Policy Capacity and Governance

The majority of the policy work of government is done through the organizations that constitute the public bureaucracy. Even when administrative organizations act as agents for political leaders, rather than making policy on their own, they play a number of important roles in making policy and in making policies perform as intended by the actors who designed them. Policy capacity can be found in almost any public bureaucracy, but a variety of factors influence the capacity for public administration to shape public policy. This chapter discusses the policy tasks of bureaucracies and their “policy work” (Working for policy, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2010) from the perspective of the organizational and structural characteristics of these institutions. The chapter also explores the different contexts in which bureaucratic organizations operate and discusses alternative patterns of policy roles for bureaucracies based on their own capacities and the capacities of other actors in the policymaking process.

‘Policy analytical capacity’ is an important component of overall policy capacity, bringing together individual level analytical skills (competencies) and resources (capabilities) needed for the systematic evaluation of policy alternatives and practices. Despite the existence of a large body of literature on policy analysis, a more complete picture of the roles played by policy analysts in policy appraisal is needed if the nature of contemporary policy work and formulation activities and the impact and influence of higher and lower levels of capacity of governments in this area are to be better understood.

While the conceptualization of policy capacity and its application to governance performance have been addressed in the academic literature, existing governance indices appear not to consider policy capacity in its many nuanced forms. This shortcoming may be perpetuating incomplete accounts of governance quality within a diverse and growing group of indices. This chapter surveys five commonly used indices to determine whether and how they measure policy capacity. Two of the indices, the Worldwide Governance Indicators and KPMG Change Readiness Index, address broad measures of governance in a globally comparative context. The remaining indices—the Sustainable Governance Indicators, Global Innovation Policy Index, and Bertelsmann Transformation Index—target particular dimensions of governance. This chapter argues that policy capacity is relevant across many types of indices, and therefore deserves closer attention. In particular, the chapter illustrates how a robust framework measuring policy capacity, proposed by Xun, Ramesh, and Howlett, can be used to identify areas in which governance indices inadequately account for capacity. This chapter is in three parts. After a brief introduction, the first part tabulates measures of capacity within selected indices using elements of the framework as an analytical template. The second part compares tabulation results across all five indices, and the final part advocates a more robust consideration of capacity based on the identified shortcomings of the observed indices.

This chapter discusses how varied policy analytical capacity can be evaluated at the systemic level through observed gaps in environmental data monitoring and reporting among countries. Such analytical capacity at the knowledge system level facilitates transparency and credibility needed for nation-states to cooperate on issues requiring global coordination, including ‘super- wicked’ environmental issues like climate change. So far there has been relatively sparse attention paid to whether countries will have the ability—or the policy analytical capacity—to report the necessary data and indicators required for the next round of global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) being proposed. In this chapter, I argue that the varied policy analytical capacity within the global environmental knowledge system necessitates the participation of new institutions and actors. Identifying gaps in data availability at a global, systemic scale, this chapter presents a proxy measure of policy analytical capacity based on publicly reported national statistics of air and water quality performance. Such discrepancies evaluated at a systemic level make a case for channels by which citizen scientists, independent watchdogs, private sector companies and third-party organizations can participate to enhance the policy analytical capacity of governments.

In this chapter we propose an evolutionary analytical approach to policy capacity with a specific focus on policy domains where uncertainty and need for policy innovations, or novelty creation, is a central concern for effective policies. From an evolutionary perspective, the core elements of policy capacity are: (a) organizational routines and their varieties, (b) search and selection and the endogenous and exogenous sources of novelty creation, (c) selection and feedback environments. We operationalize these elements and illustrate the value of the evolutionary analytical perspective through discussing the evolution of science, technology and innovation (STI) policy capacities of three Asian Tigers.

This chapter focuses on the analytical capabilities of individuals in central government public organizations. Drawing upon the results of a large study undertaken for the Polish government that aimed to identify and improve the analytical capacity of central government personnel across all policy domains, the chapter provides a definition and a multi-dimensional typology of analysts in government. The typology is accompanied by a practical toolbox for identifying and grouping analysts, as tested in the Polish government.

This chapter investigates patterns in the application of policy analytical techniques by government officials across different types of policy sectors in three subnational administrations in Belgium. Even when there is general consensus about the importance of policy analytical capacity, government officials’ deployment of policy analytical tools may vary across policy sectors, both in terms of frequency as well as in terms of type. To explain these variations, the chapter examines the role of three explanatory conditions that were originally identified to account for variance in policy analytical practice at the national level of analysis, but may also be relevant for the diffusion of policy analytical praxis across different types of policy sectors. These conditions are the role of social scientists in a particular sector, the degree of government spending per sector, and the receipt of EU subsidies. The analysis draws on recent survey material in Belgium carried out in three different subnational administrations: the Flemish government administration (Flanders), the administration of the Walloon Regional government (Walloon Region), and the administration of the government of the French-speaking community of Belgium (French-speaking Community).

How does increasing government accountability to its citizens increase policy capacity? In this chapter, we build on the strategic interaction approach to provide a theoretical framework of government’s credible accountability that increases policy capacity. Importantly, the government’s credible accountability rests on its commitment to specific processes that embody transparency, accountability, and responsiveness that are independent of democratic progress. Drawing on evidence from East and Southeast Asia—specifically, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Malaysia—during the 1997–1998 Asian Financial Crisis, we show how each government’s demonstration or failure to demonstrate credible accountability affected its policy capacity. This chapter makes three contributions to the literature. First, it provides a theoretical framework for building policy capacity through the government’s credible accountability. This departs from prevailing economic-growth explanations of policy capacity in East and Southeast Asia. Second, this evidence maps citizens’ quiescence to government accountability rather than citizens’ passiveness or ignorance; thus, the model treats citizens as active and strategic. Third, the increased policy capacity reveals an overlooked process that increases government accountability without compromising the government’s policy reach or absorbing its resources.

This chapter considers whether and how political legitimacy is relevant for policy capacity. A growing body of literature shows that across societies, legitimacy increases compliance with court rulings, laws, and policies, and raises satisfaction with distribution of outcomes. Hence, political legitimacy seems to be an important component of policy capacity. As a result, research about how to gain legitimacy and what means can be used to increase legitimacy (normative approval) of particular decisions, laws, or authorities should attract interest from both political scientists and policy scholars. Although more research is needed to provide increasingly fine-tuned answers, one factor that seems to consistently contribute to legitimacy (and as a consequence, to compliance) is the fairness of political authorities. Countering the assumption that successful policy has to entail an increased distribution of goods and services to people, evidence suggests that people are not only concerned about their personal gains; on the contrary, they care about a fair process of decision-making, including transparency, stakeholder voice, and opportunity for engagement in policy development. Procedural considerations might outweigh the importance of personally favourable outcomes or, in the realm of public policy, even effective and efficient policy. This chapter discusses evidence from social psychology, political science, and policy studies to suggest that increasing legitimacy through procedural fairness might be key to successful policymaking.

This chapter focuses on the policy capacity of interest groups. More specifically, it explores which types of policy capacities interest groups may develop. It is widely acknowledged that interest groups can play key roles in the policy process, in particular if they have generated their own capacities through the possession of a number of ‘policy goods’ to assist in policy formulation and implementation. These ‘policy goods’ are highly valued by policymakers. This chapter links different policy goods to analytical, operational and political skills, as well as to different modes of policy engagement. To fully understand the development and value of these capabilities one should look at the links between organizational factors and policy context. That is, the generation of interest group policy capacities is first and foremost a dynamic process, in which policy context and the relationships between government and interest groups shape the generation and value of group capacities.

In this chapter, we examine how agencies build organizational political capacities (OPC) for reputation management, where capacity building is treated as a challenge underpinned by the learning relationships that exist between key governance actors. This challenge requires the development of four types of OPC: absorptive capacity (ACAP); administrative capacity (ADCAP); analytical capacity (ANCAP) and communicative capacity (COMCAP). Analytically, we link each of these capacities to one particular type of policy learning—reflexive learning—which characterizes politicized situations where an agency’s reputation is under threat and citizens are the main governance partners. Empirically, we demonstrate how agencies learn to develop these OPCs with governance partners using the case of the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) which increasingly aims to engage citizens in a dialogue to combat the negative images attached to health and safety regulation. We conclude by asking what a learning approach tells us about how agencies can develop OPC.

Claims that policy capacity has been eroded in the world of new public management have been widely canvassed. Yet these conceptualizations of policy capacity have mainly been linked to traditional and rationalist views of the policy process, where the focus is on content expertise for understanding the issue, analytical skills for generating viable options, and exercising authority and autonomy to implement the chosen policy. A second discourse on perceived policy capacity decline raises deeper challenges in relation to strategic policy work such as comprehension of ‘wicked’ policy challenges, and the need for forward-thinking, collective effort and political alignment capabilities. What is the range of skills needed for envisioning and communicating this ‘policy-for-the-future,’ as opposed to designing and implementing ‘policy-of-the-day?’ This chapter draws together research on the urban water policy responses of Australian capital cities to prolonged drought, in order to explore the policy capacity required for innovative policy making. The drought circumstances heightened policy activities and provided an opportunity to identify the policy capacity which featured in the strategic policy responses of the period, alongside the perceived capacity gaps which contributed to a missed opportunity for policy innovation. The results suggest that capability within both individual and organizational levels of the policy setting is required to produce a reinforced architecture for facilitating major policy change. In particular, capacity for gaining legitimacy for long-term policy outlooks, addressing the politicization of issues, and facilitating/managing diverse policy communities emerged as key themes in strategic policy work. By examining policy capacity characteristics and deficits for policy innovation, the chapter makes a first attempt at identifying key aspects of what might constitute forward-looking policy capacity in contemporary government.​

In the United States, philanthropy has long been a powerful and integral force in political economy and society (Zunz 2012). With particular reference to the City of Baltimore, Maryland, this chapter explores the competences and capabilities of foundations to perform policy functions. In so doing, foundations demonstrate the importance of the policy capacity of non-governmental actors to how a city is governed. The chapter first considers the state-society relationships of urban governance. It then briefly explains the history of foundation philanthropy-of-place approaches in the US, and learnings that that have led to more locally embedded approaches. The policy capacity of foundations in formulating neighbourhood revitalization policy is then explored, followed by consideration of the role of foundations in both directly and indirectly implementing such policy via intermediary, non-profit organizations. It then considers the extent to which these city policy processes are open to genuine collaboration between government and non-governmental actors, and the extent to which they reflect differential power resources and relationships. The chapter concludes by considering the scope for development of progressive alternatives.

The Australian federation began with strong states and a coordinating federal government with a constitutionally prescribed and minimal list of responsibilities. Over the last century, with both public and high court support, the federal government has assumed more and more financial control and an expanding range of responsibilities. Many recent prime ministers have continued to encroach into areas of traditional state responsibility, aided by populist rhetoric such as ‘ending the blame game’ in shared areas of responsibility and a largely unchallenged belief that centralization will lead to improved service delivery and greater accountability (while partly relieving state government budgets). However, it is uncertain whether the federal government actually has the capacity, beyond the financial resources, to be able to deliver major social services such as health and education. A further complication is the involvement of an ever-increasing range of non-government actors. This study considers how the policy capacity of different tiers of government can be determined, strengthened and shared in order to improve service delivery. Against the backdrop of a federal government review of federalism and various reform proposals, it offers a new framework for allocating policy responsibility between tiers of government, as opposed to existing (more hollow) approaches such as trying to achieve subsidiarity.

Government may undertake policies with controversies, and there are significant gaps in policy implementation. As a result, various conflicts are unavoidable in the policy process. And the capacity of conflict resolution is a key aspect of political capacity at the individual, organizational and system level, and plays a key role in shaping political legitimacy, especially in authoritative systems like in China. What is the dynamic mechanism of collective incidents in contemporary China? How is the policy process during which collective conflicts are contained and defused? This article argues that the current political system in China is a pressure-oriented interest-led one, in which serious collective incidents happening frequently and increasing drastically during the social transformation. A pressure-oriented interest-led political system is characterized with its own dynamic mechanisms, i.e. (1) non-institutionalized environmental mechanism; (2) cognitive mechanism of pressure relief; (3) boundary-activated quick-start mobilization mechanism. Based upon detailed cases analysis, this article suggests that the resolution of collective conflicts is located within an internal structure that emphasizes the consciousness of pressure and interests faced both by the government and the mass in the local state. It is important to understand how the Chinese grassroots politics actually operates and to recognize the societal power and the direction in which it is heading.

Our aim is to explain a particular theoretical framework to investigate the phenomenon of policy-related expertise and policy work in political parties, to show—using the example of Czech political parties—the construction of a research design and defend the use of specific methods. Political parties in Europe are in a privileged position of policy-making. We are interested in how the political parties generate expertise that is essential for their involvement in the policy-making process. Surprisingly, there has been little study of parties’ internal assumptions and their capacity to generate policy-related expertise. In this chapter, we create a theoretical framework that interconnects theories of political parties and theories of public policy (especially Katz and Mair’s cartel party theory, Harmel and Janda’s integrated theory of party goals and change and Howlett’s concept of policy capacity and policy analytical capacity). We also show possible connections between our research on political parties and existing research of policy work in public administration and NGOs.

This chapter examines internet regulation policy in three very different countries—Russia, Belarus and Italy—to explore how the balance of state and society capabilities affects policy outcomes and examine the effectiveness of the states ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ capabilities towards media and internet regulation. The chapter considers policy capacity as a dynamic characteristic that can be attributed to different social organizations, and state and non-state actors, that are involved in certain policy process or affected by policy outcomes. The policy capacity of an actor is created, sustained and developed in a lively public sphere, among a multiplicity of business and non-profit citizen organizations with their own social goals and often their own specific policy agendas. The chapter also examines the distinction between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ capabilities. ‘Hard’ capabilities are supported by state coercive power and can be exercised by state structures, who impose them on other social actors and individuals, while ‘soft’ capabilities (including ‘communication’, ‘argumentation’, and ‘negotiation’) require other actors to be involved in the process. The success of policy implementation depends not just on the strength of coercive mechanisms, but on an ability to understand the complexity of the regulatory system and recognize other important actors and their qualities, including skills of engaging in dialogue with other policy actors, target publics and a wider range of stakeholders.