Inherited features of effective public policies

The concept of deliberative democracy and wide usage of mass media have led to discourses on effective public policies. Recently, I participated in a policy discussion program where one of the hosts asked, “Is it correct to say that Nepal has ‘effective’ policies but often fails in their implementation?” A good majority of participants almost fully accepted the statement, but it made me reflect on the issue and a few more questions cropped on my mind. 

Despite a resounding yeah from the audience, is this a valid proposition substantiated by adequate evidence? 

Do we truly have effective policies? How often ex-ante and ex-post policy analyses are done? There is no doubt that an effective policy itself is implementable or actionable. So, this article will focus on ways to ensure effectiveness of public policies to make them more operative by ensuring people’s participation and evidence in policy-making.

Public policy is a deliberate attempt to address different societal programs. Decision-making is a thoughtful process, but have we ensured considerable diverse citizen participation in the process? It is the prime question. Public policies deal with important issues of people ranging from the womb to post-tomb, from streets to space. Considering this fact, policymakers need to be more open rather than myopic to provide ample opportunities to incorporate public concerns. If people participate, diverse thoughts can be addressed with optimum consensus in a given time. This kind of practice, ultimately, assists in settling the eclectic issues in a multilingual, multicultural and multiracial society like Nepal. 

Multitude ways are available for civic participation in decision-making. According to Robert A Cropf and JL Wagner, what kind of governance is in operation in a state is the key determinant of the degree of people’s participation. Among the three kinds of democracy: aggregative, direct, and deliberative, deliberative democracy emphasizes the importance of public discourse in creating political opinions, gathering support for various candidates and positions, and influencing policy decisions. Furthermore, Sherry Arnstein (1969), the writer of “A Ladder of Citizen Participation’’, posits that there are eight types of participation in decision-making. She argues that citizen power should be at the center, and they should be authoritative inputs and deciders throughout the policy process. If we critically analyze Nepal’s context, the policy actors seem reluctant to extend their arms; they rather engage in manipulation and placation, as Arnstein said. 

However, only the people’s engagement in decision-making is not enough. To what extent liberty or authority is given and voices are heard significantly matter. Archon Fung, another famous scholar, questions the ways of participation thus: Who is allowed to participate? Is the sample representative of the population? What is the method of policymaking? 

The issues raised by Archon are significantly relevant in Nepal as well to make a government functional. The policymakers frequently reiterate that Nepal has a participatory decision-making process. However, who is exercising power, and to what context are the big inquiries in the present context? Most of the time, the political process revolves around powerful interest groups and elite sets resulting in the participation of concerned stakeholders in a tokenistic gesture. An evidence of this: Even top-level government authorities seem busy directing and circumscribing provincial and local entities in many ways.

The next most fundamental operational quality of public policy is evidence-based, supported by research-led information. The ideological policy formulation process cannot be effective as it abhors facts and proofs, logic and reasons. The Blair government in the UK shifted to an evidence-based method from ideological policy formulation in 1999 for modernizing the government whereas in Nepal, the whims of an individual, or a person’s institutions are still the basis for making decisions. For instance, the decision on the mandatory national card for social security funds, the development of infrastructure, the distribution of social security funds, etc are only some of the decisions that the government of Nepal has taken without precise research and analysis. It is obvious that generating evidence requires research, resources and patience. To nourish this process, the authority and resources granted to people should not get bridled in any way.

There are certain crucial features associated with evidence-based policy. If those are not met or addressed, policies cannot be effective. Firstly, there should be comparative events over the effects. The second important element is mass support. The third one is a claim with Sound Foundation. For instance, the government decided on obligatory possession of the national ID card a few months ago to receive all kinds of public services. But it quickly reneged because of intense dissatisfaction on the part of the public. It goes without saying that government decisions should be justifiable and feasible, and they should be based on solid evidence.  If the government had been able to convey the importance of the ID card to the public, the latter would not have opposed the initiative. 

People’s participation from different sectors, strata and evidence-based policies are scaffolding for attenuating democracy. In developing countries like Nepal, where the democratic practice is at an infant stage, citizen participation can appear as a retrofitting mechanism. The wider the civic opportunity gap, the more the threats to the policies, leading to a constant peril to the political system. Of late, so many issues have surfaced in Nepal because of this, ranging from provincial politics in Koshi to the issue of youth exodus to constitutional amendment to quality education. All these issues demand equal and meaningful civic engagement. To address such alarming issues with consensus and feasibility, adequate evidence and constant interaction and communication between the government and the people are a must. 

In conclusion, new thoughts in governance and extensive usage of mass media have laid vicarious demands on policymakers to make public policy more effective.  Policy effectiveness can be ensured in many ways, among them policymakers should ensure meaningful wider citizen participation and evidence compliance in decision-making by analyzing the feasibility of policies. If decision-makers keep abreast of these issues (at least), policies will have higher chances of implementation.

The author is a faculty member at Public Administration Campus, TU