I gave a number of talks on strategy and policymaking, as well as an evening address on long-termism in government (rather embarassingly to most of the public service's top brass from past and present). It'll be podcasted soon, but otherwise available here.
My argumentation was that we should broaden the concept of long-termism; and that governments are typically poor at planning for the long-term, but increasingly need to get better at it, and can do so through:
- Creating spaces for long-term thinking in the architecture of government, with examples of the Strategy Unit, Foresight and so on
- Using independent reviews and more independent analysis to create public value and consensus on long-term issues, such as through the Nick Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change
- Designing systems, rules and incentives for long-termism through reform to national accounting rules and performance management approaches
- Developing a culture and practice of long-termism in the public service workforce
- Aligning strategic policy analysis to a level most appropriate to taking the long-term view
Interestingly, in so far as these are the right components, I think the UK is ahead of other countries. In discussion I also tried to emphasise that different combinations of these will be approporate in different circumstances. So, for example, simple accounting rules is unlikely to be much use in addressing the long-term threat of climate change, but the public value approach through honest and open debate might be more so.
4 comments:
Brilliant speech, DK.
I have to say I'm less than convinced about the UK's prowess in long-termism - lots of independent reviews, "comprehensive" spending reviews etc. are charades and initiated for short-term announcement power, and to get out of more concrete actions, rather than as a genuine desire to plan for the long term.
For me, the politicians at the top are still very short-termist.
You make an interesting point about accounting difficulties. If more of the long-term costs and benefits can be incorporated into official near term measures (e.g. incorporating pension liabilities, environmental impacts of current actions etc in govt. measures), this will encourage politicians to take the actions that work best over time.
Isn't this all a but 'lets have a benevolent dictatorship run by technocrats'? I mean the fact is that we have politics and elections every few years so why should anyone think long-term?
Uncle Peter Griffin -- I'd agree with you there's a certain element of charade in the UK's 'long-termism'. But you'd be surprised at how weak government is here across all those factors. At the very least some of our work helps build some public value and debate on the issues, even if politicians inevitably veer towards the short-term. But yes, innovative accounting is something I'd like to think more about how to engineer.
Woody Finch -- funnily enough this was a point brought up in conversation and I didn't (and still don't) have an adequate answer. For some of the reasons I outlined in the speech I think we need much closer work between the technocrats and politicians so I think finding the right spaces and ways for this to work is going to be central for future public management. One point I raised in discussion was that governments are tending to have a longer run these days, with 2 or 3 terms more common (although I haven't evidenced that as yet).
Post a Comment