Politicians periodically promise to “reform” public administration. They claim that the various regulations accumulated over the years are nothing but obstacles to economic activity and innovation. But they fail to explain what will replace the measures they propose to chainsaw.
Recently, US presidential candidate Donald Trump promised to appoint billionaire Elon Musk to review the US federal administration. The politician promised to eliminate ten government regulations for every new regulation implemented. Ten for one, as if all these were interchangeable! He wants to reduce regulations and stimulate energy production, adopt cryptocurrencies and reduce government spending as well as corporate taxes. Closer to home, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre calls local leaders who have to apply urban planning regulations incompetent. These rules would only delay housing construction.
Criticizing the rules that define what is allowed or forbidden, especially in activities that may involve dangers, is one of the main credos of populism. It is claimed that regulations “hinder” innovation and delay projects. But the reason for these rules of the game is carefully ignored.
It is when a disaster occurs that we become aware of the consequences of removing regulations. Because in the anti-regulation discourse, we are silent on the links between disasters and budget cuts or the clumsy abolition of regulations. For example, a link was suspected between the relaxation of regulations on railway safety and the Mégantic disaster, but we were mostly quick to blame the individual left alone with a defective locomotive.
The recent report on the deadly fire at London’s Grenfell Tower documents the tragic consequences of the chainsaw treatment of regulations. On 14 June 2017, a fire broke out in the kitchen of a flat in a 24-storey social housing block in London. The toll was dire: 72 people died, including 18 children, trapped in the building, which had been renovated in 2016, and which went up in flames like a torch.
Seven years later, Judge Martin Moore-Bick filed the report of his independent inquiry commissioned by the British government. It recounts the accumulation of errors and negligence that led to the tragedy. Above all, it exposes the extent to which the race for profitability, deregulation and the dilution of responsibilities could have created the conditions for such a catastrophe.
By the early 2000s, the authorities had all the information about the tests that had shown the danger of the cladding installed on the burnt-out building. But they ignored it. When David Cameron’s government (2010-2016) came to power, the priority was cuts and deregulation. It was about “promoting growth”. According to Justice Moore-Bick, “even matters concerning the safety and protection of people were ignored, delayed or disregarded”.
This is a good example of what happens when government “reform” projects are carried out with a chainsaw, without questioning the needs that the regulations are intended to meet. In such operations, all government measures are presumed to be unnecessary expenditures. It is arbitrarily decreed that “before adding more,” some must be removed. The reason for the existence of regulations is ignored. And when disaster strikes, very few people make the connection between the reduction of regulations and the consequences of a relaxation of requirements.
A rigorous review
It is true that over time, regulations can become ineffective or counterproductive. It is undeniable that regulations must be periodically reviewed and subjected to rigorous critical analysis. What may have justified them does not necessarily hold true when conditions change. They must be continually evaluated in light of evidence to measure their relevance and effectiveness. Not an impressionistic operation of cutting.
Changes may lead to the need to regulate differently, to target different activities or actors. Changes may also alter perceptions about what justifies the intervention of laws and regulations. We must give ourselves the means to understand all this and do so continuously. We must quickly modernize what has become obsolete.
The credibility of regulatory processes is often undermined by this detestable tendency towards fussy application, often devoid of concern for the issues that justify its existence. The other failing is to imagine that regulations apply themselves, that it is not necessary to provide the bodies responsible for ensuring compliance with them with the appropriate means.
Assessing the relevance and effectiveness of regulations requires a rigorous, ongoing, evidence-based process. It is the opposite of a logging exercise for billionaires looking for thrills.