Bespoke science: The use of ad hoc scientific advisory committees in the Covid-19 pandemic

Many governments formed ad hoc scientific advisory committees in the Covid-19 pandemic because they could better control the advice given by such ad hoc bodies than that given by standing bodies. The difference between ad hoc and standing advisory bodies has been little noted in the literature. Ad hoc bodies better serve policymaker interests in high uncertainty crises demanding expertise and requiring action from the national government. These conditions increase the value of policy discretion, raising the value of controlling the scientific narrative. An ad hoc body is generally easier to control than a standing body because policymakers have a greater liberty to choose its members, vary its membership when convenient, specify its mandate, and disband and reconstitute the body if need be. Control generally requires either a narrow membership or a narrow mandate. If members cannot be chosen to be reliably aligned with the government or its policy preferences, a narrow mandate will restrain the committee from offering undesired advice or analysis. Our argument builds on the public choice assumption of symmetry: The choices of scientists and politicians are shaped by the same motives and desires that influence individuals in any other sphere of life. Our case studies of Italy, UK, US, Poland, Uganda, and Sweden support our theory.