What Use is a Policy Cycle? Plenty, if the Aim is Clear
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
CONTROVERSY
What Use is a Policy Cycle? Plenty, if the Aim is Clear
Peter Bridgman Glyn Davis
Department of the Premier and Cabinet Griffith University
Queensland
What use is a policy cycle? Plenty, if the aim is to help public servants make sense of the
policy task. Setting out a sequence of steps to turn ideas into Cabinet recommendations
can provide structure in the otherwise dizzying world of policy-making. It would be a
mistake, though, to see a policy cycle as other than a first step, a guide amid complexity.
To read the policy cycle as rationalism revived is to misjudge both form and intent.
Debate is a wonderful thing, and we are pleased the policy cycle described in The
Australian Policy Handbook (Bridgman and Davis 2000) has stimulated a response.
Although we believe a critique in the June issue of the Australian Journal of Public
Administration (Everett 2003) is misguided, it invites reflection on the purpose — and
limitations — of a policy cycle approach.
Why A Policy Cycle? departments. They too were often required to
realise significant public policy goals armed
Please excuse the personal story that follows, only with their disciplinary training and some
but we wrote The Australian Policy Handbook bureaucratic experience. Even basic civics
from a decidedly pragmatic perspective, and it sometimes proved unfamiliar to those trained
may be useful to explain briefly its central aim: as engineers or lawyers. They needed a bridge
to help make sense of policy processes for the from technical expertise to the policy domain.
puzzled. These must be commonplace experiences.
In 1993 Glyn took a call at Griffith Univer- Most public servants do not have degrees in
sity from a somewhat panicked graduate trainee public policy, yet they are expected to manu-
in Queensland Health. Though she had never facture policy products. So our thoughts turned
studied politics, policy or administration, the to the usefulness of a ‘primer’ in the American
trainee had been instructed to ‘write a food nutri- sense, a practical, how-to guide for those
tion strategy for Queensland quickly’ to meet encountering public policy anew. We decided
an overdue intergovernmental obligation. The to create a policy manual, a user-friendly text
most junior, inexperienced person had just been for public servants new to policy, something
handed this daunting task, and she could find beyond the format requirements stated in
no departmental or academic publication to Cabinet Handbooks. We believed such a manual
help. She did stumble on a public policy should combine description with prescription,
textbook (Davis, Wanna, Warhurst and Weller since effective action requires both. Weaved into
1993), but it just said policy is complex and that mixture we wanted some context about the
political. So she turned to one of its authors institutions of government and an introduction
hoping for some practical hints. to concepts informing the policy literature, so
Independently, Peter was also contemplat- readers could pursue more critical knowledge.
ing the problems facing novices to public Over three months in 1995, Peter and an
policy. His experiences were informed by work- advisory team of senior public servants and
ing with professional staff in large government academics drafted the Queensland Policy
Australian Journal of Public Administration • 62(3):98–102, September 2003
© National Council of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia 2003. Published by Blackwell Publishing LimitedWhat Use is a Policy Cycle? Plenty, if the Aim is Clear 99
Handbook (Office of the Cabinet 1996). Glyn • a pathway of actions to help public servants
contributed further academic material while start the long journey from inchoate
Peter turned to work on a Queensland Legisla- demand (‘we need a policy’) to something
tion Handbook designed to aid those called on that could inform a Cabinet decision.
to develop legislative instruments. (The entire We knew this path to be well trod but hoped to
collection was finally realised in 1999 as improve on existing schema. Many frustrating
Governing Queensland, a world first suite of hours with pads and pens later, we were not so
handbooks published on the internet covering sure. We produced various two- and three-
Cabinet, Executive Council, legislation, parlia- dimensional policy cycles, complex triangular
mentary procedures, and responsibilities of designs, cycles in which each stage had its own
members of boards as well as policy processes: spinning wheel, loops both open and closed.
see ). plexity but not the desired intuitive step-by-
As a precursor to Governing Queensland, step approach.
the Queensland Policy Handbook was so Finally we returned to the classic literature
‘hands-on’ it included the phone numbers of in the field, in particular the writing of Harold
officers who could advise on particular aspects Lasswell (1951), who characterised policy-
of a cabinet submission. Completed in early making as a sequence of intelligence; recom-
1996, the book quickly found an audience mendation; prescription; invocation; applica-
inside the Queensland public service. Govern- tion; appraisal; and termination. Others
ment bookshop stocks sold out in days. suggested different labels but essentially stayed
However a change of government soon after with the schema of policy-making as a sequence
publication rendered the text out of date, and of actions. Such steps were presented not as
though much photocopied it was not reprinted. rational, but logical, a chain of steps with each
If Queensland experience was any guide, informing the next.
we suspected other public servants might Our version of the Lasswell cycle (Figure
welcome simple advice on writing policy. So 1) went through several iterations before appear-
we took the underlying concept but started ing in The Australian Policy Handbook in the
writing again from scratch, producing an form of a closed continuous loop.
entirely new volume aimed at a national As we noted in the accompanying text, a
audience. It is necessarily less specific than the policy cycle approach views government as a
Queensland original, though extra length process rather than a collection of venerable
provided more opportunity for reflective institutions. It disaggregates complex phenom-
material. There is no text in common across the enon into manageable steps. A policy cycle is
two books — writing the first version provided normative, suggesting a particular sequence
a wealth of ideas for rethinking the approach. practitioners can use to comprehend and imple-
But the intention remained to provide a ment the policy task. But The Australian Policy
practical grounding for public servants who Handbook is more than the cycle. It also covers
might (sadly) never read another book on policy a range of research methods and discusses
or ever engage with critical material about their organisation, planning and management encom-
practice. passing the sweep of government work.
A key educational challenge was how to
describe the policy process in a simple, access- Limitations
ible way. This had to be precise, setting down
in sequence the actions required to turn an This focus beyond the cycle illustrates limits to
aspiration for a nutrition strategy into concrete, the policy cycle approach. A policy cycle is a
fully-costed recommendations a minister might first foray into complexity, organising observa-
take to Cabinet. We wanted this description to tions into familiar patterns and so providing a
be memorable as it conveyed three key features: guide to action. No policy model can claim
• the dynamic, provisional, unending nature universal application since every policy process
of policy effort; is grounded in particular governmental institu-
• a match with the familiar institutions of tions. Practice varies from problem to problem,
Australian government; and as Edwards (2001) confirmed when she applied
© National Council of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia 2003100 Bridgman and Davis
coordination
consultation decision
policy instruments implementation
policy evaluation
analysis
identify issues
Figure 1: The Australian Policy Cycle (Bridgman and Davis 2000:27)
the policy cycle model to a range of Australian decisions are made, only about the management
national policy histories. of such choices. Though good process matters,
A policy cycle is just a heuristic, an ideal suggests Everett, it is not to be found in the
type from which every reality will curve away. policy cycle approach.
It is designed to answer the daunting question To make this case, Everett relies on three
‘what do I do now?’ Followed, a policy cycle unrelated points. These can be ranked from most
might assist a public servant move from vague to least significant.
problem to authoritative government delibera- The first hurdle Everett believes is insur-
tion. mountable — she argues the normative values
The Australian Policy Handbook found a of a policy cycle make it rationalist in the sense
place in the market and will shortly be re- rejected by American pluralists a half century
published in a third edition, but it has attracted ago.
little comment from academic colleagues. Even if the policy cycle could stagger over
Private correspondence suggests those who this barrier, the inherent focus on process rather
teach from the book understand the policy cycle than content misses the political content of
in its context: it is and always will be a simplified policy-making — especially the ‘power plays’
representation of the policy world, an aid to from which decisions emerge.
understanding. It is not offered as a theory, Finally, while Everett concedes ‘some
explaining or predicting behaviour. issues can be resolved applying the policy cycle
Some, though, detect more serious model’, she argues the approach pays in-
limitations. Dr Sophia Everett (2003) believes sufficient attention to community pressures,
a policy cycle ‘reverts to some form of rational- since some issues are decided through political
ism’. It is ‘erroneous and simplistic’ because it rather than bureaucratic processes.
describes process but not content. Indeed a As the genesis of the policy cycle suggests,
policy cycle can tell us little about how difficult all three criticisms read too much into the
© National Council of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia 2003What Use is a Policy Cycle? Plenty, if the Aim is Clear 101
model. It is not intended to be rational, to create ment but nothing can save us from ourselves.
an alternative process to power plays or to But from where does good content arise?
supplant politics. But even given limited aims, Political processes may throw up options for
the policy cycle approach survives the Everett debate, but much of government is routine,
critique. thousands of small questions welling up from
operational units within the bureaucracy,
Rationalism flowing through an orderly Cabinet process.
Everett’s first hurdle is a ‘straw person’, based Policies are rarely a single decision but the
on a misreading of some ageing academic accretion of related choices. Hence the need for
literature. Nearly two generations ago, a few a nutrition policy — to fill a gap in the broader
rationalists ventured into print to suggest a architecture of health initiatives. It is possible
rigorous and unchanging form of analysis the Minister for Health had not given much
would ensure a single, correct answer for any thought to the topic until a Cabinet submission
policy problem. Advocates such as Dror (1968) on good nutrition policy arrived for formal
sought to carry a romantic view of scientific consideration, the product of a policy process.
method into public life. They were quickly and Everett confuses the decision — which is about
effectively repudiated, for how could anyone content — with the whole process of identifying
in government believe there is only one (or any) needs, weighing evidence, making a case for
answer to a messy policy problem? Government, intervention. Whether Cabinet adopted the
after all, means constant trade and compromise. nutrition submission recommendations with
This is why the policy cycle includes ‘consulta- enthusiasm or sent the matter back for a radical
tion’ to test opinion and win support — essential rethink, good process in good hands should
in the subjective world of policy-making but have delivered substantial content. Process and
irrelevant if truth is singular and demonstrable. content are intertwined, not contending
To argue the policy cycle works from an opposites.
embedded rationalism, Everett relies on a false
analogy. She suggests a series of sequential steps
Consultation
‘is not dissimilar to the rational decision- The same tendency to evoke empty dualities
making model’. Well no — a series of sequential — politics versus bureaucracy, process versus
steps is nothing like the rationalist model. She content, rationality versus democracy — mars
mistakes form for substance, the very ill she sees Everett’s analysis of consultation. She believes
in the policy cycle. Following Everett’s logic some policy problems involve entrenched
the recipe for a cake is a rationalist creed, since interests and so are not amendable to consulta-
it too comprises a series of sequential steps with tion of the sort suggested by the policy cycle.
an objective in mind. In Dror’s work rationality Well, up to a point — consultation should be
has a specific meaning in which every alterna- appropriate to the problem at hand. Some
tive is examined against specified objectives, proposals, such the location of coal loading
until just one answer emerges. The policy cycle terminals, may eventually be fought out in the
assumes no such process or outcome. The policy political arena. But Cabinet will still want to
cycle is logical — each step leads to the next — know about the issues involved, the options
but does not embody formal rationality. open to government, the opportunity costs of
one choice over another. Compiling such
Process Over Content information for Cabinet is the routine work of
Everett stresses that policies are about content public agencies, and typically follows the same
rather than process — and good content ‘does processes guiding less contentious issues.
not necessarily result from an effective process’. Politics is the bigger context but it does not
We agree. Good processes sometimes produce always crowd out the work of a policy cycle.
bad results. It is no substitute for good content. The Australian Policy Handbook places
Decision-makers are fallible, misreading situa- consultation within the policy cycle, while
tions, imposing too much or too little politics, acknowledging the non-linear nature of engage-
relying too much or not enough on technical ment. For many technical decisions consulta-
advice. A policy cycle approach might encou- tion is a mandated part of decision-making,
rage testing of ideas within and beyond govern- such as requiring the use of Environmental Im-
© National Council of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia 2003102 Bridgman and Davis
pact Statements. Everett confuses consultation Everett’s criticisms do not hold, but they
with deliberation, when public controversy may open the possibility of informed debate about
be no more than a step in a broader process. Not the nature of explaining public policy to practi-
every decision is a major infrastructure project tioners. Are policy problems sui generis or, as
in a marginal seat requiring sensitive political we believe, are there patterns that can inform
handling. But even when it is, consultation policy practitioners? If so, are there closed,
within the policy cycle helps provide the continuous cycles as suggested in The
proposals and evidence around which politics Australian Policy Handbook, open continous
congeals. loops (Coastal Resources Centre 2003) or a loop
with a ‘ramp off’ as Marchildon (2002) suggests?
Conclusion This short rejoinder outlines why The Australian
Policy Handbook is offered as a toolkit not a
A policy cycle approach can help public theory, but we would nonetheless be delighted
servants develop a policy and guide it through if it encourages a debate informed by theory
the institutions of government. A policy cycle about public policy in Australia.
starts with a problem, seeks evidence, tests
proposals and puts recommendations before References
Cabinet. Its outcomes are subject to evaluation
and the cycle begins again. The policy cycle Bridgman, P & G Davis 2000 Australian Policy
offers a modest and flexible framework for Handbook, 2nd edn (first published in 1998) Allen
policy-makers. Whatever its flaws, the policy & Unwin, Sydney.
cycle does not suffer from the rationalist Coastal Resources Centre 2003 ‘Policy Development
Framework’, Narragansett, Rhode Island, .
government need to choose between process Colebatch, H 2003 ‘Policy Analysis, Policy Practice
and content, between consultation and politics. and Political Science’, paper presented to the 2003
Policy is a series of interlocking steps, a dia- World Congress, International Political Science
logue between procedures and substance, Association, Durban.
between public debate and private analysis. The Davis, G, J Wanna, J Warhurst & P Weller 1993 Public
policy process is more than a decision, more Policy in Australia, 2nd edn (first published 1988),
then power plays among interests and Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
politicians. Dror, Y 1968 Public Policy-making Reexamined,
Any suggestion for guiding policy-making Chandler, Scranton PA.
Edwards, M 2001 Social Policy, Public Policy: From
deserves critical evaluation. There are testing Problem to Practice, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
questions worth posing about the policy cycle Everett, S 2003 ‘The Policy Cycle: Democratic Process
model contained in The Australian Policy or Rational Paradigm revisited?’, AJPA 62(2):65–
Handbook. These are not issues of rationality 70.
but of how policy is made and understood in Lasswell, H 1951 ‘The Policy Orientation’ in D Lerner
our book. A serious critique might question the & H Lasswell eds The Policy Sciences, Stanford
way we define and make policy operational, University Press, Stanford CA.
the validity of evidentiary techniques, the Office of the Cabinet 1996 Queensland Policy
biases implicit in Cabinet routines. Ambiguity Handbook, Government Printer, Queensland
Government.
in our approach to the policy cycle — not quite
Marchildon, GP 2002 ‘Royal Commissions and the
descriptive, not confidentially normative, just Policy Cycle in Canada: The Health Care Case’,
an action plan for would-be policy-makers — Office of the Cabinet, Saskatchewan Institute of
reflects the origins of the project as a pragmatic Public Policy, Regina, .
© National Council of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia 2003You can also read
