Chapter 1: Debates in public policy – problem-framing, knowledge and interests -- Chapter 2: The rise of 'wicked problems' – uncertainty, complexity and divergence -- Chapter 3: Political governance of wicked problems -- Chapter 4: Complexity, crises and coping strategies -- Chapter 5: Managing environmental and sustainability challenges -- Chapter 6: Improving social wellbeing and social equity -- Chapter 7. Policy innovation in turbulent times. .
AbstractIt is commonly claimed there is a crisis of expertise in liberal democracies and that experts who provide evidence‐based policy ideas have become widely distrusted. This paper reconsiders the nature of this perceived crisis in policy advisory systems. The literature has identified four reasons for this trend—politicisation, diversification, diminished policy capacity, and populism. Building on these claims, this paper suggests that the contestability of policy advice has been the key underlying shift in policy advisory processes. Contestability can be positively useful for testing the robustness of policy proposals. However, if the policy debate has no evidentiary standards, the contest becomes a clash of opinions and slogans. Hence, several approaches have been proposed to strengthen the role of professional expertise and improve the quality and legitimacy of evidence‐informed policymaking. One approach is the rebuilding of bureaucratic capacity to provide evidence‐informed policy advice. However, a technocratic–elitist style that invokes scientific authority would be difficult to sustain politically in relation to complex issues affecting citizen well‐being. A second approach is to improve stakeholder engagement and to enhance respect for the expertise embodied in 'lived experience'. Thus, rebuilding trust and legitimacy may require broadening the range of relevant expertise through multi‐stakeholder approaches.Points for practitioners Types of expert policy advice have evolved and diversified, with many sources and channels both inside and outside government Contestability of policy advice has become more widespread Public service policy capacity has arguably been weakened through outsourcing, use of consultants, interest group lobbying, and the growing influence of ministerial advisors Evidence‐informed advisory systems have been challenged by fast decision‐making, wicked problems, media misinformation, and populist slogans Rebuilding capacity and trust in high‐quality policy systems requires new thinking, including more inclusive processes and a wider view of relevant expertise.
AbstractRittel and Webber boldly challenged the conventional assumption that 'scientific' approaches to social policy and planning provide the most reliable guidance for practitioners and researchers who are addressing complex, and contested, social problems. This provocative claim, that scientific-technical approaches would not 'work' for complex social issues, has engaged policy analysts, academic researchers and planning practitioners since the 1970s. Grappling with the implications of complexity and uncertainty in policy debates, the first generation of 'wicked problem' scholars generally agreed that wicked issues require correspondingly complex and iterative approaches. This tended to quarantine complex 'wicked' problems as a special category that required special collaborative processes. Most often they recommended the inclusion of multiple stakeholders in exploring the relevant issues, interests, value differences and policy responses. More than four decades later, however, there are strong arguments for developing a second-generation approach which would 'mainstream' the analysis of wicked problems in public policy. While continuing to recognize the centrality of complexity and uncertainty, and the need for creative thinking, a broader approach would make better use of recent public policy literatures on such topics as problem framing, policy design, policy capacity and the contexts of policy implementation.
AbstractThe quality of public decision making depends significantly on the quality of analysis and advice provided through public organizations. Champions of "evidence‐informed" policy making claim that rigorous evaluation practices can significantly improve attainment of cost‐effective outcomes. After decades of experience, performance information is more sophisticated, but evaluation practices and capabilities vary enormously. Public agencies gather and process vast amounts of information, but there has been little analysis of how this information is actually utilized for policy and program improvement. This article examines how government agencies use evidence about policy and program effectiveness, with attention to four themes: (1) the prospects for improving "evidence‐informed" policy making, (2) the diversity of practices concerning evidence utilization and evaluation across types of public agencies and policy arenas, (3) recent attempts to "institutionalize" evaluation as a core feature of policy development and budget approval, and (4) the relationships between public agencies and nongovernmental sources of expertise.
The cultures and practices of the public service and academic researchers are very different. However, there are areas of common interest in policy and governance, and some potential for building closer relationships. Public servants make direct use of academic research only in exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, there are other ways in which academic expertise can be useful and influential. This article surveys the international literature on the ways in which practitioners make use of external expertise, including academic research. It also considers whether the heightened interest in 'evidence‐informed policy' might provide avenues for mutual influence between practitioners and academics.
Policy makers have had great difficulty in understanding and responding effectively to complex or 'wicked' problems. Contentious policy initiatives are hard to implement when knowledge bases are divergent and incomplete, when short-term interests conflict with long-term benefits, and when problems are construed or framed in very different ways. These features of wicked problems have been central in Australian debates about initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to address the likely impacts of climate change. Given the closely interconnected nature of social, technical, legal—political, economic, and natural-resource issues, the political challenges of managing adaptive change are numerous. A strategic adaptation framework is necessary to complement ongoing mitigation efforts directed at greenhouse gas reduction. Strategic innovation requires pluralistic and adaptive processes, such as multistakeholder forums, consideration of scenario analyses, and the use of boundary organizations. In light of the highly contested nature of the issues, the multiple bases of knowledge and interests, and the provisional nature of adaptation choices, there are major policy governance challenges facing the Australian government and stakeholders in grappling with climate adaptation.
AbstractGovernments have long attempted to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship in many policy spheres, including economic development at national and regional levels. Neo‐liberal market‐based approaches to regional economic policy have been developed as an alternative to government subsidization and regulation. However the role of the state remains very significant in shaping regional strategies and in funding the physical and social infrastructure essential for economic growth. Neo‐liberal approaches have focused on economic development through entrepreneurship, but regional innovation policy has been broadened to include economic, social and environmental objectives, summed up as 'innovation for sustainable regions'. Regional policy consists of a series of intersecting goals and programmes that are often in tension. Governments operate in complex institutional contexts and multi‐level arrangements which constrain their responsiveness and their capacity to innovate. In the face of complex or 'wicked' issues, there are serious challenges for the government sector to develop capabilities for promoting successful innovation at the regional level. It is argued that governments need to play a leadership role, and that they require new approaches based on partnerships and networks.Resumen.Los gobiernos han intentado por mucho tiempo fomentar la innovación y el espíritu emprendedor en muchas ámbitos políticos, incluyendo el desarrollo económico a escala nacional y regional. Los enfoques de mercado neoliberales para las políticas económicas regionales han sido desarrollados como una alternativa a los subsidios y la regulación. Sin embargo, el estado sigue teniendo un papel muy significativo a la hora de esbozar las estrategias regionales y financiar la infraestructura física y social esencial para el crecimiento económico. Los enfoques neoliberales se han centrado en el desarrollo económico con origen en un espíritu emprendedor, pero las políticas de innovación regional han crecido para poder abarcar objetivos económicos, sociales y medioambientales, resumidos en el término "innovación para regiones sostenibles". Las políticas regionales consisten en una serie de metas que se entrecruzan y de programas a menudo en conflicto. Los gobiernos operan bajo contextos institucionales complejos y estructuras con niveles múltiples que restringen su capacidad de respuesta e innovación. Al enfrentarse a asuntos complejos o 'espinosos', existen retos serios para el sector gubernamental a la hora de desarrollar la capacidad de fomentar una innovación exitosa a escala regional. Se argumenta que es necesario que los gobiernos asuman un papel de liderazgo, y que necesitan nuevos enfoques basados en la cooperación y las redes de colaboración.
