Reinventing policymaking
In 2008, the Scottish government published ‘The Early Years Framework’ in conjunction with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA), the national association of Scottish councils.35 The document details an early years and early intervention framework aimed at giving children in Scotland the best start in life and addressing ‘Scotland’s historic legacies of poverty, poor health, poor attainment and unemployment’.
This is a radical move away from a top-down, centrally driven, inflexible approach to policy development. Collaboration between the Scottish government and COSLA set a new context for policy development, one increasingly encountered around the world.
As noted in the foreword by the Minister for Children and Early Years and COSLA’s spokesperson on education, children and young people, ‘The Scottish government and COSLA have worked together with a wide variety of partners to develop this framework. It represents a new approach – developing policy in partnership, recognizing that different local areas have different needs and moving away from a centrally driven, inflexible approach, which has not delivered what is needed.’
Developing policy horizontally
The Early Years Framework is just one example of a comparatively new approach to policymaking. Traditionally, much of the policymaking in countries has been hierarchical and top down: policy emanates from the highest levels of government, from department ministers and their advisers, and from the prime minister and prime minister’s office. (This may be less the case in federally organized governance systems, however.) Policy is then predominately developed, implemented and overseen in departmental silos and vertical hierarchies.
Increasingly, governments recognize that policymaking can be more effective when the process reaches across government. This is partly because the challenges facing government and society are highly complex and interlinked more than ever, and the solutions required draw on expertise, information and experience that cut across departments and agencies.
Horizontal policymaking was one aspect of government investigated by the Governments for the Future (GfF) report, published in 2013.36 The GfF project involved Austria, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom, and was tasked with investigating the current and future roles of the centre of government. Its aim was ‘improved governance ability at the centre’, while noting that in most areas, in most nations, the achievements of the centre are through initiating and facilitating cooperation with other areas of government.
The GfF project explored three aspects of government where the centre of government has an important coordinating role to play: improving the use of evidence in the policymaking process; promoting innovation and learning and development; and horizontal policymaking, including the important and related topic of integrating policy strategy making with resource allocation.
Part of the GfF project’s look at horizontal policymaking involved a literature review of academic journals and books. The review revealed that governments tend to adopt two main approaches to horizontal policymaking. One approach is based more on consensus. It focuses on establishing hierarchical processes and structures that help to gather the best evidence base for policymaking. The assumption is that the various parties involved in the policymaking process are able to arrive at a consensus, given the right framework. There is also a view, according to the GfF project report, that the performance of this type of horizontal policymaking process can be assessed using qualitative metrics.
The other approach identified is more compromise than consensus-based. In this approach, competing and conflicting views and opinions are an integral part of the policymaking process, and quantitative metrics are less significant in terms of measuring success. A more important measure is the breadth of stakeholders engaged with and participating in the process. This provides a greater sense of legitimacy and fairness to the outcome.
In practice, any horizontal policymaking initiative is likely to include both approaches, either separately for different policy programmes, or even within the same policymaking process. The mix will depend on a number of factors, from the political ideology of the governing party and the priority and desired timing of the policy, to the structure and organization of the government and the state of the government’s finances. The degree of complexity involved may also affect the range of stakeholders that the government decides to involve.
Making the horizontal approach work
Governments adopting a more horizontal approach need to consider a number of factors.
Change and stasis
Most governments with traditional top-down policymaking models have entrenched vertical departmental silos. Individual power bases and career prospects are founded on the status quo. As such, there are considerable obstacles to adopting an effective horizontal policymaking approach.
At the same time, there may be a temptation to implement major changes to the way government functions in order to facilitate horizontal policymaking. But while some transformation will undoubtedly be required, the government must also exercise some caution and avoid removing structures and practices that are essential. Sometimes, top-down policymaking is the most appropriate method, and the means to deliver that type of policymaking must be preserved.
Choose initiatives carefully
Experimenting with wholesale transformation is not usually a luxury that governments, or indeed any organizations, have. The business of government is too demanding, the time pressures too great, the budget constraints too tight.
A better approach is to search for easy wins. Discrete issues and policy initiatives that suit a horizontal policymaking approach can be identified. Better still, although it may prove difficult, is to choose a relatively non-contentious issue where there is broad consensus in society (and if possible across political parties) about the importance of a particular problem and the need for a solution. It might be the need to reduce re-offending rates, to provide better care for the elderly or improve the education of young children.
The role of the civil service
The role of political advisers and the civil service is important for the continuity and sustainability of a horizontal policymaking process.
The involvement of the civil service in horizontal policymaking will vary from country to country. Members of the civil service, including those at a senior level, are often part of a government’s administrative function for longer than the politicians they serve. In countries where the civil service is involved in the development and implementation of policy, its members have a role to play providing continuity of processes and procedures. If there is a rapid turnover of the people involved, both politicians and civil servants, it is difficult to maintain a consistent approach to horizontal policymaking – although a transparent and carefully drafted horizontal policymaking framework will help with continuity.
Horizontal policymaking must carry the support of and involve both administrators and politicians. Creating an effective horizontal policymaking process may focus on the administrative structures and processes. However, it must also include the exercising of political power. The civil servants may communicate on policy matters across departments, but they also require ministers to collaborate and cooperate across departments. It is no use having the ability to administrate horizontally without also having the ability or willingness to exercise political power across departmental silos.
For horizontal policymaking to work stakeholders must feel that their contributions to the process will be treated in a considered and fair manner. It is worth building safeguards into the policymaking framework that provide a mechanism for civil servants and other stakeholders to give an honest appraisal of policy proposals at any given stage. This is important whether adopting a consensus or contested approach.
Broad participation
Remember that successful horizontal policymaking is likely to involve a broad range of stakeholders. Politicians must be engaged in the process. This type of policymaking needs backing with the necessary political will, which in turn requires trust building across the political spectrum, where possible. Beyond central office, individual departments and the civil service, other parties that may get involved in the policymaking process include think tanks, audit offices, regulatory bodies and other government agencies and institutions, plus all those engaged in the consultation process, such as relevant corporations, NGOs, subject experts and citizens.
Timeframes
Implementing an effective approach to horizontal policymaking takes time. While there may be short-term gains – and these are very important for firming up initial engagement with the process – some elements of a horizontal policymaking system cannot be introduced in the short term. For example, learning and development associated with the system need to be delivered collectively to staff drawn from many different departments. Policy proposals may be non-starters at one point, then a year later become feasible, or even a political imperative. Consequently, the civil service – which, alongside administrative and political processes and procedures, provides the continuity required to keep horizontal policymaking on track – may have to periodically revisit ministers with similar policy ideas and proposals.
No universal solution
There is no universally applicable approach to horizontal policymaking. Different approaches will work in different countries, depending on various factors such as the level of involvement of the civil service and the breadth of stakeholder engagement. The same applies to the tools and techniques used. It is possible to draw from the experiences of countries that have adopted horizontal policymaking in the past, such as the UK, Finland or Austria. However, it is not really possible to bolt on a solution derived directly from another nation. It is far better to tailor elements of other systems to suit a specific country.
Financial issues
The GfF project draws attention to another important aspect of implementing a horizontal policymaking system – financial planning and budgetary considerations. Finance ministries and other government institutions connected with the financing of policy are usually the centres of considerable political power. Often, the processes and procedures that they adopt with respect to policymaking are highly embedded and difficult to change. Furthermore, over time, these ministries may become detached from the process of policymaking, and their resource allocation detached from the strategic objectives that government wishes to achieve through policy implementation.
With budgetary allocations usually going to individual ministries rather than to cross-cutting policy initiatives, the effective financing of horizontal policymaking systems can be problematic. This was an issue that the GfF discussed. In particular, it looked at how it might be possible to align the policymaking process with resource allocation and, as an associated issue, how to measure the success of any alignment efforts.
The GfF made several observations, most notably that the best way forward might be for strategy development to precede budgetary negotiations. In this way, the strategic objectives form a framework for the bilateral or multilateral budget negotiations that follow.
The GfF also concluded that performance management is an important part of the improvement loop for refining a horizontal policymaking system. However, while feedback is essential, the top-down imposition of universal metrics may not be effective. Instead, better outcomes can be obtained from deploying a range of metrics and measurements suited to the different parts of the horizontal policymaking system, depending on the sectors involved. Shared performance targets are also useful to promote alignment between organizations.
The role of the centre
As a cross-cutting approach to policymaking becomes more prevalent, there is also a greater need for a coordinating mechanism at the centre of government.
Traditionally the centre of government is responsible for a number of functions. It takes a lead, for example, on critical diplomatic matters and national representation on the world stage, whether that is for global trade, security issues or international conferences on global issues such as climate change. It is also responsible for high-level direction and objectives, and provides oversight for policymaking. From the citizens’ perspective, the centre of government sets the tone for the nation and government more broadly, whether that concerns equity, caring about the quality of life of its citizens, or economic competence.
Increasingly, though, as a more networked approach to government becomes popular (see Chapter 5), the centre of government is taking on a coordinating role, acting as a facilitator for interaction between departments and agencies.
The role of the centre of government was a topic covered by the Sigma Programme (Support for Improvement in Governance and Management), a joint initiative of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Union.37 In one of its papers, Michal Ben-Gera defined Government Office as ‘a generic term that refers to the institution(s) at the centre of government responsible for supporting the prime minister and serving the Council of Ministers as a collective decision-making body’.38
Ben-Gera noted that, while the structure of central Government Offices varies from nation to nation, there are commonalities. For example, most Government Offices have a government-appointed minister or secretary general in charge.
Units that commonly form part of the central Government Offices, and which are responsible for coordinating functions, include one that provides policy coordination and support for the prime minster and cabinet, for example. This may be subdivided along sector lines – economic, social, defence and foreign. There is usually a team responsible for press and communications. There may also be units covering planning, legal matters and internal relations, especially if there is a coalition government.
The OECD’s Centre of Government study in 2013 looked at policy coordination at the centre of government in twenty-seven countries. The centre of government was responsible for coordinating discussion of agenda items before Cabinet discussion in all but three of the nations, and for organizing cross-governmental policy coordination groups or committees in all the countries. Nineteen of the countries incentivized coordination across ministries and agencies through financial incentives or other performance targets. The coordination role also extended to policies that required international cooperation, including international aid and development issues.
Typically, effective operations at the centre of government share a number of characteristics. For example, there is a planned agenda for government over a period of several months, or longer. The government takes decisions in keeping with its stated objectives, supported by evidence, and with the budgets available to implement policies. And, furthermore, ministries and departments consult with each other to avoid conflicting policies and resolve any disputes prior to government meetings.
The exact role that the centre of government adopts, and the approach that it takes, will vary from country to country, partly due to the nature of the system of government, for example – whether it is highly centralized or more distributed and decentralized. Structure is important, though. Creating structures at the centre that deal specifically with strategy and direction, for example, raises the issue of strategy to a level of greater significance.
Strong leadership engagement is vital. Support from senior leaders, such as the prime minister, cements the strategic role of the centre. The leadership, in this case, must balance short- and long-term needs: work that has immediate impact and may have political value with more strategic work that brings benefits over a longer timeframe. Leaders must also build allies that support the centre’s role – to ensure both broader cooperation with the centre and that its function is sustained over the long term, rather than fluctuating from government to government.
Ben-Gera offers pointers for reforming the centres of government in order to promote a more coordinating role related to policy management. In particular, he notes the need for support for reform at the highest political level, with the prime minister or government initiating, and a senior official leading, the reform.
Reform is likely to take some time – up to four years, suggests Ben-Gera. It should begin with strengthening the main institutions at the centre of government and proceed step by step – encompassing changes to the legal framework where necessary – to human resources, processes and procedures, and so on. He suggests that the ministries should be brought into the reform process (to ensure better coordination on their side) at a later stage, once the reforms are well underway.
Innovating policy
If governments are to solve some of the most pressing social policy challenges, there is growing evidence that they need to look beyond the traditional coercive instruments of legislation, regulation and taxes. They need to adopt innovative approaches to policymaking, adopting the latest economic and scientific thinking.
Conventional approaches to policymaking are still effective in many areas. However, a more sophisticated approach may be needed to persuade people to change their behaviour, lifestyles or habits – combining traditional economic incentives with softer techniques that draw on psychology and take into account people’s beliefs, values, attitudes and their cultural setting.
For example, in 2012, Copenhagen launched its Ren Kærlighed til KBH campaign – Clean Love for Copenhagen. As the amount of litter in the city had increased by 31 per cent since 2011, Copenhagen set out to become the cleanest capital in Europe by 2015. The campaign combined the efforts and innovation of public, private and third-sector organizations.
Copenhagen’s technical and environmental management department brought in a behavioural researcher who, together with a group of students, conducted a simple experiment. Initially, the students handed out free sweets to passersby and then counted the number of wrappers on the street, in the garbage cans, on side streets and in bicycle baskets. Then they placed large green footprints leading to the bins, handed out more sweets and repeated the wrapper counting. The result was a 46 per cent decrease in wrappers on the streets. The municipality was impressed and opted for full-scale implementation with green footprints leading to most of the rubbish bins in the city.39
Nudge, nudge
The UK was one of the first governments to set up a departmental unit dedicated to policy innovation. Elsewhere, other countries – such as France, Australia and Japan – have adopted similar models, or implemented cross-government innovation projects. Denmark’s MindLab is a good example.40 Other governments have introduced similar initiatives at a departmental level, such as the US Department of Education’s Office of Innovation and Improvement.
In recent years, a raft of international research has attempted to understand the various influences on people’s behaviour and how they might be woven into public policy. For example, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, in Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness, discuss how relatively minor alterations to the choices people make and the environment in which they make them can have a significant impact on their behaviour.41 One example is attempting to make drivers reduce their speed by painting a series of white stripes on the road that are initially evenly spaced, but get closer together as drivers reach a dangerous curve. The design gives the sensation that driving speed is increasing even if it is not, and this triggers a driver’s instinct to slow down.
In general, the first step is to identify the behaviour that needs to be changed and the characteristics of the target population. To aid this, public officials can make good use of geo-demographics – the profiling of people based on where they live – and social marketing, which uses commercial marketing in a social context. Then the process of designing a behavioural change intervention begins. This can be financial, through charges or subsidies, or non-financial such as advertising, or both in combination. Good use should be made of science’s increasing understanding of human psychology.
Finally, the success of the behavioural change intervention needs to be evaluated. The King’s Fund, a health charity that has helped to shape the UK’s National Health Service strategy has, for example, suggested engaging with universities to develop indicators to measure this. Where possible, they recommend that evaluations should take into account long-term as well as short-term benefits and cost-effectiveness, and include a control group that is not subject to the behavioural change policy for comparison.
One of the main attractions of a non-coercive behavioural approach is cost. At a time of fiscal constraint and rising international food and commodity prices, levying green taxes or reducing fuel subsidies is politically unpalatable for many governments. There is mounting evidence that behaviour change can be achieved at relatively low cost. For example, a study evaluating the cost-effectiveness of physical activity programmes demonstrated that introducing bicycle and pedestrian trails to encourage healthy behaviour was considerably more cost-effective than traditional information-based approaches using printed materials, consultations and counselling sessions.
On the other hand, behavioural change is a new area, both for science and policy. There is uncertainty over how lasting its effects are, and whether measures which work in one segment of the population will work in another. It is potentially controversial, not least because people may not fully realize that their behaviour is being changed, which can clearly leave a government open to charges of manipulation. Policies will need to be carefully framed and the public able to contribute to policy formation. Even the staunchest advocates of behavioural economics accept that it needs to be combined with conventional policy tools such as regulation, price signals and better information.
Because achieving policy outcomes though behavioural psychology is a relatively new area of practice, few countries have embraced policies based on this approach. The UK is one pioneer. It has a Behavioural Insights Team in the government’s Cabinet Office, popularly known as the ‘Nudge Unit’, which ‘applies insights from academic research in behavioural economics and psychology to public policy and services’.42
Diagram 3. Social behaviours that may be influenced by policy
Source: ‘An overview of behaviour change models and their uses’ by UK Government Social Research Service, Centre for Sustainable Development, University of Westminster
Transformation at work: The UK and climate change
It is interesting, in this context, to look at the UK Government’s strategy on engaging people with the issue of climate change.
The UK’s Climate Change Act 2008 set a legally binding target to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 (based on 1990 levels). As it has been estimated that some 42 per cent of CO2 emissions produced in the UK result directly from actions taken by individuals, the government has focused on changing the behaviour of individuals as a vital part of its Low Carbon Transition Plan. Its efforts are grouped under four headings:43
- Engage: get people involved – through communications campaigns, for example.
- Encourage: give the right signals – for example, through the tax system.
- Enable: make it easier – for example, by providing facilities.
- Exemplify: by showing consistency in policies, for example.
The UK government’s experience so far on addressing climate change has led to a number of interesting observations:
- High public awareness of climate change often does not translate into cuts in individuals’ GHG emissions, because behaviour is shaped by many psychological, social and structural factors.
- Engagement to change individual behaviour is an important tool for cutting UK carbon emissions, but is only effective when combined with other interventions, such as financial measures to encourage the take-up of electric vehicles, or improving public transport infrastructure.
- The most effective communications use persuasive, broadly positive messages, including suggestions of what action people can take, and are tailored to different audiences. Using influential members of local communities as messengers can be more effective than using civil servants.
- Community-based approaches can add value to top-down campaigns in changing habits and building support for policy.
- Government can promote engagement by setting a good example and basing policy on sound evidence.
The gamification of everything
While behavioural economics presents one area of developing interest and practice, game playing is also having a surprising impact on governmental understanding of policymaking.
Of course, people have played games for centuries. Archaeological evidence shows that games were commonplace in the ancient world, from senet in Egypt and go in China, to nyout in Korea and patolli in the Aztec Empire. Over the years, games have pioneered developments in a number of areas. Psychologists have been deployed in game design to make games more engaging. Computer games have led the development of many cutting-edge technological innovations, from computer graphics to online interactive collaboration.
And games, in the form of competitions, have also been used by governments and rulers for centuries as a motivational tool to crack thorny problems. In 1869, Emperor Louis-Napoleon, concerned at the increasing unaffordability of butter, sponsored a competition to find a substitute. In appealing to the masses – which ultimately led to the development of margarine – the Emperor was joining a fine tradition of grand innovation prizes: Napoleon Bonaparte’s prize for the best method of extracting sugar from beets in 1810; the British government’s Longitude Prize of 1714; King Edward VII’s quest to find the best TB sanatorium design in 1903 – to name a few.
Fast-forward a few hundred years and, while games have become more sophisticated, one thing has remained roughly the same. While precise motivations may vary, most people play games for fun. They voluntarily engage in gaming activity, often for many hours. Millions of consumers willingly pay to play games. Organizations have latched onto the compelling nature of games, their growing sophistication and innovative use of arts, science and technology, and have begun to adopt game thinking, design and mechanics into their non-game business operations. It is a process that has been termed gamification (a term often attributed to British computer programmer Nick Pelling).
The potential of gamification to change behaviours, provoke innovation and engage stakeholders means that it is equally appealing to public sector organizations. For example, Gartner identified four ways of driving engagement using gamification: accelerated feedback cycles; clear goals and rules of play; a compelling narrative; and tasks that are challenging but achievable.
Public sector bodies are embracing the gamification concept and experimenting with games as part of their service provision resources. In Singapore, the Ministry of Education has an education programme called FutureSchools@Singapore. One element of this is Trial Shuttle, which effectively enables students to direct their own learning.
Elsewhere, gamification was used by the Department of Justice in the Australian state of Victoria when it wanted to make young people aware of consumer protection laws. Thinking that a dry discussion of legal concepts would not appeal to a young audience, it launched a game called Party for Your Rights. ‘It’s targeted at young people, teaching them their rights through the activity of going to a party. It’s very appealing, with retro 1980s graphics and music,’ explained Paul Chandley, general manager of digital strategy and engagement in the Department of Justice. Since its launch in June 2014, it has been played 23,000 times. A survey found that 96 per cent of players surveyed said they felt either more informed of their rights or more confident about using their rights after interacting with the game.
That game proved popular in Australia, and there are plenty of other examples of successful games built by government agencies, from speed camera lotteries in Sweden to fighting floods in Thailand. One notable example of gamification in the non-profit sector is EVOKE. Commissioned by the World Bank Institute, the online game started life as Urgent EVOKE, ‘a ten-week crash course in changing the world’. Game players embarked on a ten-week problem-solving game journey aimed at solving real-world social problems such as hunger and poverty.44
Gamification offers attractive possibilities, but governments would do well to remember, whatever they use gamification for – whether it is sourcing ideas, promoting collaboration among employees or encouraging the adoption of new systems – that games are supposed to be fun. People play games voluntarily, for enjoyment. Forcing gamification on people is not fun, and is more likely to demotivate and disincentivize employees.
In a nutshell: reinventing policymaking
If policymaking was once a top-down process, with policy driven and developed in departmental silos, it is increasingly less the case. Governments are facing multifaceted social challenges which demand coordinated, innovative and coherent responses. In practice, delivering such responses has a number of elements.
Governments need to orchestrate an integrated and horizontal policymaking process that reaches across agencies and stakeholders and keeps strong links with the ground to enable proper monitoring and responses. Horizontal policymaking sets interdepartmental priorities and actions, and monitors performance through intensive stakeholder engagement and dedicated cross-departmental governance institutions and frameworks. It can be facilitated by building policy communities, resource sharing and extending these communities to include external partners.
At the same time, governments are adopting more innovative and radical ways of creating policy thanks to scientific developments. Governments can now utilize the emerging fields of behavioural economics and social psychology to provide new ways to impact societal behaviour through better-crafted interventions. In addition, governments can leverage gaming principles and game technology, so that people play games to win prizes or compete against one another while learning about a new message or behaving in a certain desirable manner in line with policy objectives at the same time.