Avoiding policy blunders in a wired world
Acting in haste often leads to repenting at leisure, so why all the criticism of the new Government’s penchant for policy committees, ask Sonya Mazey and Jeremy Richardson.
The new Government has been widely criticised for not acting quickly enough on a range of issues. In recent weeks it has been accused of being unable to make up its mind without first appointing a new policy committee and awaiting its report, and, worse still, using policy committees to kick tricky issues into touch in the hope that the issue will simply disappear from public view.
This week, RNZ’s Checkpoint programme ran an item criticising Government plans for 39 reviews, working groups, advisory groups, or investigations – about one every four days since it came to office five months ago.
We have no brief to defend the Government’s policies. However, we think the developing furore over the allegedly excessive use of policy committees of various types by the Government is misplaced. Indeed, New Zealand could yet turn out to a model of how democratic governments should make public policy.
Across the Western world, over the past few decades, public policymaking has become increasingly frenetic. Faced by a 24-hour news cycle, relentless pressure from social media, and the rise of new populist parties, politicians are under immense pressure to ‘‘do something’’ to appear totally in charge.
In such an environment, it is tempting for politicians to assume the mantle of action man or super woman and produce instant popup policies. Pop-up shopping malls are fine, but pop-up policies are far riskier. For example, a senior policy analyst in Britain describes his life behind the shiny, black door of No. 10 Downing St as akin to a hospital Accident & Emergency Department. The analyst notes that ‘‘in such a world, there is often not the time, nor the patience, for the answer to be ‘more research needed’.’’
This frenetic style of policymaking is not a sensible strategy for solving society’s problems, if only because hurriedly designed public policies are, at best, equivalent to placebo medication, and, at worst, do far more harm to the patient than good. Even the most carefully designed public policies can have many unintended consequences.
Policies made on the hoof can lead to total disaster – a fact that seems to have eluded United States President Donald Trump who has been seen to announce new public policy decisions via Twitter after watching Fox News.
Politicians may feel the need to run up the aircraft steps at great speed, before waving to the crowd, but when making public policies that can deeply affect our lives, it is better for all of us that our elected politicians engage their brains before opening their mouths or their Twitter accounts.
Western democracies have been gradually moving away from a post-war policy style that had three main features. First, there was great emphasis on consulting all the affected interests in a given policy area, even those groups opposed to the proposed policy change.
There was a recognition that interest groups, biased though they are, generally know where the shoe pinches. They often know what will work and what will not (mental health professionals being a case in point here in New Zealand, as the mental health inquiry gets under way).
Secondly, the process was run by professional civil servants whose role was not to say ‘‘yes minister, but to warn them that that their latest bright idea might not actually work. If the Emperor has no clothes, someone needs to say so and modern civil services used to be jolly good at that.
Thirdly, the policy process was characterised by deliberation, by which we mean reflecting on the – often conflicting – evidence collected via review bodies and taking time to generate and evaluate competing options for action.
Sadly, deliberation has gradually gone out of fashion, along with consensus building. For example, a recent study of policy blunders in Britain concluded that a high proportion of these policy failures occurred due to a lack of meaningful consultation with a wide range of interests, and a marked lack of deliberation.
Margaret Thatcher’s Poll Tax was a classic example, leading to rioting and ultimately, her downfall as prime minister. Her Government did not consult widely on the issue, but was told by one leading tax expert that the proposed tax simply would not work. In his words, ‘‘try collecting that in Brixton!’’
In present day New Zealand, we are still in the early days of the new Government. Despite the criticisms mentioned above, it would be wrong for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to trim back her commitment to deliberation and consensus building.
As policy analysts, our advice to the Government is to play the long game in making public policy. A frenetic policy style will not only make the Government look foolish, it will also end badly for New Zealand. Look no further than Brexit, for example.
There is an old saying ‘‘do you want it now or do you want it right?’’ Surely, as voters we want it right. The new Government needs to keep its nerve and leave ‘‘action man’’ impulses to Donald Trump.
❚ Professor Sonia Mazey is ProVice-Chancellor of the University of Canterbury’s College of Business and Law.
❚ Jeremy Richardson is an Adjunct Professor in the National Centre for Research on Europe at the University of Canterbury. Prior to moving to New Zealand, both were Political Scientists at Oxford University.