I'd be grateful for views -- anything missing, need adding or re-framing?
- Have a clear sense of the big picture - after all governing is about more than just a technocratic exercise, it's about that society which an elected government seeks to create and that which it seeks to avoid.
- Organise people, programmes and resources around this - for example through a clear and consistent approach to public service reform.
- Create institutional spaces for strategy and high-level policy analysis, and to act as an innovation bridge between local and national.
- Establish rules and incentives for the strategic and long-term - for example through targets, performance management, accounting reform.
- Use strategic systems management to drive results - New Public Management mostly worked well for the Democrats and New Labour. But now we need a more nuanced and differentiated account of public services - for example harnessing various approaches from information and accountability to customer transformation to choice and empowerment when and where they work best.
- Recognise the different roles and relationships between the state and citizens in today’s society (e.g. as citizens, subject, service users etc…).
- Build public value through debate and dialogue on the key long-term issues (e.g. climate change, obesity).
- Make ready to test, trial and evolve policy ideas over time.
- Invest in the capacity and capability of the workforce.
- Be decisive on making tough choices, especially where these involve costs now.
3 comments:
A few ideas.
I'm not sure at the moment the list is a good way to convert people to the merits of strategy as it's framed in a way that puts people off strategy
- a ten-point plan: how convenient
- lots of jargon: the big picture, technocratic, innovation bridge, strategic systems management, public value
- a bit of waffle: a clear and consistent approach to PSR confuses your point, rather than elaborates on it; strategic systems point is not clear
This all makes it feel geeky and abstract, when actually it's a pretty crucial part of government.
I think the first five points are right - and have a good sense of logic to them - plus I like the one about STRATEGIC capacity and capability (although the difference between capacity and capability is not obvious - presumably this is about getting in the right people, and training the workforce?).
Perhaps broaden the debate and dialogue point into an effective engagement point, covering more elements of communication, and avoiding the notion of a national public debate!
David, a couple of thoughts, some of which you sort of cover already...
1. Use of time and gradualism - I think this is much underrated... but making decisions that cut in several years into the future gives time for adjustment (as long as the decision is credible) - eg. banning of intra-EU duty free - decided in 1992 (I think) implemented in 1998. If you wanted a $100/tCO2 you could introduce an escalating tax at $5/year per year over 20 years. Much of the objection to doing big bold things arises from dislocations and transition cost in the short term. Boil that frog, but boil it slowly.
2. Credibility (from the outset)- how do you make it clear that a long term direction is reliable or worth making investments on? Political consensus? Contractual (eg. renewables obligation to 2027)? Legislation that would be difficult to repeal? Avoiding sunset clauses etc? This is really about minimising political risk, or at least allocating it away from investors. Other aspects of credibility: do the numbers add up using plausible assumptions? do the bodies that is supposed to deliver have the necessary powers and/or resources? have unintended consequences been recognised and accepted? etc. What happens if a target is missed? A great weakness in new UK climate change legislation - there is no credible failure/correction mechanism and I predict the legislation will unravel shortly after the first or second budget period. A good paper on credibility in carbon policy by Dieter Helm et al here
3. Acting consistently (credibility as you go along) - short term initiatives or specific policies must align with the long term objective. One of the criticisms of climate policy is that govts talk the long term but act short term - eg. weakening emissions trading, rolling back policies, missing targets.
4. Use realistic models of human behaviour (eg. do not assume rational actor model in economics) and try to secure cultural changes that support long term goals. You could draw a little more on your culture change work.(See my post on it)
5. Leadership... politicians have to inspire and argue the case, and be ready to take some heat. The public has to be less infantile. The media more balanced and less obsessed with point-scoring and mock indignation. Er, I guess that's the problem...!
I agree with uncle Peter that some of your language is bland. Try an inversion test... put the word 'don't' before each one and thereby see if you are affirming anything that isn't obvious.
Unlce Peter Griffin -- Irony of the ex-HMT official accusing me jargon aside, you are of course right. I've trimmed out the excesses. Agree on engagement point too.
Clive -- good point on gradualism, I've captured in an expanded point 4. Similarly on the credibility points. I'm going to stick the human behaviour stuff under workforce capability where I suspect it goes best. And leadership under 9. Agree the relationship between polticians-media-public key and potentially undermines much. Perhaps if anything that's a greater reason why public policy officials need to raise their own game to create a culture of evidence and strategy.
Hoping to publish something on this in late-Oct or early-Nov so be good to test a draft on you both and others shortly ...
Post a Comment