Evert Lindquist

Policy Analysis and Governance: Analytical and Policy Styles in Canada

The policy analysis movement revolves around the idea that a generic analytic toolkit can be productively applied to substantive policy problems, but different patterns of policy analysis can be observed across organizations, sectors, and jurisdictions. This article identifies how policy analysis and governance contexts can each be differentiated at a theoretical level, and how the latter might affect the former. It is argued that successful modes of policy analysis are attributable both to the skills of policy analysts/managers, and congruence with broader institutional contexts. The case of Canada is used to probe the ability of investigators to identify distinctive policy styles over time and to encourage more systematic, finer-grained, comparative study. The article considers the implications for teaching policy analysis and for managers balancing the need to match policy analysis styles with institutional context and to challenge the perceptions of decision makers.

Organizing for policy implementation: The emergence and role of implementation units in policy design and oversight

Abstract The leaders of governments in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Queensland recently created “implementation” or “delivery” units at the centre, ostensibly to advise, monitor, and ensure better implementation of policy initiatives. This collection of papers seeks to explore the emergence, roles, functions, and accomplishments of policy implementation and delivery units, as well as their prospects. This overview paper provides a framework for analyzing and assessing the work of these units to date, beginning with a synopsis of the evolution of thinking on implementation, and turning to the new environment for governance, policy development, and implementation. It casts policy implementation and delivery units as one of several “adhocracies” that populate the centre of government, which may take on quite different roles. The paper provides an overview of the case studies and key findings.

The competing values framework: Implications for strategic leadership, change and learning in public organizations

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore how the competing values framework (CVF) could be used by public service leaders to analyze and better understand public sector leadership challenges, thereby improving their ability in leading across borders and generations. Design/methodology/approach This paper applies the CVF, originally developed for understanding leadership in the private sector and shows how it can be adapted for analyzing and developing skill in addressing different leadership challenges in public sector contexts, including setting out specific learning exercises. Findings The paper has four parts. The first provides an overview of the origins, logic, and evolution of the CVF. The second part shows how the CVF is relevant and useful for assessing management and leadership values in the public sector. The third part identifies specific leadership challenges and learning exercises for public sector leaders at different stages of development. The final part concludes by reflecting on the CVF and similar frameworks, and where future research might go. Research limitations/implications Because of the chosen research approach, propositions within the paper should be tentatively applied. Practical implications This paper provides guidance for the better understanding of complex leadership challenges within the public sector through the use of the CVF. Social implications The social implications of the paper could include the more widespread use of the CVF within the public sector as a tool to lead more effectively. Originality/value This paper adapts and extends an analytical tool that has been of high value in the private sector so that it can be used in the public sector.

Organizing for policy implementation: Comparisons, lessons and prospects for cabinet implementation units

Abstract This paper compares and analyzes recent case studies of initiatives of first ministers in the United Kingdom, Australia and Queensland to establish implementation and delivery units, and reflects on their implications for institutional design and theory. The first section reviews the similarities and differences in the case studies. The second section considers whether these units in practice emphasized the strategic directions consistent with certain of the hypotheses outlined in this collections introductory essay, and outlines explanations for similarities and differences. The third section considers the possibility of functional equivalents to implementation units, and the potential for competition and rivalry. Implementation units have survived a reasonably long time, so the fourth section identifies lessons for structuring and locating them, as well as building credibility. The paper concludes by identifying implications for the literature and future research.

Structural analysis of health-relevant policy-making information exchange networks in Canada

BackgroundHealth systems worldwide struggle to identify, adopt, and implement in a timely and system-wide manner the best—evidence-informed—policy-level practices. Yet, there is still only limited evidence about individual and institutional best practices for fostering the use of scientific evidence in policy-making processes The present project is the first national-level attempt to (1) map and structurally analyze—quantitatively—health-relevant policy-making networks that connect evidence production, synthesis, interpretation, and use; (2) qualitatively investigate the interaction patterns of a subsample of actors with high centrality metrics within these networks to develop an in-depth understanding of evidence circulation processes; and (3) combine these findings in order to assess a policy network’s “absorptive capacity” regarding scientific evidence and integrate them into a conceptually sound and empirically grounded framework.MethodsThe project is divided into two research components. The first component is based on quantitative analysis of ties (relationships) that link nodes (participants) in a network. Network data will be collected through a multi-step snowball sampling strategy. Data will be analyzed structurally using social network mapping and analysis methods. The second component is based on qualitative interviews with a subsample of the Web survey participants having central, bridging, or atypical positions in the network. Interviews will focus on the process through which evidence circulates and enters practice. Results from both components will then be integrated through an assessment of the network’s and subnetwork’s effectiveness in identifying, capturing, interpreting, sharing, reframing, and recodifying scientific evidence in policy-making processes.DiscussionKnowledge developed from this project has the potential both to strengthen the scientific understanding of how policy-level knowledge transfer and exchange functions and to provide significantly improved advice on how to ensure evidence plays a more prominent role in public policies.

Visualization Practice and Government: Strategic Investments for More Democratic Governance

Practitioners and advocates see great potential to lever visual tools of all kinds to illuminate complex challenges, share information, create collective insight, and more efficiently show the results of meetings, data-dives, scans of social media, etc. Advocates of using visualization in public sector contexts typically focus on its potential for: describing and analyzing complex challenges; tracking social media and other streams of big data; and using infographics and other techniques to communicate information, insights, and messages to elected leaders and various publics. However, with the exception of digitally-driven services, little interest has focused on how visualization can better show how government works, its fabric, shifting contours, and complexity. This paper reviews different visual practice domains and their underlying craft logics and motivations. It makes a distinction between the application of visual tools in support of the ‘instrumental’ functions of government (associated with competing for, securing, and wielding the power) as opposed to ‘democratic functions’ (advising elected leaders, engaging citizens, and furthering accountability). It argues that the greatest inroads for visual tools has been in the more ‘instrumental areas’—supporting political parties and sitting governments for monitoring and service delivery—as opposed to furthering the larger aspirations of ‘democratic governance’. It concludes that for governments to invest more in visual tools for democratic governance will require political leadership and improved capacity inside government, and that sustained, systematic research will is required to monitor the take-up and influence of digital tools in these areas.