1.1 Introduction: Policy Capacity in Theory and Practice
Policy capacity is among the most fundamental concepts in studying public policy. High levels of policy capacity are linked to superior policy outputs and outcomes while capacity deficits are viewed as a major cause of policy failure and sub-optimal outcomes (Bullock et al. 2001; Canadian Government 1996; Fukuyama 2013). The global financial crisis of 2008, for example, starkly underscored the inability of many industrialized countries to govern their financial sectors, while in developing countries capacity deficits are understandably pronounced on a day-to-day basis. Concerns about capacity gaps have sparked a renewed interest both among practitioners and scholars about the nature of policy capacity and its definition and composition in the contemporary era (Fukuyama 2013; Savoiia and Sen 2014; OECD 2006).
While policy capacity has emerged as a major concern as governments are increasingly called upon to address increasingly complex problems, there are considerable disagreements on the conceptual definitions of policy capacity, and there are few systematic efforts to operationalize and measure it (Waller 1992; Gregory and Lonti 2008). First of all, there is little agreement as to whether concepts of policy capacity should be restricted to the capacity of a government, or public service, or expanded to include the non-governmental and private sectors. Most scholars define policy capacity from the perspective of the government as affecting the ability of governments to make intelligent choices (Painter and Pierre 2005), to scan the environment and set strategic directions (Howlett and Lindquist 2004; Savoie 2003), to weigh and assess the implications of policy alternatives (Bakvis 2000), and to make appropriate use of knowledge in policy-making (Parsons 2004; Peters 2004). Fellegi (1996) argues for a broader concept of policy capacity that includes the nature and quality of the resources available to review, formulate and implement policies, and the practices and procedures by which these resources are mobilized and used, both within the public service and beyond it to the non-governmental sector and to society as a whole. Whether and to what extent âgovernance capacityâ differs from âpolicy capacityâ (Howlett and Ramesh 2015) remains a key question in the area.
In addition, while it is a clichĂ© to argue that policy capacity is a necessary pre-condition for policy success, there are disagreements about the conceptual and definitional aspects of the subject that have hindered efforts at better understanding and diagnosis and improved policy practice. Some scholars have opted for limited or restricted definitions of the term, arguing that policy capacity is concerned only with the availability or quality of particular skills such as policy advising to support decision-making. Painter and Pierre (2005, p. 2), for example, focus only on capacity for policy formulation when they define the term as: â⊠the ability to marshal the necessary resources to make intelligent collective choices, in particular to set strategic directions, for the allocation of scarce resources to public ends.â Others have retained this relatively narrow focus but included additional skills and resources such as those involved in the acquisition and utilization of policy relevant knowledge, the ability to frame options, the application of both qualitative and quantitative research methods to policy problems, and the effective use of communications and stakeholder management strategies (Howlett 2009; Oliphant and Howlett 2010).
Still others such as Bridgman and Davis (2000), however, have called for a more expansive definition, arguing that policy capacity should include the ability of governments to efficiently implement preferred choices of action as well as decide upon them. Yet others have focussed their attention on the meta-level of governance. Parsons (2004), for example, defined policy capacity as the âweavingâ function of modern governmentsâthe ability to weave together the multiplicity of organisations and interests to form a coherent policy fabric. Holmberg and Rothstein (2012) and Rotberg (2014) also go beyond policy formulation in emphasizing the systemic and structural preconditions of good governance. Characteristics of governance such as honesty, rule of law, merit appointments, social trust and legitimacy must first be fulfilled, they argue, if analysis is to influence policy-making and policy outcomes and implementation is to succeed.
More important, while the scholarly literature offers a large number of different definitions of policy capacity that highlight various dimensions of the subject, there has been no systematic attempt to develop a working definition of policy capacity that encompasses all of these elements and their interrelationships. Most of the existing definitions of policy capacity focus on what can be done with it, such as âto make intelligent collective decisionsâ and âto weigh and assess different alternativesâ, but fall short of specifying either what constitutes policy capacity or how existing and potential resources and skills can be combined to augment it. The lack of a practical operational definition has resulted in limited use of the concept in practice despite the attention paid to it in the scholarly community (Brown et al. 2013; Wang 2013; Hallsworth and Rutter 2011). This book serves to fill this gap.
1.2 Defining Policy Capacity: A Conceptual Framework
Policy capacity in this book is defined, in a fashion similar to Gleeson et al. (2009, 2011), as the set of skills and resourcesâor competences and capabilitiesânecessary to perform policy functions. Skills or competences can be categorized into three types: analytical, operational and political . Each of these three competences involve resources or capabilities at three different levels: individual, organizational, and systemic . This definition, comprising three sets of skills and competences and three sets of resources and capabilities, is sufficiently broad to encompass all aspects of policy capacity cited by the authors mentioned above, and allows their similarities and differences to be demonstrated in a clear and straightforward taxonomy. This, in turn, allows for a superior operationalization of the concept than has heretofore been possible. Our overall conceptual framework of policy capacity is shown in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1
Policy capacity: Skills and resources
Levels of Resources and Capabilities | Skills and Competences | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Analytical | Operational | Political | |
Individual | Individual Analytical Capacity | Individual Operational Capacity | Individual Political Capacity |
Organizational | Organizational Analytical Capacity | Organizational Operational Capacity | Organizational Political Capacity |
Systemic | Systemic Analytical Capacity | Systemic Operational Capacity | Systemic Political Capacity |
The conceptual framework outlined in Table 1.1 contains several significant departures from past efforts in defining policy capacity. First of all, it is not restricted to a particular function, stage or task in a policy process and covers all policy processes, including agenda setting, formulation, decision-making, implementation and evaluation . It recognizes that the nature of challenges in performing these policy functions is quite different, and adequate capacity in carrying out one function does not guarantee the effective performance of other functions. At the same time, it is true that there are often skills and resources that can be shared across task environments.
The second significant difference is that the framework looks beyond the government to understand capacity, and recognizes that a wide range of organizations, such as political parties, NGOs, private businesses, and international organizations, as well as multiple government agencies, are involved in policy processes and thus affect the governmentâs capacity to perform. Therefore, while the policy capacity of the government plays a key role in determining policy outcomes, and is the principal subject of inquiry here, the capacity of other stakeholders in policy-making is an important aspect of capacity that needs to be subjected to similar treatment.
Third, the taxonomy allows for a nested model of capacities. At the system level, capabilities such as the level of support and trust a public agency enjoys from its political masters and from the society at large (Blind 2006) as well as the nature of the economic and security systems within which policy-makers operate, are key components of policy capacity. Factors such as trust and available personnel and financial resources are critical determinants of organizational capability and thus of public managersâ and analystsâ ability to perform their policy work. Political support both from above and below is vital because agencies and managers must be considered legitimate by citizens and policy subjects in order to access resources and support from their authorizing institutions and constituencies on a continuing basis, and such resources must also be available for award in the first place (Painter and Pierre 2005).
Fourth, it bears repeating that the conceptual framework defines policy capacity as the combination of skills and resources. Analytical-level capacities help to ensure that policy actions are technically sound in the sense that they can contribute to attainment of policy goals if carried out; operational-level capacities allow resources to be aligned with policy actions so that they can be implemented in practice, and political-level capacities help to obtain and sustain political support for policy actions (Wu et al. 2010; Tiernan and Wanna 2006; Gleeson et al. 2009, 2011; Fukuyama 2013; Rotberg 2014). Although these political, analytical and operational-level capacities are inter-connected, they are governed by different considerations and their contributions to policy process are separable and irreplaceable. They may not all be required for particular actions to succeed, however; rather some may be more critical than others, a possibility allowed for in this frameworkâs arrangement (Howlett and Ramesh 2015). The categorization thus offers considerable advantages in the application of the concept of policy capacity in practice, as improvements over the three types of competences are governed by different processes and considerations which are lost when any are ignored or incorrectly juxtaposed...