Snippets

1. Policy Analysis

Paul Cairney is one of these rare academics who writes well. He has had a policy analysis blog for 12 years which is simply the most comprehensive on the subject there is  He makes the topic as interesting as it actually ought to be.

His latest post refers to an article he’s just written about Covid 19 and health policy-making. I was impressed that, after the obligatory “abstract”, the article was preceded by a “Plain Language Summary” which I understand is a feature of at least this Open Research Europe site. And I also liked that he had teamed up with health and political science academics in at least one foreign university apart from his own, Stirling University.

I should at this stage confess that I was a graduate from one of the first (part-time) Policy Analysis courses run in Britain in the mid 1980s by Lewis Gunn of Strathclyde University – with the emphasis on the rationalistic side of things being challenged by the likes of Charles Lindblom. And I still vividly remember the first time “frame analysis” was presented to us.

But this did not prevent me from presenting an overly rationalistic “stage-approach” when, in 2002, I drafted a Manual for senior Slovak Civil Servants…. If only I had known that, by then, Deborah Stone’s Policy Paradox – the art of political decision-making was into at least its second edition! It remains for me the best read on the subject…although if it's a manual people are looking for Eugene Bardach's Practical Guide for Policy Analysis (2015) is an excellent intro

 

2. Eric Hobsbawm – a Life

Eric Hobsbawm was a brilliant British historian who lived to a grand old age and left us definitive and superbly-written histories of our age which you can access on this post of mine. There’s a nice 1995 profile of him here.

LRB commissioned an hour-long documentary on him which you can view here

3. Leading Questions

Dave Pollard is one of the few bloggers whose posts I generally read in full – always thoughtful, generally provocative. His latest post is typical - professing lack of interest in what people had to say about themselves in CVs or expressions of future hopes – but preferring rather to suggest…… 

six “leading questions” that might evoke some kind of useful sense of who someone is and what they care about - and possibly assess whether the person you’re talking with might be the potential brilliant colleague, life partner, inspiring mentor or new best friend you’ve been looking for. These are the questions:

1.      What adjectives or nouns would you use to describe yourself that differentiate you from most other people? When and how did these words come to apply to you?

2.     Describe the most fulfilling day you can imagine, some day that might realistically occur in the next year. Why would it be fulfilling? What are you doing now that might increase its likelihood of happening?

3.     What do you care about, big picture, right now? What would you mourn if it disappeared? What do you ache to have in your life? What would you work really long and hard to conserve or achieve? How did you come to care about this?

4.     What is your purpose, right now? Not your role or occupation, but the thing you’re uniquely gifted and inspired to be doing, something the world needs. What would elate you if you achieved it, today, this month, in the next year? What would devastate you if you failed, or didn’t get to try? How did this become your purpose?

5.     What’s your basic belief about why you, and other humans, exist? Not what you believe is right or important (or what you, or humans ‘should’ do or be), but why you think we are the way we are now, and why you think we evolved to be where we are. It’s an existential question, not a moral one. How did you come to this belief?

6.     What’s your basic sense of what the next century holds for our planet and our civilization? How do you imagine yourself coping with it? How did you come to this belief?

These are not easy questions, and asking them might prove intimidating or even threatening to some people, which is why in the last post I suggested volunteering your own answer to each question yourself first, in a form such as “Someone asked me the other day… and I told them…”. It’s also why there are supplementary questions to each, to get the person you’re asking started. And the last supplementary question in each group lends itself to telling a story, since that’s what we’re most comfortable with. Even then, some of these questions will stop many people cold, which might tell you something about them right there.

 

4. Britain - and its Union

Peter Oborne may be a right-wing British journalist but he is certainly not typical in his readiness to attack the myths of so many of his ilk – particularly the country’s highly elitist system of power. I have been a great fan of his Triumph of the Political Class since it came out almost a decade ago.  

When therefore he sticks it not only to Boris Johnson and Donald Trump but to the enture media class, you can rest assured you’re in for a great read. And so it is with his Assault on Truth – Johnson, trump and the emergence of a new moral barbarism (2021) which is in epub format.

It’s on Johnson’s watch that the collapse of the so-called UK is becoming final - as this paper from the neutral Constitution Society demonstrates - Britain at the Crossroads - can the British State handle the challenges of devolution?

Decisions. Decisions…….

A daughter’s career dilemma raises the question of how well served we are by the literature on decision-making. With the usual serendipity, I had just bought from the second-hand English bookshop here "Decisive – how to make better decisions in Life and Work" (2013) whose focus is actually a bit more on the commercial world – although it does give examples of more solitary decision-making. It is actually one of no less than 89 books which one site offers on decision-making

And I had already noticed that the bookshelves are being increasingly swamped by books by psychologists divulging in numbing detail their various experiments and how they might help us improve our personal decision-making.

I blame populiser Malcolm Gladwell - for the success of his 2005 "Blink – the power of thinking without thinking" about which a contemporary reviewer wrote -

Malcolm Gladwell’s fevered new book, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking is evangelical in a got-religion kind of way, with Gladwell praising a stratagem he calls “thin-slicing” — using the smallest amount of information possible to make decisions. In fact he’s wandering through territory staked out by Herbert Simon fifty years ago when he wrote about “bounded rationality,” as well as by practitioners of a branch of psychology called “heuristics and biases,” and by evolutionary biologists and economists and neuroscientists and philosophers and those ancient taxonomists who classified cognition as either intuition or reason. It’s a long literature, and hey! who has time for it?

The result, ironically, of this embarrassment of riches is to make it increasingly difficult to find the book on the subject which might best fit a particular person at a particular point. Of course, you can find lots of reviews of such books – but they are of a single book and give no overall assessment of the field..  And those most capable of doing such comparative assessments would never attempt it...for fear of the damage it would do their professional or academic reputations….”did you hear that old so and so actually reviewed a clutch of self-help books??? What is the world coming to…??”

I can’t say I am all that decisive myself – things panned out well for me...so I tend to a more fatalistic philosophy….Que sera sera. But the reference to Herbert Simon in the review above reminds me that I do have form in this field of decision-making…..Back in the 1980s I took a part-time MSc in the country’s first degree course in Policy Analysis in which Simon and others such as Etzioni loomed large….I even, in 2002, wrote a Manual on the subject – for Slovak senior civil servants!

The New Labour government of 1997 made the subject a sexy one – although the manuals its policy unit spawned were still rationalistic…..it was not until the mid 2000s that I got a copy of what remains for me far and away the most satisfactory (less rationalistic) treatment - Policy Paradox -the art of political decision-making by Deborah Stone

A post last autumn noted the explosion of interest the last decade has seen in efforts to change people’s behavior – initially it seemed by governments although subsequent revelations demonstrated the extent to which big business had been successfully using algorithms to influence our social behavior…

My plea

So my plea to editors of book sections and of Literary journals is – please don’t look down on these popular books on decision-making….there are a lot of readers out there who would value some guidance to the literature!

Background Reading

Decisive - how to make better decisions in life and Work; C and D Heath (2013) 

https://fs.blog/2015/06/books-on-decision-making/

https://epdf.tips/queue/handbook-of-decision-making.html

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/01/21/the-art-of-decision-making

Blink – the power of thinking without thinking  - the full read

The Art of Decision Making; Helen Drummond (2001)

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1972/10/19/cooling-it/

https://readingraphics.com/book-summary-decisive/

The sculptures which heads the post were found in Cernavoda on the border between Romania and Bulgaria and date from 6,000 BC ie the oldest of their sort.... 

Structures, systems and skills - demand and supply again

As I said, I had a dream about deliberative structures - which got me thinking about the various mechanisms which those in think-tanks and consultancies have pushed on unsuspecting governments in the past few decades – both in developed and transition countries. But let me start with the dream - which took me back to two periods in my political life. First – 40 years ago (!!) – when I was operating in a highly charged atmosphere of political conflict with a group of Liberal councillors who had just wrested power from the Labour establishment which had ruled a small shipbuilding town for about 25 years. At the age of 26 years I had been elected (in a bye-election) to represent a poor part of the town – and, facing a re-election within 12 months, had to forge a distinctive identity for myself before I faced again the 4,000 odd voters of the “ward” I had been elected to. (There were 9 such wards – each with 3 councillors - one of whom was subject to election each year. The system was discontinued in 1974 and – with all the current concern about democracy – its restoration might perhaps be considered). It was 1968 and not surprising that the distinguishing feature I developed was a strong participative (and community action) impulse which threatened not only the Liberals but my own political colleagues. But, within three years, I had managed to manoeuvre myself to the Chairmanship of an important new committee (Social Work) which was a joint one with a neighbouring town still within Labour control. The Social Work legislation passed for Scotland by the Wilson Labour Government of 1964-70 invited these new committees to “promote social welfare” and I was therefore able to use that position to develop community conference processes.
That stood me in very good stead a few years later when a giant new Region was formed – and the reputation I had gained propelled me to a central position in the new ruling Labour group.
Section 3.4 of this paper on my website describes how some of us quickly invented an inclusive process of policy deliberation. I was quite hostile to the committee structure which was then the mechanism used for political decision-making. I saw and called it strongly as a front for officer power. Our new system (called “member-officer groups”) embraced members of the opposition parties and junior officials – and the groups were invited to look critically at services which fell between the cracks of departments. Our experience attracted wide interest and was in the vanguard of a wider rethink about the process of decision-making in local government which took place more than a decade later in England – which culminated in legislation encouraging municipalities to set up cabinets and a directly-elected mayoral system. A good picture of this can be found here.

This experience gave me an insight into the role of various stakeholders – ruling party, opposition, senior officers, junior officials, citizens – which few consultants are lucky enough to obtain. It showed me how the structures we use so often pervert the potential insights each of these parties possess (one of the reasons perhaps to explain why I am disposed to the “balance” theory I offered recently). There had to be a better way of making decisions!

When I was a politician, I put the emphasis on new structures – but my more recent experience helps me understand that structures are only part of the picture. A lot of recent technical assistance in which I am involved has required the drafting of (and training in) policy analysis processes and skills - but these are not much use if they are inputed to a political process which does not operate on “rational” lines (I put this word in inverted commas simply because politics at its best has its own rationality from that of the pretensions of administrative rationality!). Effective technical assistance (TA) should to be based on a systems philosophy – bit is trapped in a project management (logframe) ideology. Of course the latter is supposed to be firmly based in the former – but never is! A nod is given in the drafting of Terms of Reference to “General and specific objectives”; but the role of the project in achieving the objective (and the other factors influencing policy outcomes) are never discussed).

A real systems approach to policy analysis in TA would (a) craft a map of the entire system – in this case
• The locus and system (formal and informal) of policy analysis and proposals
• The structure and protocols (formal and informal) of decision-taking
• The interaction between the two

And then (b) demonstrate exactly how the selected mechanism (new or amended structure, process or legal regulation; training etc) could act as a catalyst for positive change.