Everythingism: the FAQs
Policy Director
Two weeks ago, we published an essay on a topic close to our hearts: Everythingism. And it’s been everywhere – in the papers, on the airwaves, and even on the podcasts. It’s been great to see other writers sharing their thoughts. So I thought I’d tackle a couple of the questions which people have asked about Everythingism.
If you missed it, here’s the short version:
Everythingism is the belief that every government policy can be used to further every government objective, everywhere, all at once, and that doesn’t come at any cost the effectiveness of those policies. In other words, Everythingism is the belief that there is no trade-off in repurposing one policy for another objective, and doing that repeatedly at scale.
But that isn’t true. Rather than doing any one thing well, because of Everythingism we do everything badly. It means that housing policy becomes the main way to fix nitrogen imbalances in rivers. Trains become crucially important in protecting bats. Procurement policy becomes about reorganising the economy. And because those objectives massively distort the core policy, they don’t deliver. Everythingism is why nothing works.
So here are some of the questions readers have had:
- Isn’t the problem that government doesn’t prioritise well?
That’s a big problem, but it’s not Everythingism (at least, not all of it). Governments are bad at prioritising, and we’ve written about the structures Whitehall should use to deliver top government priorities to mitigate that problem. But a large state governing a G7 economy will never only work on its very top priorities – there is also a huge array of business-as-usual services it must provide, and policies it must deliver.
The problem with Everythigism is that governments don’t prioritise between the different instruments they use to deliver any given policy, instead preferring an “everything, everywhere, all at once” approach. When it takes that approach for every different policy goal, the system becomes too complicated to succeed, and it bakes in huge efficiencies to how any given policy is delivered.
- But aren’t some policy objectives just bad?
Absolutely, but that partly depends on your politics. I think all the objectives listed in the paper are good ones, the problem is that by insisting on using sub-optimal policies to deliver them, they create unexpected costs for other (equally laudable) goals.
- Isn’t this an appeal for siloed thinking? Don’t we want people to get out of their siloes?
Joined-up thinking about government is essential, because we live in a complex world. Policymakers shouldn’t ignore complexity. But we’ve become uncritical adherents to the mantra of “joined-up thinking” without reflecting on how it plays out in practice, and in some scenarios, it’s gone too far – becoming an excuse for delay and inaction. The essay points out that complexity is good as a description of systems, but isn’t always a useful prescription for action.
- Aren’t you denying trade-offs between objectives by saying government should focus?
No, the essay does the opposite, and says that when we repurpose a policy from one objective to another, we should make that trade-off crystal clear. Although there are lots of ways that Whitehall policymakers recognise trade-offs between objectives (e.g. environmental impact assessments), Everythingism has baked many of those processes into policymaking to an excessive degree, creating processes which tie Ministers hands in favour of objectives which are structurally advantaged over others in the policymaking process.
- Isn’t joined-up thinking particularly important for place-based interventions which can target cohorts with a wide range of related issues?
Absolutely, very local place-based approaches are the best way to do joined-up social policy while avoiding Everythingism, because planners have a much clearer line of sight to the trade-offs and any synergies. There are some win-wins in policy, and most of these are found at a local level. My colleague Dr Simon Kaye has written about the “economies of context” policymakers can get by working at a level where join-up is more obvious.