Readings Lectures (12) PDF

Wu, Xun. 2018. “Introduction: Managing the policy process”. Contemporary economic, social, and technological changes make the need for good policy and governance more vital ○ Policy processes at national, subnational and international level...

Wu, Xun. 2018. “Introduction: Managing the policy process”. Contemporary economic, social, and technological changes make the need for good policy and governance more vital ○ Policy processes at national, subnational and international level Only governments have potential to address collective issues, especially when working with other governments and nongovernmental actors Ensure effective policies by building institutions and processes for making and implementing them that avoid common errors and replicate conditions and practices needed for success Challenge of governance Increased wickedness of policy problems make it difficult to predict policy effects, due: ○ Ever widening interconnectedness of problems ○ Expanding range of actors and interests involved in policy-making ○ Relentless acceleration in the pace of change and decision-making Other factor is fragmentation and decline in trust of societal, political, and policy institutions Super-wicked problems: ○ Political challenges linked to the need to gain agreement from key actors and public on policy direction and content (on who gets what) Policy actors need to: Identify other actors involved in and affected by policies and policy making Map out their essential interests, ideologies and relationships Assess the waxing or waning of their sources of power and leverage within the process Policy actors need to make compromises between policy theory and practice Disagreements between different levels of government, if left un- or poorly managed, can lead to contradictory policies that are mutually destructive Within single level of government, goal of any policy can be clouded or undermined by desires and strategies of different government agencies Ideological policies are often used by political elites to cement their legitimacy among key supporters ○ Technical or analytical challenges related to determining most effective course of action Difficult to understand policy problems and root causes, and based on that make realistic estimations of future effects and outcomes Most civil servants lack skills and analytical competence to deal with this ○ Operational challenges linked to effectively developing and implementing policy choices  Making and implementing of effective policies require, at a minimum: Well-defined administrative processes delineating the roles and responsibilities of different offices and agencies Adequate resources available for policies to be carried out Compliance and accountability mechanisms in place to ensure that all concerned are performing the tasks expected of them Establishment of incentives that enforce minimum compliance of agencies and officials with duties and encourage them to improve in performance Governments need to ensure that officials and agencies work in unison towards shared goals Coordination hampered by: Silo mentality; each agency focuses on its own core responsibility while ignoring objectives of other agencies with whom they must cooperate to achieve an overall policy objective Different organizational cultures and operating procedures make it difficult to share information and resources, and coordinate operational details Existence of multiple-veto points in many implementation chains, whereby an actor can stop or dramatically slow down joint efforts ○ Interconnectedness of policy problems increasingly requires agencies established in earlier eras to coordinate their efforts in order to achieve policy objectives Policy functions and processes: design and management of effective policies Main limitation on government ability to address policy challenges is the set of deficiencies in the processes by which policies are made, implemented, and evaluated ○ Need to design effective process to identify emerging problems, generate and assess alternative solutions to addressing root causes, implement them in ways that take the behaviour of all stakeholders into account, and finally evaluate the performance of the policies in a way that allows correct lessons to be drawn about smart practices Understanding the policy process Agenda setting; how perceived problems become policy problems that governments commit themselves to addressing ○ Public managers from governments and civil society groups as gatekeepers Formulation; development of alternative courses of government activity designed to address problems which may be on, or expected to appear on, the government agenda ○ Policymakers have brief window of opportunity to come up with actionable solution  Decision-making; governmental authorities deciding on a particular course of action which is expected to address some policy problem ○ Occurs throughout policy process Implementation; policy is given form and effect ○ To improve implementation, governments need to understand their options and spell out their decisions and provide incentives to implementers to improve implementation activities and disincentives towards administrative malfeasance, arbitrariness, and capriciousness Evaluation; assessment of the extent to which a public policy is achieving its stated objectives and, if it is not, what can be done to improve it Actors in policy process; policy 'communities' Policy community; government actors, international actors, societal actors ○ Government actors; permanent players operating at subnational, national, and international levels who develop, decide upon, and implement public policies Elected officials (legislators, executive members) and appointed administrators The longer tenure and experience of civil servants the larger role in process ○ Societal actors; leaders and representatives from interest groups, religious organizations, companies, labour unions, associations, think tanks, researchers etc. Social media plays big role in agenda setting by publicize and criticize policy proposals and performance ○ International actors; vary from individuals (advisors/consultants) to members of international organizations Features of policy communities ○ Centred on functional sector, like banking, energy, education, or health care -> members represent organization ○ Relationships among public and private actors within functional sector forming a community are typically more informal ○ Relationships between members are often horizontal, rather than hierarchical ○ Members are bound by shared core values ○ Relationships in a community are durable and extend across issues and over time ○ Each member has resources (financial, informational, electoral, etc.) that are of value to others, and this forms the basis for exchange and cooperation among them Effectiveness of policy community depends on its membership’s comprehensiveness and coherence - policy capacity; how policies should/are made and implemented Limitations ○ Exclusion of citizens, thus undemocratic ○ Line separating (beneficial) policy community from crony networks is fuzzy  Exact range of societal and specific state actors involved in policy process depends on the nature and characteristics of policy issue, overall political system, and policy sector Managing policy process; policy acumen, analytical skills and managerial expertise The policy process should be able to: ○ Recognize emerging problems and understand their sources ○ Develop, analyse, and compare alternative solutions ○ Select the most effective solutions ○ Implement them effectively by creating the conducive conditions ○ Assess the performance of chosen solutions and revise or replace them as needed Key is to create effective relationships among policy actors by structuring policy communities in a way that they are focused on problem solving and promotion of broader interests ○ Need policy communities to be cohesive and transparent and open Policy actors often handicapped by narrowly defined self-interests with short-term vision and lack of appreciation of complexities of problems and constraints and opportunities they face Policy actors can make a crucial contribution in their respective domains by leveraging their political acumen, analytical skills, and managerial expertise ○ Policy or political acumen; accumulated knowledge of, and experience in, policy process ○ Analytical skills; for diagnosing a situation or problem and for developing appropriate strategies to address it - like political mapping and stakeholder analysis ○ Managerial expertise; perform managerial functions (planning, organizing, budgeting, coordinating, and monitoring) shapes ability to participate effectively in policy process The Need for Effective Policy and Governance Rapid economic, social, and technological changes increase the need for effective policy-making.  Policy processes occur at all levels (national, subnational, international), where only governments can address collective issues, often with support from other governments or NGOs. Success relies on strong institutions and processes to avoid errors and promote best practices. Challenges in Governance Complexity of Policy Problems: ○ Problems are increasingly "wicked" due to interconnectedness, more stakeholders, and rapid decision-making. ○ Declining trust and fragmentation in institutions compound these challenges. Super-Wicked Problems: ○ Political Challenges: Aligning interests of diverse actors; balancing theory and practical compromises. ○ Technical Challenges: Determining effective actions and forecasting outcomes; limited analytical skills in civil service. ○ Operational Challenges: Efficient policy-making requires clear roles, resources, accountability, and coordination. Issues include siloed agencies, differing procedures, and multiple veto points hindering joint efforts. Policy Functions and Processes Design and Management: Government effectiveness is limited by flaws in policy-making, implementation, and evaluation processes. ○ Need for robust frameworks to identify problems, assess solutions, implement policies with stakeholder input, and evaluate outcomes. Understanding the Policy Process 1. Agenda Setting: Problems recognized by governments and civil society become policy priorities. 2. Formulation: Development of options to address emerging issues, often within a limited window. 3. Decision-Making: Authorities choose a course of action, with decisions recurring throughout the process. 4. Implementation: Governments structure actions, set incentives, and address risks to ensure effective policy realization. 5. Evaluation: Assessment of policy impact and opportunities for improvement. Actors in Policy Process Policy Communities: Involve government, international, and societal actors. ○ Government Actors: Legislators, administrators across levels, long-serving civil servants. ○ Societal Actors: Interest groups, unions, researchers; social media's role in shaping agenda and public opinion. ○ International Actors: Range from advisors to international organization members. Features of Policy Communities: Sector-focused, often informal and horizontal, with durable relationships based on shared values and resources. ○ Limitations: Exclusion of citizens (undemocratic); risk of cronyism. Managing the Policy Process Policy processes must:  ○ Recognize emerging issues, analyze solutions, implement effectively, and assess performance. Effective Relationships: Policy communities should focus on problem-solving, be cohesive, transparent, and avoid narrow self-interests. Essential Skills for Policy Actors: ○ Political Acumen: Knowledge and experience in policy processes. ○ Analytical Skills: Ability to diagnose issues and devise strategies. ○ Managerial Expertise: Planning, organizing, and coordinating efforts to enhance policy efficacy.6 Knill. 2012. “Chapter 3: The Context for Policymaking – Central Institutions and Actors” Institutions are rules of the political game; legal rules enforced by state actors Actors as individuals, corporations or other collective entities, who possess policy preferences and desire to realize them National institutions Most essential institution in political system is its constitution, which is a set of fundamental principles and formal rules according to which a state is governed Constitution determines the centralization of power ○ Unitarism; single central government ○ Federalism; sovereignty is shared across several levels of government Constitutions limits government rights in the name of individual rights ○ May also explicitly define public rights Constitution is protected by either constitutional courts or regular courts through judicial review ○ Abstract reviews = made before legislation enters into force, checks compatibility ○ Concrete reviews = tool of ordinary litigation, made by judges who sent in constitution question ○ Constitutional complaints = by individuals, checks whether their rights have been violated by a public authority ○ Division of powers ○ 3 branches of government: legislative, executive, judiciary = horizontal division of powers ○ Executive; implementing public policy, administers bureaucracy 3 forms of democratic government: parliamentary, presidential, semi-presidential  ○ Legislature; parliament - competency to make legislation Typically two houses - lower house usually directly elected and more powerful ○ Judiciary; multiple levels with const. court often being the highest Const. judges are often appointed via a political process (because const. courts deal with policy matters, not regular legal matters) ○ Federalism; federal gov (shared rule) and regional gov (self-rule) To avoid abuse of power of central government Unitary states can also be decentralised, and not be federalist Differentiation usually based on the const. division of labour Good for passing some policies (one state starts, another emulates), not good for others because one state might disagree Unitary states tend to change policies faster and to greater extent Electoral institutions and party systems ○ Elections legitimize policy-makers and determine who is going to have the greatest political influence ○ Majoritarian systems; single-member constituency -> strongest member wins ○ Proportional representation; multi-member constituency -> same share of seats as it won votes ○ Party systems; system of interaction between multiple parties that are engaged in competition Dominant-party system; hegemonic, majority (>50% of votes) over many years Two-party system; two parties with alternating majority (vote shares of 35-45%), very competitive, e.g. USA Multiparty system; multiple parties, none holding majority, coalitions Bipolar system; mix between two-party and multiparty, alternating coalitions Supranational and intergovernmental institutions Supranational = has powers its members do not have because they have delegated a part of their sovereignty ○ Only one example of this (and only partly): EU Intergovernmental = member states who voluntarily cooperate and coordinate, do not surrender sovereignty ○ E.g. NATO, OECD,… The United Nations System ○ General Assembly: main deliberative body, wit all 193 member states ○ Secretariat: Supports activities of the General Assembly and other UN bodies  ○ Economic and Social Council: coordinates economic, social, and related work across specialized agencies (e.g., FAO, WHO, World Bank, IMF). ○ International Court of Justice: settles legal disputes between states; provides advisory opinions to UN bodies ○ Security Council: responsible for maintaining international peace and security ○ UN's Influence on Public Policy: Primarily affects public policy through specialized agencies, programs, and funds (e.g., UNEP, UNICEF). Activities include data gathering, defining benchmarks, sharing best practices, and providing financial/other aid. UN conventions influence member state policies in areas like climate change, human rights, and corruption. ○ UN Conventions: Influence policy under stable conditions without active conflict or disaster. Example: The 1994 Climate Change Convention encourages data sharing, emission reduction strategies, and cooperation on adaptation. Other conventions address corruption, children’s rights, the law of the sea, and rights of persons with disabilities. ○ Policy Constraints: Member states adopting UN conventions often face binding commitments, such as obligations under the Convention against Torture to prevent torture and avoid deporting individuals at risk of torture. World trade organization ○ Main objective is to reduce or completely eliminate trade barriers in order to facilitate free trade Trade policy review mechanism; monitoring of the national trade policies of its member states Dispute settlement mechanism; resolves trade disputes, primarily over trade policy legality Key actors Usually corporate and collective actors ○ Collective = guided and dependent on the preferences of their members ○ Corporate = typically hierarchical, top-down, led by "owner" 3 characteristics: ○ Capability to influence the policy process ○ Perception of the social problem ○ Preferences, can be stable or changeable Public actors ○ Executive; in parliamentary and semi-presidential systems includes head of government (e.g., prime minister) and cabinet ministers ○ Ministerial Structures:  Collective Responsibility: Common in Westminster systems, requiring all cabinet members to publicly support cabinet decisions Ministerial Autonomy: in Germany, where ministers independently manage their departments ○ Cabinet Formation; must have parliamentary majority support, achieved through: One-party government: one party holds the majority and forms cabinet Coalition government: multiple parties form cabinet - three main types: Minimal winning cabinet: only necessary parties for majority Oversized cabinet: more parties than needed for majority, often to secure support for contentious policies Minority cabinet: lacks majority but operates with parliamentary tolerance ○ Presidential Systems: president has full autonomy over executive and policy-making, with cabinet members often serving as advisors or implementers The policy direction is primarily driven by the president’s preferences Legislature ○ Legitimacy function; for political system - facilitate communication between citizens and government and representation of citizens preferences ○ Control and oversight function; over executive - by committee hearings, plenary sessions, inquiries, and ombudsmen to monitor actions and budget ○ Legislative function; influence policy-making through consultation, delay and block passage of policy proposal, initiating and amending proposals ○ In presidential systems likelihood of policy conflict increases due separation between executive (president) and legislative and their independent agenda's Judiciary ○ Constitutional courts can affect policy making by abstract judicial review, unconstitutionality rulings Self-limitation: self-restrain by government to adjust policies pre-emptively to avoid judicial annulment Corrective revision: legislators amend legislation after it has been nullified by the courts to ensure it is constitutional ○ Courts influence policy design by interpreting constitutional principles, often leading to revisions in policy direction ○ Or by acting as agenda-setter - lawsuits bring issues to light ○ Indirect ways; excluding certain actors or political biases Bureaucracy ○ Bureaucrats implement policies and contribute to policy formulation due to their specialized knowledge  Personnel stability: Ensures skilled, stable staff through career paths. Organization: Hierarchical authority with specialization by function Procedures: rules and documentation for consistent decision-making ○ Bureaucratic Systems: Spoils system: appointments based on political loyalty Meritocratic system: appointments based on expertise, promoting autonomy and technical skill, widely used in democracies Political Parties: ○ Core task: Coordination: aligns party caucuses, supports or opposes legislative action, links citizens to elected officials Electoral campaigns: selects candidates, formulates policies, and organizes campaigns Structuring competition: electoral and policy competition among parties Representation: represents members within government and society Private actors Interest groups; make policy suggestions to governments in order to bring public policies more in line with the interests of their members ○ Motivation for joining is selective incentives, pursuing specific goals and political expression ○ Social movements: non-institutional, autonomous network of individuals targeting broader issues (e.g., Civil Rights Movement). Interest groups engage in institutionalized actions ○ Influence in policy-making Inside-lobbying: direct engagement with policymakers Outside-lobbying: public campaigns and media activities to influence policy indirectly Corporatist structures: work with policymakers in exchange, offering resources (e.g., expertise, social consent) in return for policy influence Private interest government: rare cases where business interest groups make legally binding decisions, effectively performing state functions Experts; individuals or groups with relevant knowledge impacting policy-making, often without pursuing specific policy goals. ○ Unlike interest groups, experts are expected to deliver unbiased information critical for effective decision-making ○ Part of epistemic community; networks of recognized specialists with policy-relevant knowledge in a particular issue area, share common interest Limit; concentrates on knowledge elites who possess scientific expertise Stone, Deborah A. 2008. “The Market and the Polis” in Policy Paradox Model of political society; the polis Market = social system in which individuals pursue their own welfare by exchanging things with others whenever trades are mutually beneficial ○ Individuals act to maximize own self-interest = own welfare ○ Competition increases level of economic well-being of society Defining characteristics of polis Bases of political polis is community ○ Public policy is about collective will and collective effort (unlike markets) ○ Membership primary political issue; to whom do the policies and rights apply? ○ Distinction between political community and cultural community Cultural community is group of people who share culture and draw identity from shared language, history, and traditions Political community is group of people who live under same political rules and structure of governance Includes diverse cultural communities -> dilemma for policy of how to integrate several cultures into political community without destroying identity ○ Mutual aid is a good that people create collectively in order to protect each other and their community (insurance is not market product) Altruism as strong human motive in polis ○ Altruism = acting in order to benefit others rather than oneself Self-interest paradigm makes altruism impossible; people help others for own psychic reward ○ In polis, people have both self- interested and altruistic motivations, and policy analysis must account for both of them In polis is a public interest ○ This often conflicts with self-interest - public interest = public-spirited desires Public interest can also be goals with consensus -> can change over time Or public interest is things that are good for community as a community - survival ○ Never full agreement on the public interest but important because much of politics is people fighting over their definition and trying to realize this ○ Simply assume that people behave as if they were trying to realize public interest or maximize their self- interest Common problems = situations where self- interest and public interest work against each other ○ Also collective action problems = people don't undertake private costs for collective ○ Common problems are everything (in market exception of the rule)  Policy recognizes broad social consequences of individual actions, but difficult to get people to weight these in private calculus of choice Influence, cooperation and loyalty bridge gap between self-interest and public interest ○ Influence = our ideas and actions about what we want and choices we make are shaped by education, persuasion, and socialization Easily flows into coercion ○ Cooperation = politics is about seeking allies and cooperating with them in order to compete with opponents Also essential to power -> more effective form of subordination than coercion ○ Loyalty = goes hand in hand with cooperation Alliances bind people over time -> expect others will stick by friends and allies Groups and organizations are building blocks of polis ○ People belong to institutions and organizations and their opinions and interest are shaped by this ○ Policy making is about how groups are formed, split, and re-formed to achieve public purposes Groups coalesce and divide over policy proposals, depending on how they expect the proposal to affect them ○ Groups important as decisions of polis are collective Policy decisions are made by people in social roles and organizations, addressing audiences of other people in their social roles and organizations, and using procedures that have been collectively approved Information is ambiguous, incomplete and strategically shade or withheld ○ Interpretations are more powerful than facts -> dependent on source, medium, language and context Political actors strive to control interpretations ○ Information is never fully and equally available to all participants in politics Laws of Passion ○ Passion feeds on itself; phenomenon of resource expansion through exercise, use, practice, and expression ○ The whole is greater than the sum of its parts; human actions change their meaning and impact when done in concert or in quantity ○ Things can mean and therefore be more than one thing at once Summarized Polis is: 1. Community, or perhaps multiple communities, with ideas, images, will, and effort quite apart from individual goals and behaviour 2. Its members are motivated by both altruism and self- interest 3. It has a public interest, whose meaning people fight about and act upon 4. Most of its policy problems are commons problems 5. Influence is pervasive, and boundary between influence and coercion is always contested  6. Cooperation is as important as competition 7. Loyalty is the norm 8. Groups and organizations form the building blocks 9. Information is interpretive, incomplete, and strategic 10. It is governed by the laws of passion as well as the laws of matter Wu, Xun. 2018. “Chapter 4: Decision-making” Basics of decision-making What is decision-making? ○ The selection of a course of action from range of policy options Positive when something new is accomplished or selected -> overhauling or incrementally affecting existing institutions, rules and laws Negative when existing arrangements remain unaltered or slightly modified ○ Decision-making is process of policy adoption, which follows policy formation Distinguishable from agenda-setting and policy formation: In making authoritative allocations of resources and time in pursuit of particular tools and goals, and not others In narrower range of key players with legal authority ○ For implementation and evaluation, those decisions remain subordinate to central decision to go ahead with a particular program or policy ○ Public policy decision-making consists of: One or more policy proposals from which authoritative policy actors select Presence of a set of decision criteria that are taken into selection process Comparison and ranking of policy proposals based on decision criteria Relatively clear determination of policy option which can be implemented in subsequent phases of policy activity ○ Decision-making dependent on contextual factors, making it difficult to predict Like constitutional and institutional context, nature of decision-maker ○ But common motivations and patterns help to provide structure and continuity Actors in decision-making ○ Decision-making often more technical, and less political than assumed Administrators and elected officials shape policy, but also need technical expertise and professional analysis ○ Public managers can affect final decisions as:  The final elite “decision” is sometimes merely to approve kind of patchwork of previous, subordinate choices made by public managers The policies with input from top executives and legislative bodies, may reflect preferences and alternatives developed by public managers Public managers also have impact on final decisions as they prepare policy analysis or provide technical information and professional advice ○ Other actors with indirect influence: professional analysts, issue-specific experts, consultants, and lobbyists ○ Organizational aspects of policy and administration are critical in decision-making, because policies are carried out or supervised by specific government agencies Play essential role in shaping policy decisions through their impact on considerations and perceptions of the feasibility of policy choices ○ Tripod of political, technical, and organizational considerations Decision-making models ○ Rational decision model; following logical reasoning and evidence decision-makers should choose option that maximizes attainment of their individual goals/values Which would lead to most efficient means of achieving policy goals Critique: Neglection of ethics and democratic processes Practicality; not large amount of accurate information available, so no agreement on basic criteria to asses policy ○ Incremental decision model; public decision-making as time- and information-constrained process characterized by conflict, bargaining, and compromise among self-interested decision-makers Leading to “marginal” or “incremental” changes from previous status quo Status quo already represents interest-based compromise, so more feasible to continue existing pattern of distribution of goods/services Standard operating procedures and administrative practices of implementing existing policies favour modifications than overhaul ○ Garbage can model; applies when there is large number of decision-makers and great deal of uncertainty about both the causes of problems and their solution Policy outcomes will lack great deal of rationality and instead reflect the temporary desires of those actually able to dominate  Satisficing principle; decision-making involves satisfying whatever standards or goals have been set by group of policymakers at time of decision Full range of policy alternatives with potentially better results is never fully explored Decision-making process Analysis for decision-making ○ Technical analysis towards economic measurements and assessments to identify a “maximizing” choice, which is most effective and efficient ○ Formal cost-benefit analysis; dominant criterion is efficiency -> which options yields best value All goals must be amenable to monetization to compare their benefits/costs ○ Qualitative cost-benefit analysis; used when not all of efficiency impacts can be expressed in monetary units ○ Multi-goal analysis; more than just efficiency goal, wish to separate elements of policy option having impacts that can be monetized from those that cannot Modified cost-benefit analysis; if efficiency is flanked by just one other goal and both can be monetized Cost-effectiveness analysis; if additional goals can be quantified but not monetized Use fixed budget method; certain amount of money is chosen to be spent and then policy option that provides most benefits is selected ○ Assessment of various options provides opportunities for policy innovation Information gathered by comparing options helps policy design by prompting reformulation of certain options and identification of mitigation strategies ○ Implicit or explicit trade-offs need to be made as some alternatives score highest on certain criteria and others on other criteria ○ Final decision is often outcome of strategic interaction and compromise among multiple decision-makers Biases that can affect decision-making ○ Groupthink; process in which group pressures for conformity undermine systematic consideration of alternatives and disconfirming evidence ○ Bias toward criteria for which quantitative measures are available ○ Bias toward positive impacts ○ Bias toward the study of impacts along a particular dimension that is closely associated with the identity of the organizations conducting the assessment Such as environmental impacts for an environmental NGO Policy selection ○ Policy selection involves one or multiple decision-makers; those individuals and actors with authority to make such selections  Members of bureaucracies acting in accordance with legal rights and authority granted to them by legislatures and political executives Those same legislatures and executives issuing legal acts and executive orders and rules Members of judiciary who can overturn such rules and orders, and replace them with their own rulings, in name of constitutional mandates and conventions ○ In selections and decision actors operate in different venues, with different resources and purposes and attitudes towards criteria as fairness and evidence Bureaucracy; highlight considerations of feasibility of implementing a decision and concerns about legality and mandates Judiciary; based on past precedents, interpretations and assessment of facts Political; based on factors as political, electoral, or legislative expediency in process of getting majority support among lawmakers for any choice ○ Issue of the timing of decisions; sometimes they are made quickly (e.g. when a country is invaded) or decisions can take many years to emerge ○ In many situations, especially in bureaucracy, difficult to pin down and identify when exactly a selection has been made, who made it, and why Challenges in decision making Many decisions are taken at wrong time, examine or respond only to partial and less than impartial information, and do so with focus on short-term outcomes and narrow benefits Decision-makers faced with: ○ Short time horizons; too little time to adequately assess various effects of policy proposals, due crisis or poor administrative planning or political foresight ○ Lack of reliable information; high-quality information unavailable, available only at high cost or require a level of analytical sophistication that many don't have ○ Lack of expertise in political analysis; don't have necessary training and experience to carry out proper analysis Strong leadership together with organizational culture and set of routines that supports and facilitates high-quality, evidence-based decision making help strong decision-making Poor outcomes often result from decisions made quickly, by small groups of isolated decision-makers, without careful attention to their practicality, leading to large gaps between policy design and implementation Another factor is ability and willingness of decision-makers to learn and ability to make mistakes without suffering damage to reputations and electoral and career fortunes Strategies for effective decision-making  Being prepared to deal with surprises is critical component of successful decision-making In the absence of a logical and orderly process of assessing proposed options against likely future scenarios, decisions are often made in an haphazard manner Integrating political, technical, and organizational considerations ○ More explicit and specific definitions of criteria to clarify assessments Proposing standards that are measurable, helping policymakers focus towards inter linkages among policy objectives across different policy sectors ○ Need to be selected and formulated strategically to represent important concerns ○ Requiring decision-makers to jointly consider key objectives in multi-criteria policy Basing decisions on systematic analysis ○ Establish baseline: current conditions (or status quo), current and expected trends, effects of implemented policies and effects of other foreseeable policies Provides necessary starting point for assessments of effects of proposed and actual policy interventions Assessing economic, social, and environmental impacts of policy options ○ Used for uncertainties that are inherent and cannot be reduced (climate change) Comparison of criterion for best guess estimate of risk and outcome Strengthen analytical capacity ○ Develop policy analysis capacity both within and outside government Making it an attractive career path and use expertise from society Improving intra-agency and interagency linkage in decision-making ○ Promote “horizontality” through creation of international, intergovernmental, or interagency bodies Stone, Deborah A. 2008. “Decisions” in Policy Paradox Rational decision making Problems are cast as choice between alternative means for achieving a goal ○ Rationality means choosing the best means to attain any goal Decision steps: ○ Defining a goal ○ Imagining alternative means for attaining the goal ○ Evaluating the likely consequences of pursuing each alternative Totally up consequences of different alternatives and choose best results ○ Choosing the alternative most likely to attain the goal Best = maximizing of total welfare ○ Cost-benefit analysis; tallying negative and positive consequences (step 3), decide if benefits outweigh costs (step 4) Making decisions in the Polis Rational decision models are partly persuasive techniques mounted by people with stakes in outcome Differences rational decision model and decision-making in polis: Defining goals ○ Rational: explicit and precise goals ○ Polis; goals are vague and ambiguous to gather political support Selecting alternatives ○ Rational; consider many alternatives ○ Polis; issue framing = boundary that cuts off parts of something from our view while focusing our attention on other parts -> control number and kinds of alternatives is power Policy makers concerned about how policy alternatives will be perceived as how different audiences interpret a decision are part of its outcome Evaluating policy alternatives ○ Rational; try to analyse cost/benefit accurately -> different problems arise: Intangible factors are omitted for lack of a convincing way to measure them Or they are forced into calculative dollars Take measure from economic status quo (current market price), who are determined by existing political and institutional arrangements -> built-in conservative bias ○ Polis; deciding which consequences to include in analysis -> include more negative ones to outweigh positive or other way Ethical decisions ○ Sometimes consequences aren't all that matter Utilitarianism; we should judge actions by their results Deontological; should judge actions by whether they correspond to enduring principles of rightness ○ The rational decision model assumes political actor who can think and act with one mind, but this excludes problems where power to make the decision is dispersed over individual actors and/or organizational units ○ In polis, most policy issues involve struggles over who has power to decide and who has influence over the deciders Authority is and should be dispersed, shared, negotiated, and constantly contested Hajer, Maarten. 2009. “The Authority Problem of Governance” It is not what Gore said that explains his new status and authority, but it is caused by other factors, like how he said it, where and when he said it, and to whom ○ Different languages appeal to different publics Making of an authoritative claim Make shift from authorities, as assigned power with suppression, to authority of governance as collaborative endeavour, combining interaction and shared problematization of assumption Alternative conceptualization of authority: Author is someone who begins something, gives an account of something, is a source -> reason ○ The question then is if this more open idea of authority can be applied to settings in which different actors have to come to ‘joint authorship’ as a basis for authoritative governance Authority is always a relational notion ○ Claim regarded as authoritative because of the way in which it was made, where it was made, and by whom it was made Authority understood as relation between maker of claim and the public(s) that need to be persuaded ○ Success of IPCC in their quality of communication -> authority dependent on potentiality of reasoned elaboration Authority is achieved through communication, which develops way of seeing things that is taken up by others and which results in acceptance of particular line of thinking and acting Meaningful is to speak different languages to different publics -> science/politics Whether IPCC can really contribute to helping to address the policy problems depends heavily on their abilities to generate authority ○ Utilize new ways of making authoritative claims -> combination of efforts Authority is quality of communication, making it contingent Authority of classical-modernist government Classical-modernist = institutions of policy-making and politics that are product of historical conflicts 7 principles of authority of classical-modernist government ○ Democratic institutions based on territorial order ○ Democratic institutions are nested (matrouchkas dolls= levels of government are look‐alikes that fit inside one another) ○ Political leadership gets mandate through elections and universal suffrage - representative democracy ○ Sharp distinction between politics and bureaucracy Authority of the political leadership facilitated by sectorally organized bureaucratic ‘intelligentsia’, politically controlled by a democratically elected body ○ Science-for-policy; science speak truth of power -> granting authority to expert-professionals ○ Public participation  ○ Mass media fulfils messenger function of reporting about political domain to public Classical-modernist boosted by effectiveness of institutions in providing economic development, social welfare, and education -> allowed for creation of welfare state on national level (territorial synchrony) Ability to manage public affairs conferred a naturalness on the classical‐modernist institutions -> authority was not seriously questioned Problems for classical-modernist order Loss of territorial synchrony as social and economic processes and cultural adherences stretch across territorial spaces ○ For example the pluralization of communication channels targeting specific groups In governance loss constrains effectiveness and legitimacy of the classical‐modernist institution ○ Unity of political centre, public, and problems gone, difficulty in reasoned elaboration Consequences of own actions; individualization and globalization products of own policies States often lack the power to solve pressing policy problems on their own ○ Serious public problems transgress political boundaries, requiring political collaboration to solve Triple deficit Triple deficit in authority of classical‐modernist institutional politics 1. Implementation deficit; policy that is politically agreed upon does not always get implemented due practicality reasons 2. Learning deficit; how to permanently enhance learning capacity for policy-making 3. Legitimacy deficit; negotiation of solutions among elected representatives and appointed officials undermining legitimacy of their decision Network governance as alternative Network governance = problem‐solving as collaborative effort of network of actors, including both state and non‐state organizations ○ Interdependence; actors turn to governance not out of conviction but because ‘old’ classical‐modernist strategies have failed them or new arrangements are thrust upon them ○ Network governance is born out of a combination of three factors: Frustration with the classical‐modernist organizational practices Awareness of interdependence Willingness to explore trajectories of ‘mutual gain’ ○ In network governance, actors organize around particular problems and collectively seek to find ways to address them in a mutually agreeable way Task of analysis is to work against the naturalism with which institutions are always imbued, and show why particular configurations are authoritative in particular situations instead Any form of organization is inscribed with power relations -difference between:  ○ Politics; activities in the given order of political institutions ○ Political; myriad ways in which this symbolic order is created or challenged, whether by invoking/refuting particular classifications or by claiming authority for handling of problem Policy-making and institutional void Spill‐over of jurisdictional mismatches and growth of a civic politics (state agencies take part in governance) shift policy‐making to institutional void = no clear and generally accepted rules and norms according to which politics is to be conducted and policy measures are to be agreed upon ○ Dependency of political process on enacted interaction -> way in which agreements are to be reached becomes part of the political negotiation Politics is matter of negotiated governance: deliberations among a diverse group of people with distinct backgrounds and interests ○ Authority is then derived from the particulars of the group, the way it conducts politics, that particular way it communicates, and the particular way it stages its activities Governance and mediatized politics Government is mediatized itself, as it establishes authority through communication ○ Divide between news‐making and policy‐making becomes blurred and news‐making practices become a key form of external and internal meaning production Mechanisms of political communication ○ Narrative and storytelling; how dilemmas of governance become represented in the media ○ Frame policy realities in terms of conflict ○ Media loves drama; the more dramatic, more likely to get reported These mechanisms constrain and enable governance Intensified interaction between politics and media implies new ordering, with new modes of preferred behaviour and new power relations ○ But official sources dominate news -> relation is situation of interdependence Authority depends on more than quality of communication -> political actors will be continuously judged in terms of authenticity, honesty and character ○ Potential positive effect; citizens more engaged with political process ○ Negative effect; focus on narrow bit of issue at stake Governance of politics of multiplicities Authority difficult to achieve as administrative and political elites struggle with reasoned elaboration -> power to define harder to control as there is no unified political centre Politics of the multiplicities ○ Politics is conducted at multiplicity of interconnected sites, each with its own characteristics, the interrelationships of which need to be spelled out ○ Multiplicity of publics; political publics are products of practices and storylines that create them - politics based on affinities, on stories and images that have strong mobilizing effect  Polity of citizens on standby; people with political skills, that don’t employ them ○ New media is competitive, where public gets report from own preferred stations, channels, news-sites and weblogs What seems to be crucially new nowadays is that political actors must constantly reckon with the fact that what they say at one stage, to one particular public, will often almost instantaneously reach another public that might ‘read’ what has been said in a radically di erent way and mobilize because of what it heard. ○ Messages are constantly changing meaning as instant receivers repackage them and reconnect them Wu. 2018. “Chapter 2: Agenda-setting” Agenda-setting = process by which governments decide which issues need their attention and prioritize amongst them - involves: Determination and definition of what constitutes “problems” that subsequent policy actions are intended to resolve ○ Problem = undesirable effect of a condition that is amenable to government action Vary in tractability, due different cost and factors Preliminary exploration of the possible solutions to such issues Assessment of extent and nature of political support for any kind of action to resolve them Challenges in agenda setting ○ Wicked problems - highly intractable Boundaries subject to dispute Causes that may be unknown or poorly understood Potential solutions that are highly uncertain and/or subject to deep disagreement among technical experts and social and political actors ○ Issue-attention cycle; (dis)appearance from agenda -> immediate concerns and calls for action run up against difficulties and costs involved in correcting/altering relevant policy behaviour ○ Poor framing, leading to ineffective and wasteful solutions ○ Failing of critical problems to reach officials, while minor concerns do, due interest articulation and aggregation system Basics of agenda-setting What is it? ○ Process by which demands of various groups in population are translated into items that governments consider for action Government recognizing that problem is “public” problem worthy of its attention ○ Initial processes of issue identification and policy initiation, and manner in which these processes affect subsequent policy-making activities - it is: Nonlinear; solutions can be advanced before any stable problem definition is achieved, and items may appear on agendas in a cyclical or some other form Political and technical; perceptions of magnitude and scale of problems, and feasibility of potential solutions, are often equally important than actual evidence of same Complex network of state and societal organizations, policy subsystems and actors What is the content of agendas? ○ Agenda formation depends on nature of economic and social circumstances in which people live and governments operate ○ Framing of image of policy problem within policy community influences problem’s articulation, deliberation, and resolution ○ Nature of issue at hand may influence ability of any actor to affect timing and entrance of a problem onto societal or government agenda Phases in agenda-setting Issue initiation; ○ Inside initiation; government controls many aspects of problem definition, framing, and issue articulation Includes situations with influential groups having special access to government initiate a policy without general public’s involvement ○ Outside initiation; issues appear on government agenda because of pressure from individuals, groups, and organizations outside government Issues arise in societal space -> with nongovernmental actors issue expands into public realm -> government's informal, then formal agenda Issue articulation; state and non-state actors want to construct policy monopolies to control definition and image of problem to increase support of issue prioritization and resolution Issue expansion; ○ Outside actors need social mobilization to push issue onto agenda Expensive and time-consuming public issue and education campaigns and lobbying ○ Feedback loop between formal government and informal public agenda Government activities and direct measures have effect on issues defined as problems by public Agenda entrance; ○ Timing is critical in agenda-setting -> policy window: Routinized windows: routinized procedural events like budget cycles open agenda Discretionary windows: individual political preference on part of decision-makers dictates window openings Random windows: unforeseen events, as disasters or scandals, open agenda windows Spill-over windows: related issues are drawn into already opened windows in other sectors or issue areas ○ Open windows are scarce and often short-lived; actors must be prepared for them in advance Challenges in agenda-setting  Problem analysis; need active, well-informed, and well-positioned policy actors to get public problems on government agenda ○ Difficult to separate symptoms from cause of problem ○ Agenda often dominated by demands for responses to crises, and due to pressures for action and short timescales, governments forced to take some easily available course of action ○ Agenda-setting sometimes used by politicians as means to pay lip service to policy problems in order to score political points rather than actually addressing them - window dressing ○ Governments tend to define problems in ways that absolve them of responsibility for causing it, and/or whose resolution involves the least effort on their part ○ Overcrowding of policy agenda; no resources or time to deal with many problems effectively ○ Agenda-setting may be hijacked by media and/or special interest groups with little concern for overall government or other social priorities Strategies for policy actors ○ Public managers have professional status to impact the directing, intensifying, or sustaining attention onto particular policy issues over an extended period of time Also well positioned to identify and predict social needs, serve as reality check And have control over access to information to outcomes of existing policies Ensure that various channels for policy issues to reach policy agendas coexist and complement each other ○ Obstacles public managers face Lack perceived legitimacy in agenda setting if their role is defined too narrowly May have little room to manoeuvre if there is tight control over their budgets, information, and activities Most lack communication, persuasion, and negotiation skills essential for effective engagement with politicians and the public in agenda-setting Occupy marginal position within a policy community and experience difficulty working across organizational or sectoral boundaries to confront complex problems Lack the analytical capacity - skills, resources, and necessary information - required for the accurate diagnosis of policy problems ○ Leveraging to shape problem definition; policy actors influence direction of policy making at agenda-setting stage by naming and framing an issue in such way as to promote, authenticate, or legitimize the “claims and blames” of specific sets of policy actors ○ Managing agenda entrance strategically; identify and manage different types of windows ○ Strategic alliances between state and non-state actors; through regular consultations with key stakeholders to enhance their effectiveness in agenda-setting Chaqués-Bonafont, Laura. 2019. "The Agenda-Setting Capacity of Global Networks." Global policy networks = broad variety of actors and negotiated arrangements designed to have an influence in the way global issues are governed ○ Key role in promoting the introduction of new issues and ways of thinking within formal political debate at the national and international levels ○ And in policy stability by serving as gate-keepers, imposing limits on new issues Issues, flows of information and policy entrepreneurs Political agenda = list of issues political institutions pay attention to over time ○ Actors have own agenda and pay attention to issues in a different fashion, taking into account flows of information, policy preferences, and limits and opportunities of the institutional setting in which they operate In context of agenda scarcity, policy actors, like global networks, compete and build alliances to influence list of issues political institutions prioritize and debate Strategies to do so: ○ Information; issue attention depends on the means by which policy makers come to learn about a problem Need to create new information, and develop indicators about scale and consequences of an issue Problem that not everything can be quantified Information must move quickly in arenas where it can have most impact, and it must be comprehensible and useful to wide set of actors across countries and political realities Policy diffusion across borders by policy entrepreneurs who initiate and expand issue attention Issue more likely to get onto agenda if it's broad, concerns a vulnerable victim and guilty perpetrator, and when it is possible to link an issue to other issues ○ Framing strategies; process by which, people develop particular conceptualisation of an issue, and reorient their thinking about an issue To persuade powerful actors that mobilization is needed Shift focus in the direction that best meet their interests, by convincing policy makers that proposal is both convenient and feasible, to win political debate ○ Preferences; preferences shifts generate new opportunities for defendants of policy change to push for entry of new issue onto national and international agendas Political transformation open window of opportunity, affecting goals and strategies of policy entrepreneurs Success depends on the specific attributes of these issues, ability to create objective indicators and feedback mechanisms, availability of policy proposals that are not only technically feasible but also in line with cultural and moral values, and opportunities provided by the political system Global policy networks as gate-keepers  In many instances, global policy networks are formed by small set of actors (groups of states, international institutions and privileged groups of activists, experts, and advocates) that frame issues according to common set of shared ideas, and define strategies to fulfil common purposes -> become formally institutionalized ○ Global networks play key role in this process of issue prioritization, promoting their views and ways of thinking about a growing number of issues In so doing, they do not respond to the citizens’ preferences or to a political mandate, rather they answer solely to their own political criteria Global networks are having an increasing influence on the political agenda at the national and supranational levels, but they are not bound by principles of political accountability Wu. 2018. “Chapter 3: policy formulation” Policy formulation = process of generating a set of plausible policy choices capable of addressing problems identified during agenda setting Measures must be politically acceptable, administratively feasible, and technically sound ○ Not always possible, due political pressure, leading to inefficient or no decision Extends throughout policy process Basics of policy formulation What is it? 1. Policy formulation process involves several tasks related to generation and assessment of options to address identified problems Design process; highly structured, experts construct options Non-design process; ad hoc, no intentional and technical formulation 2. Determinants of capacity for policy evaluation (Design): Availability of capable individual analysts Provisions for collection and dissemination of relevant information Mechanisms to ensure access by agencies, nongovernmental organizations and public to this information Social demand and support for evidence-based policy-making Phases in policy formulation 1. Policy advisory system consist policy community, including (non)-state actors 2. Specifying source of problem Sources and causes of problem to be targeted for resolution Based on evidence, logic and practical feasibility If unchangeable - accept status quo or symbolic activity Root causes often difficult and avoided, instead appeal to fears/prejudices 3. Generating policy options Finding and deploying the right tools for achieving specific purposes  Private and public tools: Each generic tool category has its own dynamics and operating characteristics, leading to some predictable consequences Choice of instrument in technical as political -> tools affect groups differently Good design requires Knowledge of the underlying problems and their severity Understanding of the features of various tools Grasp of the effects of different tools on policy targets Application of that knowledge to development of policies aimed at achieving policy goals Ability to estimate resources necessary for deploying tools and the ex-ante evaluation of the policy options against some accepted criteria 4. Setting objectives  Setting specific objectives that government seeks to achieve in deploying any policy tool and ensure they are adequately resourced and operationalized Incremental alternative = are only marginally different from status quo Tendency for policymakers to employ these Information on impact of fundamental overhauls difficult to obtain Consume fewer resources Strong bias toward preservation of status quo Non-incremental alternatives = differ significantly from status quo in terms of ideas, interests and policy instruments they propose Greater uncertainty, higher degree of risk for budgets, society, political and administrative reputations, and job prospects if something should go wrong Need managerial intervention and leadership 5. Screening and consolidation of options Different means of analysing and assessing different options Cost-analysis, cost-effectiveness -> leave out intangible factors such as cultural cohesion or social stability Reflexive assessment; based on own experience and judgment -> skewed towards status quo 6. Consulting and building support Feasible policy must be politically acceptable Political environment changes quickly, so does the political feasibility of many policy instruments Challenges in policy formulation Political challenges; ○ Political leaders may express unclear or contradictory objectives, making it difficult for policymakers to align goals and options ○ Public resistance to potential solutions (e.g., traffic congestion measures) and conflicts between government agencies ○ "Closed" policy communities and influential groups often stifle innovative solutions Technical Challenges: ○ Difficulty in diagnosing root causes and establishing clear objectives ○ Technical constraints, such as inflation risks or long-term global issues like climate change, limit practical solutions ○ Institutional inertia may discourage creative or substantial policy changes  Organizational and Operational Challenges: ○ Constitutional, political, and bureaucratic constraints (e.g., constitutional rights, federalism) ○ Rigid standard operating procedures and fragmented policy authority hinder cross-agency collaboration and innovation. Strategies for Improvement Clarification: Strengthen understanding of root causes and clarify policy objectives for practical application. Broadening Alternatives: Expand the scope of policy options through external expertise, policy modelling, and learning from other jurisdictions. Building Political Support: Align proposals with political priorities, engage stakeholders, and use interagency collaboration to mitigate opposition. Leveraging Networks: Utilize consultations, expert analyses, and broader policy networks to enhance innovation and address resistance. Effective policy formulation requires balancing technical precision, political pragmatism, and organizational adaptability while fostering transparency and inclusivity. Howlett, M. (2018). Policy instruments and policy design choices Policy design links tools to pressing policy problems (e.g. climate change, homelessness) ○ What instruments are most effective - analyse their strengths and weaknesses In early works, policy instruments defined broadly to include wide range of tools or techniques of governance ○ Substantive tools; directly affect policy development, as they deliver goods and services (like regulation, subsidies and enterprises) Neglected analysis of policy mixes ○ Procedural tools; indirectly affect delivery of goods and services, focus on aspects of policymaking process Taxonomies of tools Substantive tools utilized to affect nature of societal and economic activities ○ Hood's scheme; instruments grouped together according to use of ‘nodality’ (or information), authority, treasure or organizational resources of government, and whether instrument is designed to effect change in policy environment or detect changes in it ○ Howletts and Ramesh's spectrum; focus on direct state involvement in provision of goods and services as distinction between categories of ‘effector’ instruments Government moves up the scale when private or societal actors failed to produce quantity/quality of good or service demanded by citizens Procedural tools focus on altering political or policy behaviour in defining policy goals and means to attain and implement them ○ Techniques of network management that handle participation of multiple actors in policy activities  ○ ○ A continuum according to the level of state manipulation of the membership and activities of policy actors within a policy network they involve From changing the actors to reconstructing the policy subsystems Policy mixes Theorists, administrators and politicians have expanded the menu of government choice to include both substantive and procedural instruments and wider range of options of each, and to understand the important context-based nature of instrument choices Early work focused on decisions to adopt individual instruments, while later involves use of multiple tools in policy instrument mixes ○ Four key precepts for instrument design: 1. Employ complementary instruments to create positive interactions 2. Consider full range of policy instruments, rather than choosing between regulation and markets 3. Leverage "alternative" tools, such as self-regulation and third-party compliance mechanisms 4. Use network-appropriate procedural tools, such as public consultations and advisory bodies Head, Brian (2008). Three Lenses of Evidence-Based Policy. Evidence-based policy improvement; link social sciences and public policy ○ Use knowledge to address and resolve problems --> What works? Focus on efficiency and effectiveness ○ Government shapes social science in producing, analysing, managing and reinventing knowledge Context; shift to more cooperative, joined-up services and multiple networks with different actors --> needed science to gain greater control over reality ○ Problems are complex, inter-linked and cross cutting -> simple technical solutions by experts are unavailable or unworkable Requires emphasis on the social relations and stakeholder perceptions inherent in policy direction and program systems Shift to relational approach in multi-stakeholder networks Not one evidence-base but several bases ○ Multiple forms of policy-relevant knowledge, that are vital to understanding the issues and the prospects for the success of policy interventions Three lenses Political knowledge; ○ Know-how, analysis and judgement of political actors Adjusting strategies, agenda-setting, determining priorities, persuasion In politicians, groups, public affairs and mass media --> diffuse, highly fluid and contested ○ Policy, seen through the political lens, is about persuasion and support rather than about objective veracity Selection of convenient "facts" -> argument, dismissal of other information, or deemed irrelevant Scientific knowledge; research-based ○ Systematic analysis of current and past conditions and trends, and analysis of the causal inter-relationships that explain conditions and trends ○ Interdisciplinary approach; different methods and perspectives on complex issues Systematic reviews ( with rigorous standards) Practical implementation knowledge; ○ Practical wisdom of professionals in their communities of practice and organisational knowledge associated with managing program implementation Public sector, the private sector, and the not-for-profit NGO sector - wrestle with everyday problems of program implementation Often neglected ○ Social realities are not seen as cut-and-dried and controllable, but as evolving challenges with unique characteristics Implications: ○ Policy debate and analysis in volves interplay between facts, norms and de sired actions, in which ‘evidence’ is diverse and contestable Different stakeholders within the business, NGO and government sectors are likely to have divergent views on what is the key problem ○ Policy decisions are not deduced primarily from facts and empirical models, but from politics, judgement and debate ○ Information is perceived and used in different ways, by actors looking through different ‘lenses’ ○ Complex modern arrangements of networks, partnerships and collaborative governance are difficult to harness to traditional forms of knowledge management, policy development and program evaluation