2.3.5 How does research feed into decisionmaking once issues are on the agenda?

An important aspect of planning to get research into the policy-making process is considering how the debate will develop once the issue gets onto the government agenda. In fact, the findings of policy research itself can be the catalyst for an issue to move from the expert agenda to become part of government’s decision-making agenda by showing, for example, that a current government program is underperforming or by suggesting a new solution or application of a new technology to an old problem. New research findings are but one way in which issues can make it onto the government’s decision-making agenda. Focusing events (such as natural disasters, economic or security crises) or change in value priorities (for example, following the election of a new party to government) are also major drivers of agenda setting.¹

Once an administration decides to tackle a policy issue or problem, advocates have to consider how policies will be made and how best to contribute. The policymaking process has variously been described as a rational, logical, and sequenced process (for example, the policy cycle²), a gradual process of steady change (for example, incrementalism³), a set of interacting and overlapping networks⁴, or even “a chaos of accidents and purposes”⁵ (for example, the garbage-can model⁶). This is a highly contested debate spanning decades in academic policy science circles, and scholars have yet to reach a broad consensus on a model that adequately represents the complexity of policymaking processes from one policy issue to another.

However, our aim in this discussion is not to contribute to the ongoing debate over what model best captures the multifaceted realities of policymaking. Ours is a pragmatic and pedagogical imperative to allow novices without a background in public policy an understandable point of entry into the complex work of policymaking. For this reason, we will focus on the policy cycle, which serves as an accessible way for practitioners to understand a staged and rational decision-making process. This is important, because for better or worse, rational models of policymaking such as the policy cycle have had a strong influence on capacity building and governance reform in transition countries and it is certainly worth recognizing this desire for rationalism in the process. In fact, such a wish for informed, inclusive, and staged decisionmaking represents a significant opportunity for research input to be both significant and influential. Finally, even if the learner reflects on the reality of policymaking in their context and sees that the policy cycle is an inaccurate reflection of this process, it remains a useful entry point to achieve this understanding and more broadly, as a way of talking about policy processes. For these reasons, the policy cycle is the (albeit flawed) model around which we base our consideration of the policymaking process.

We use an adapted version of the policy cycle to discuss the various stages where research feeds the policymaking process. First, to improve accessibility, we have removed as much of the confusing jargon from the naming of the stages of the cycle to produce a relatively jargon-free policy cycle. Second, we have grouped together stages in the cycle to reflect the nature and development of discussions through the policymaking process. The addition of what we refer to as “the kidneys” in the figure below seeks to focus the advocate on what part of the decision-making process to target.

As mentioned previously, a change in value priorities (for example, following the election of a new party to government), focusing events (such as natural disasters, economic or security crises), the emergence of new technologies or solutions, or striking program evaluations or research can be the impetus to set the agenda or start the process. Once a policy problem becomes part of the government agenda, the first type of discussion usually is centered on the choice of a suitable strategic solution to solve the problem (for example, should religious education be confessional or secular?). In such a discussion, participants debate the nature of the problem, the aspirations of society, and the effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed solutions on the table. This first debate continues until a strategic solution is chosen by the government in the wake of this broader debate.

This first stage of the debate is the most opportune time to feed in research evidence. In fact, this debate or the prospect of an upcoming debate of this sort often serves as the impetus to commission research in a certain area or at least further expert analysis. Unsurprisingly, this kind of debate is commonly led and framed by the current conventional wisdom of specialist communities.

Once a strategy has been chosen the process moves onto the second “kidney”—implementing the chosen solution. In this stage, a suitable approach to the implementation of the chosen strategy is designed and implemented. Discussions here focus on how to organize institutions, resources and policy instruments (for example, from legislation to incentives to public awareness campaigns) to effectively deliver the chosen strategy (to continue the example from above: if a secular approach is chosen, the discussion would be centered around such issues as how to train teachers, develop textbooks, engage parents in the process, secure funding, and evaluation). This is not just the preserve of the relevant public body tasked with delivering the strategy: independent expertise and research into suitable approaches are very much needed and can make a vital contribution. For example, Open Society Foundations had a research group in 2006⁷ that researched the implementation of local economic development strategies in the Western Balkans. It was felt that the chosen strategies were effective, but the policy design and implementation were failing. There are numerous examples in transition countries of strategy decisions that were taken and either never implemented or very badly or inconsistently delivered.

The final step in the cycle is evaluation. Program evaluation continues to be one of the weakest links in the policymaking process throughout the region, with many NGOs taking on this role in place of public administration. As was the case with other stages, policy research can also feed in here. Indeed, inherently any policy research project evaluates the current approach being taken by an administration and generally this leads to one of two conclusions: that a new/adapted strategy is needed or that the strategy is good but a new/adapted approach to implementation is needed, that is, moving forward or backward in the policy cycle.

What we have described above is a process that may not be recognized by many as a reality in the transition context, but we believe that, slowly but surely, elements of the process are becoming institutionalized practice. In the worst case scenario, an issue is put on the agenda and immediately the discussion of one solution is framed by the need to change the current legislation, that is, move straight to a very limited discussion of policy design, and revised legislation is passed with a minimum of public debate or stakeholder interaction.

There seems to be a legislative “fixation” in transition contexts: when people consider policy, they automatically think about laws, as if they were the only policy instruments available. In the next step, the revised legislation is passed quickly without much public debate and the implications of the new legislation are then absorbed by the relevant public institutions. They decide what it will mean to them and accordingly change their current practices. The new practices are implemented uncritically in a civil service culture that sees itself as rowing the boat rather than steering it.⁸ In this vein, there is little or no evaluation by the public institutions involved and little public discussion of the implications of the change. Broader public debate on the issues remains discretionary and tends to come only if there are reform-oriented politicians in place or there is pressure from the public, media, or an international organization. The figure below represents our attempt to capture the dimensions of the worst-case scenario.

However, the news is not all negative, as increasingly there is a push (both internal and external) and a realization that such closed processes are highly ineffective and there needs to be a focus on working together to find sustainable solutions. Reform-oriented leaders and the need to respond to international organizations and in-depth accession processes (for example, to the European Union or NATO) within such policy frameworks are leading this change.⁹

The implications of this discussion for the advocate are that it is crucial to have in-depth knowledge of how the policymaking process works for your issue and what stage or discussion in the process you will target, and therefore know exactly how and when to exert pressure at the most suitable key points. We develop this extensively in Chapter 4.