taskforces are a manifestation of agile governance, their characteristics raise issues about how they sit alongside existing politico-administrative structures. The use of experts to tackle policy can lead to questions of democratic legitimacy. Additionally, not all crises are equal. From cyclical to creeping, there is a wide range of crises, with different requirements regarding preparation and the governance of public action. 

The use of taskforces during polycrises presents a particular challenge as these are characterised by simultaneous complex events that intersect. This leads to spillovers and a layering of problems, where solving one problem might aggravate another. Even though polycrises share common characteristics, it does not mean that they all require a unique advisory model.  

About the research

The research explored the following questions:  

• Are taskforces a remedy for all crises or only fit to navigate specific types of crises?  
• Do they purely meet a need for specialised expertise or are they at risk of justifying weak administrative capacity or poor crisis preparedness by providing the illusion of safety?  
• Are they a short-term solution to long-lasting issues? 

The methodology involved comparative study of the science-policy interface in the COVID-19 crisis and the 2008–2009 financial crisis in Switzerland. 

Advantages and drawbacks of taskforces

As can be seen in Table 1, the research identified advantages and drawbacks in two areas: operational and strategic.  

Table 1: Advantages and drawbacks of taskforces in crisis governance. 

Preventing the shortcomings of the taskforce model

The study identified three types of crises:  

• cyclical predictable ones (e.g. financial crises, earthquakes) 
• creeping, slow-burning ones (e.g. climate change, pandemic) 
• unexpected ‘black swan’ crises which are difficult to predict (e.g. a critical infrastructure accident). 

Irrespective of the type of crisis, the following issues needed to be addressed when establishing a taskforce. 

Structure: The main advantage of taskforces is putting together an advisory structure that is tailored to the specific crisis domain. However, they must suddenly collaborate with existing institutional arrangements and need appropriate support and knowledge of the government environment. 

Type of expertise:  Taskforces provide the opportunity to gather the best available knowledge on a topic. However, such expertise cannot simply be technical and narrow as it risks tunnel vision. Expertise is needed that interrogates the short, middle- and long-term timeframes as well as focusing on social, economic and ethical dimensions. 

Legitimacy: The lack of democratic legitimacy of taskforce experts can be held against them. Two elements can strengthen legitimacy: (1) explaining to the public on what criteria experts have been chosen; and (2) communicating limitations about the taskforce’s mission. 

Independence: Taskforces have autonomy and this is a key difference to in-house government expertise. However, this independence can create frictions that risk putting the expert-politics relationship in jeopardy. Solutions must therefore be found to strike the right balance between independence and proximity. 

The bottom line

The taskforce model bears promise. It enables external expertise and politics to work hand in hand to address policy ills, unexpected crisis and major threats. However, the use of taskforces should be systematically assessed, including up- and downsides. Some weaknesses of taskforces might be improved at the operational level (e.g. structure, communication, relations with politicians, administrations and the public). 

At the strategic level, two dimensions remain problematic. Taskforces are at risk of politicisation. This can have the unwarranted effect of politicising expertise and undermining credibility. The taskforce mindset could also reflect a refusal to face up to creeping contemporary problems. As a corollary, this model brings into question what substantive policy measures societies are willing to implement with a longer-term perspective. 

Taskforces: a cure for all ills? Policy advisory systems in times of polycrises – Céline Mavrot, Caroline Schlaufer, Johanna Hornung, Fritz Sager, Caspar Hirschi and Dylan Jaton, Policy Design and Practice, November 2024 

Each fortnight The Bridge summarises a piece of academic research relevant to public sector managers.  

Sign up to The Bridge