Spending and strategic reviews: how do crises matter?

Purpose This paper explores various ways in which crises and shocks are associated with spending and strategic reviews, as well as reform. Design/methodology/approach The approach taken this article is theoretical and conceptual: we delineate different kinds of spending and strategic reviews, show how crises and shocks might vary along several dimensions and infer several propositions how crises and reviews might relate to each other and reform, which can guide future empirical study. Findings While crises and shocks can precipitate spending and strategic reviews, the nature of reviews could vary significantly depending on the scale, severity and perceived time horizons of the crisis or shock and whether policymakers believe the governance environment has fundamentally shifted. Reviews can be variously more selective, comprehensive, shallow or more forward-looking, and possibly performative. Reform may not flow from reviews and could proceed without them. Research limitations/implications This study was theoretical and conceptual in nature; the resulting propositions should be the focus of comparative case-study research. Practical implications This study will provide practitioners with additional concepts and language for analyzing the nature of spending and strategic reviews, and enable practitioners to better analyze the experience of other jurisdictions when informing the design and learning from their own reviews. Originality/value This is the first theoretical exploration of how crises, shocks, reviews, and reform intersect.