Duncan Russel

Rationalising the Policy Mess? Ex Ante Policy Assessment and the Utilisation of Knowledge in the Policy Process

Procedures for the ex ante assessment of public policies are currently in vogue across the OECD. Their design is typically informed by a rational-instrumental model of problem solving, which assumes that knowledge is collected, evaluated, and then translated straightforwardly into ‘better policies’. But this model has been little affected by more than three decades of academic research which has demonstrated that the reality of everyday policy making is far messier. In this paper we analyse whether the uptake of ex ante assessment of policies is nonetheless capable of creating opportunities for policy deliberation and learning informed by new assessment knowledge. Drawing on an analysis of policy assessment procedures in three countries and the European Union, we find that there are several ways in which assessment knowledge is used in the policy process. Moreover, we argue that policy learning occurs despite, rather than because of, the instrumental design of new assessment procedures, which tends to act as a barrier to open deliberation and knowledge utilisation.

Why is integrating policy assessment so hard? A comparative analysis of the institutional capacities and constraints

Widely advocated as a means to make policy making more integrated, policy assessment remains weakly integrated in practice. But explanations for this shortfall, such as lack of staff training and resources, ignore more fundamental institutional factors. This paper identifies institutional capacities supporting and constraining attempts to make policy assessment more integrated. A comparative empirical analysis of functionally equivalent assessment systems in four European jurisdictions finds that there are wide-ranging institutional constraints upon integration. These include international policy commitments, the perception that assessment should support rather than determine policy, organisational traditions, and the sectorisation of policy making. This paper concludes by exploring the potential for altering these institutions to make policy assessment more integrated.

Joining up or Pulling Apart? The Use of Appraisal to Coordinate Policy Making for Sustainable Development:

Coordinated (or ‘joined-up’) approaches to policy making are said to be an immensely important ingredient in the effective governance of sustainable development. There are, however, few detailed empirical studies of how well different policy coordination instruments perform in relation to this task. This paper identifies the United Kingdom as a critical test of how to achieve better policy coordination because it has been regularly identified as an exemplar of best practice in international benchmarking exercises. Specifically, it examines the integration of the environment into mainstream policy making through the application of policy appraisal in the strategically important areas of energy, defence, and public spending. Overall, it finds that the UKs much vaunted approach to coordinating the governance of sustainable development has struggled to tame the forces of departmentalism. While deploying carefully packaged combinations of coordinating instruments may address some causes of non-joined-up behaviour, perfectly coherent policy making is always likely to remain tantalisingly out of reach.

Gearing-up governance for sustainable development: Patterns of policy appraisal in UK central government

Abstract The UK is reportedly an international leader in the application of environmental policy appraisal (EPA). From the late 1980s until 2004, UK central government sought to produce ex ante assessments of the potential environmental impacts of different policy options. Critics maintain that EPA had a very limited impact on policy-making activities in Whitehall departments. However, the empirical basis for these claims is surprisingly thin. This paper seeks to better understand what facilitated or retarded EPA by looking at its use in Whitehall, with the aim being to draw lessons for the UKs new and more integrated appraisal regime, as well as similar systems in the European Union. The paper finds that the implementation of EPA was both weak and highly sectorised, and that there is an underlying resistance to policy appraisal per se in Whitehall. These weaknesses urgently need to be addressed otherwise new systems of integrated appraisal will not deliver what is expected of them.

The politics of sustainable development in UK government: what role for integrated policy appraisal?

Attempts to better integrate policy in pursuit of more sustainable development have been made by many countries through the application of ex ante policy appraisal to sectoral policies. The United Kingdom (UK) is often cited as an international leader in this regard, but this is by no means clear. We examine empirically the extent to which the UK Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) system facilitates more integrated, and ultimately sustainable, policies. It appears RIA practice is far from integrated. Many RIAs cover a narrow range of impacts, are conducted late in the policy process, have relatively closed consultation processes, do not explicitly show how trade-offs were made, and use analysis inconsistently, if at all. We argue that providing more resources and improving quality control for RIA may improve integration to only a limited degree. More fundamental barriers to integration are hindered by closed policy communities and institutional processes and therefore may be more difficult to overcome.