policy imagination, the art of developing inclusive public policies
520
1 Policy Imagination the art of developing and implementing inclusive public policies. A syllabus Revised provisional edition By Brede Kristensen Curaçao 2015 Table of Contents: Part, chapter,paragraph Questions and issues page Part I Basics: policies and governance 8 A General Introduction 8 Syllabus in a nutshell 11 A 1 Structure of the syllabus and how to read and use this syllabus 14 Q.A.1.1 Issues addressed in syllabus Structure of course 14 Q.A.1.2 Objectives of course (general) 19 Q.A.1.3 How to read the syllabus: 2 perspectives 20 Q.A.1.4 Main objective: the idea of a policy and the practice of policy craftsmanship 21 A 2 On to some basics: patterns and policy imagination 25 Q. A.2.1 How to understand society, how to know? 26 Q. A.2.2 Why policy imagination is the essence of policy development 29 Q. A.2.3 Is policy development a technique or an art? 31 Q. A.2.4 Why good policies need to be inclusive policies 31 Q. A.2.5 In which ways can policies be approached? And what does the 32
-
Upload
independent -
Category
Documents
-
view
0 -
download
0
Transcript of policy imagination, the art of developing inclusive public policies
1
Policy Imagination the art of developing and implementing inclusive public policies.
A syllabus
Revised provisional edition
By Brede Kristensen
Curaçao 2015
Table of Contents:
Part,
chapter,paragraph
Questions and issues page
Part I Basics: policies and governance 8
A General Introduction 8
Syllabus in a nutshell 11
A 1 Structure of the syllabus and how to read and use this syllabus 14
Q.A.1.1
Issues addressed in syllabus
Structure of course
14
Q.A.1.2 Objectives of course (general) 19
Q.A.1.3 How to read the syllabus: 2 perspectives 20
Q.A.1.4
Main objective: the idea of a policy and the practice of policy
craftsmanship
21
A 2 On to some basics: patterns and policy imagination 25
Q. A.2.1 How to understand society, how to know? 26
Q. A.2.2 Why policy imagination is the essence of policy development 29
Q. A.2.3 Is policy development a technique or an art? 31
Q. A.2.4 Why good policies need to be inclusive policies 31
Q. A.2.5 In which ways can policies be approached? And what does the 32
2
pattern approach mean?
Q. A.2.6 What do we mean by patterns? And why are they so important
for policies?
34
Q. A.2.7 Can patterns be changed? 41
Q. A.2.8 Why do patterns resist change and how can policies break
through resistance?
48
Q. A.2.9 Differences and similarities with Talcott Parsons‟approach. 54
Q. A.2.10 Difference with the idea of memes 56
Q. A.2.11 May different patterns manifest themselves simultaneously? 58
Intermezzo Reflection and time 59
Q. A.2.12 Do patterns create a moral order? Or does a moral order set
limits on patterns?
60
Q.A.2.13 Policy and patterns again 63
Q.A.2.14 Does behavioral change as aimed by policies need pattern
change?
68
Q.A.2.15 What do we mean by policy discourse? 69
Q.A.2.16 Why and how should the policy discourse be taken into account
by policy experts?
71
Q.A.2.17 Why s theoretical knowledge of the policy development process
useful?
72
B What is a policy? 74
B.1 The term policy 74
Q. B.1.1 Meaning of the word „policy‟ again 75
Q. B.1.2 What does „logic of finality‟ mean? 76
Q. B.1.3 What are the implications of logic of finality for policies and
what is „objective directed diagnosis‟?
78
Q. B.1.4 What do we mean by the principle of indeterminacy of human
behavior?
82
Q. B.1.5 Importance of evidence and novelty for policies 85
Q. B.1.6 Policy discourse and public morality 87
Q. B.1.7 Link between indeterminacy of behavior, objective directed
diagnosis and public morality
88
B2 Types of understanding policies 90
Q. B.2.1 What do we mean by policy approaches? 90
Intermezzo Against interpretation and against consistency 95
Q. B.2.2 Interpretive method of policy analysis. 99
Q. B.2.3 Making it more concrete 101
Q. B.2.4 Usefulness of other methods of analysis 103
Q. B.2.5 Interpretation and facilitation 105
B3 Basic policy models 108
3
Q. B.3.1 Different types of policies 108
Q. B.3.2 About the nature of policy instruments as facilitating
instruments. The need for catalysts
113
Q. B.3.3 Types of instrumentation or facilitation 115
Q. B.3.4 How do policies and laws relate? 117
Q. B.3.5 Phases in policy development 128
Q. B.3.6 Again the importance of response patterns and the need for
policy imagination
130
B4 Different spheres, different policies 135
Q. B.4.1 Four main spheres in society 135
Q. B.4.2 About spheres and framework patterns 138
Q. B.4.3 Patterns and sphere characteristics 141
Q. B.4.4 How to take sphere boundaries into account? 144
Q. B.4.5 What do we mean by roomification? 147
C Policies and Governance 151
C1 Public policy and good governance 151
Q. C.1.1 Is there any agreement on basic elements of good governance? 152
Q. C.1.2 Good governance and policy development capacity 154
Q. C.1.3 Why do we use the term governance? 155
Q. C.1.4 Why is governance linked with stakeholder involvement? 156
Q. C.1.5 Why do stakeholder involvement and democracy need each
other?
157
Q. C.1.6 Why does good governance need strong institutions? What is a
strong institution?
158
Q. C.1.7 What is a strong policy? 160
Q. C.1.8 Policies and the limitation of freedom 161
Q. C.1.9 Centralized states and representative democracy 163
Q. C.1.10 The need for policy support institutions 167
Q. C.1.11 The risk of focusing on the present 168
Q. C.1.12 The problem of maximization of policies. 169
Q. C.1.13 Policy mediation 170
Q. C.1.14 The practice of policy mediation 172
Q. C.1.15 Policy mediation by means of negotiation and of dialogue 176
C2 Policies in societies in transition: the need for public policy
partnerships
178
Q. C.2.1 Transition and the need for good practice of policy
development
179
Q. C.2.2 Do static societies exist? 180
Q. C.2.3 Liquid modernity, transition and pattern theory 183
Q. C.2.4 Public policy partnerships and the institutionalization of 184
4
practice of policy development
Q. C.2.5 Role of business world and link with corporate social
responsibility
187
C3 Note on deliberation process and 5 types of rationality 190
Q. C.3.1 Policy deliberation with partners adhering to different types if
rationality
190
Q. C.3.2 Practice of rationality of inclusiveness 193
Q. C.3.3 Policy deliberation and the quest for justice 197
C4 Practice of governance by policy implementation 199
Q. C.4.1 Link between good governance and proper policy development 199
Q. C.4.2 How did other and ancient civilizations consider this link? 202
Q. C.4.3 What is political responsibility? and responsible policies? 206
Q. C.4.4 Why are good policies in need people with an open mind,
willing to reflect, learn and evaluate?
208
C5 The need for Policy coordination 212
Q. C.5.1 Why is policy coordination important and who should
coordinate?
213
Q. C.5.2 Why are complementary policies often essential for good policy
practice?
214
Q. C.5.3 Policy coordination and the need to make crucial choices 218
C6 Working with scenario‟s and pattern analysis 222
Q. C.6.1 Why policies are about breaking through barriers of resistance. 222
Q. C.6.2 Why scenario‟s are useful to imagine a process of change 225
Q. C.6.3 Characteristics of complexity levels of scenario‟s 226
C7 The idea of ordered reality, pattern analysis and social science
methodology
232
Q. C.7.1 Atomistic or holistic order 232
Q. C.7.2 How do we know we can or cannot develop any functional
knowledge of human behavior?
236
General conclusion Part I 241
Part II Support Methods 243
General summary Part II 243
A Policy Design Analysis 244
A1 A useful figure and a useful matrix 245
Q. A.1.1. Tree of objectives 245
Q. A.12 Logical framework 247
A2 Dimensions of policy analysis 248
Q. A.2.1. What is the purpose of policy analysis? 248
Q. A.2.2 Which are the different approaches to policy analysis? 249
5
Q. A.2.3 How does professional policy design look like? 250
Q. A.2.4 Policy environment and stakeholder analysis 252
Q. A.2.5 Analysis of existing public policies 256
Q. A.2.6 Analysis of public policy design 260
Q. A.2.7 Importance of assumptions 263
Q. A.2.8 Assumptions, risks and success factors 264
Q. A.2.9 Types of assumptions 265
Q. A.2.10 Usefulness of comparative policy analysis 267
Q. A.2.11 How to predict response patterns? 267
A3 How to assess the workability or feasibility of policies? 272
Q. A.3.1. Why so many public policies fail 272
Q. A.3.2 What does it mean that a policy is effective? 273
Q. A.3.3 How to be sure a policy works? 274
Q. A.3.4 Quality criteria for public policies 275
B Policy deliberation 279
B1 Two faces of Democracy 279
Q. B.1.1. Origins of democracy 279
Q. B.1.2 2 faces of democracy or dual democracy 282
Q. B.1.3 Assumptions of deliberative democracy 286
B2 Deliberation and Communication: neurotransmitters of society 290
Q. B.2.1. The need of 2-way communication 290
Q. B.2.2 Methods: agogical, maieutical and elenctic 291
Q. B.2.3 Conditions for open communication 292
Q. B.2.4 Main characteristics of an effective facilitator 293
B3 Means of Consultation 296
Q. B.4. What is the difference between advocacy, lobbying, protesting
and how do they relate to the practice of policy development?
320
B5 The Policy House: the institutionalization of policy deliberation 323
Q. B.5.1. Why a policy house is useful for deliberation process 323
Q. B.5.2 Policy house as the political agora 328
Q. B.5.3 Policy house and federalism 331
Q. B.5.4 Policy house and centralized democracy 331
Q. B.5.5 Organizational set-up of policy house 333
Q. B.3.1. Tools to organize the deliberation process 296
Q. B.3.2 Negotiation and the transition to dialogue 305
Q. B.3.3 How to take patterns en frames into account during
deliberation process
306
Q. B.3.4 How to facilitate dialogue 307
Q.B.3.5. Methodological comments on deliberation 316
B4 Advocacy, lobbying, protesting and policy development 320
6
B6 Symbiotic model of governance 338
Q. B.6 Symbiosis as a model for public governance 338
C Roles of Policy Experts 343
C1 Professional roles of policy experts 343
Q. C.1.1. How policy makers view their role 343
Q. C.1.2 Types of policy papers 346
C2 Working in a policy department 348
Q. C.2.1. Which are the 7 functions of a policy department? 348
Q. C.2.1. Practical implications 350
Q. C.2.1. How should an assignment look like? 352
D Organising and Managing Public Administration
with policies in view
355
D Separation of policy development and implementation 355
Q. D.1. Why a separation between policy development and
implementation?
355
Q. D.2 How should the organization of separation look like? 357
Q. D.3 HR-requirements and the policy expert as an architect 359
Q. D.4 A good policy development team 360
Q. D.5 A good policy implementation team 361
Q. D.6 Conditions for hiring an external partner 363
General conclusion Part I 366
Part III: Policy cycle: 9 critical phases 367
A. Agenda setting 370
Q.A.1 what is at stake? 372
Q. A.2 how to deal with different world views and situation definitions 375
Q. A.3 Actuality and agenda 377
The assignment 378
B Problem definition
382
Q.B.1 Defining a problem 383
Q.B.2 Power to define 391
Q.B.3 Typology of problems 393
Q.B.4 How to identify, interpret and formulate problems 394
Q.B.5 About the causes of a problem 396
C. Finding main policy goals, or strategy 402
Q.C.1 Policy approaches 404
Q.C.2 How to arrange policy goals? 411
Q.C.3 Use of scenario‟s 411
D. Facilitation 417
7
Q.D.1 The choice of instruments 420
Q.D.2 Methodology, argumentation and policy dialogue 425
Q.D.3 Alternatives 427
Q.D.4 Thinking to and fro 428
E. Implementation plan 430
Q.E.1 Operational policies and operational styles 433
Q.E.2 A concrete example 435
Q.E.3. Drawing an implementation plan 437
Q.E.4. Internal or external partners 438
Q.E.5. Calculating costs and benefits: drawing a budget 440
Q.E.6. Calculating miscellaneous costs, benefits and musts 442
Q.E.7 Final bits and pieces 444
F. Critical Review 447
Q.F.1 What is a critical review? 448
Q.F.2 Suitable review questions 448
G. Decision making 452
Q.G.1 Rational procedure 454
Q.G.2 Styles of decision making 455
Q.G.3 Political acceptability 458
Q.G.4 Presentation and writing format 460
H. Implementation and monitoring 462
Q. H.1. An advice 465
Q.H.2 Is the actor capable of implementation? 468
Q.H.3. Monitoring 468
I. Evaluation, appreciation, adaptation 472
Q.I.1 Five remarks at the start 473
Q.I.2 Five methods of evaluation 476
Q.I.3 Appropriateness of method 480
Q.I.4 Indicators of sustainability 482
Q.I.5 Termination of policies 488
Q.I.6 Concluding remarks 490
By way of conclusion: the policy architect 492
Addenda
Scheme: policy development process 494
Personal questionnaire 497
Glossary 499
Literature 511
8
Part I: Basics: policies and governance
A. General Introduction
Spring 2000. With the young director of the Pro Democratia movement in Romania, Florin Lupu, I
discuss which type of projects are most urgently needed to improve the functioning of democracy in
the „new Eastern Europe‟. The art of policy development is on the list. When we come to this issue he
quickly concludes that public policy development in connection with participatory democracy is the
crucial issue. „No shadow of doubt!‟ he says. Why? To develop a country you need effective public
policies. To develop good policies you need to consult with the people who are supposed to be the
beneficiaries. To have the right to vote for Members of Parliament is one thing, to have a say in policies
that will affect your life is another thing. Isn‟t that what democracy, policy development and good
governance is all about? We agree and we go ahead. To have a say in policy development is a more
concrete democracy experience, than casting a vote during the Election Day. Democratic rights are not
sufficient. Without concrete democracy-experiences democracy will not work, so Florin put forward.
Sadly Florin Lupu is killed in a car accident a couple of years later. But with other people the Dutch-
Romanian foundation transFORMA works closely together to introduce new ways of policy
development in Romania and other Eastern European countries as well as the Caribbean. Henk van de
Graaf, from the University of Amsterdam, delivers lots of courses to civil servants and CSO‟s. I focus on
seminars for university students and I also work in the Caribbean. This year I decided to put the hand-
outs and syllabi regarding policy development that I wrote over a very long period of time, starting 35
years ago in the Netherlands, together into one big syllabus.
The syllabus offered here is a course, not an academic study, nor a research report. However, the
course material is based on a variety of academic studies and 35 years of personal experience with
courses on policy development to students, civil servants and CSO‟s, as well on policy development
projects and evaluation research in both the European and Caribbean region. This means that
feedback, given by many hundreds if not thousands of participants over the years, has contributed to
the text of the course. Most of the examples of case studies (put in boxes which are inserted in the text)
are based on real and personal experience. Naturally not all aspects of the policy process are covered
by the course. Many are. I felt that it might be useful and interesting for the reader or user of the
syllabus to reflect on the experience that I personally developed over the years regarding these aspects.
The idea of this course originates from 4 main sources:
1. Peter Berger‟s and Thomas Luckmann‟s theory of (social) reality construction and
credibility of ideas and common sense has been very important to me. Its
philosophical background, as provided by Alfred Schutz, has to be taken into account
9
as well. In combination with Roland Barthes‟ reflections on myth and language, which
Berger‟s theory appears convincing to me. My own orientation in sociology is based on
it.
2. David Bohm‟s pattern theory for quantum mechanics, with enfolding and unfolding
movements, worked as an eye opener to me and helped me to formulate pattern
dynamics. Especially his cooperation with David Peat produced a model for creative
action, which in my eyes seem to be of the utmost importance to for sociology. Rupert
Sheldrake applied these ideas in biology and developed an interesting pattern theory
in which habit formation and creative change interplay. Combined with Talcott
Parsons‟ pattern theory, it provides useful insight in the dynamics of change and
resistence to change.
3. The policy analysis method, based on the logic of finality, as developed by Gijs
Kuypers from the Free University of Amsterdam in the late 60‟ies. As a young student
I studied political science with him and was impressed by the logic of his classical
approach. Many models and methods of policy development spring from it or seem
closely akin. But it is a one-sided almost technological approach to policies as
instruments. How would reality respond to instrumental activity? Shouldn‟t we take
responses into account? That is where Robert Pirsig comes in with his thorough
analysis of „quality‟ in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
4. The theory and method of societal and political mobilization as developed by Amitai
Etzioni. His „Active Society‟ (1968) is a basic text for „participatory democracy‟ and
democratic society development. The text still seems very convincing to me. And, at
least as important, the long letter written to the people of the Netherlands by Joan van
der Capellen tot den Pol, who in 1781 had the guts and wisdom to advocate real
democracy and active citizenship in a period that few people understood that concept.
Reading the text long ago opened my eyes for basic principles of democracy and
participation on policy development. The letter was distributed widely, causing
uproar, nationwide discussions and a beginning of democratic awareness in The
Netherlands.
These 4 sources lead to a number of statements regarding ways people respond to public policies and
decide to cooperate, negate or obstruct, fair and effective ways of policy development, governance by
means of policy development, getting citizens involved in policy development and analyzing policies
and policy design. There are surely more sources of inspiration, some of which I am aware of (like
Rosenstock‟s language theory) and others I might not be sufficiently aware of. But as far as I can judge
myself, the mentioned 4 sources were crucial for my viewpoints regarding policy development.
I have made ample use of literature, recent, less recent and old, to develop my viewpoint. I have done
so deliberately, in order to show that a large number of ideas on policy development were already
suggested before in a somewhat similar way, or were, so to speak, „hanging in the air‟. The art of policy
development is in the process of being slowly developed. In fact like a slowly unfolding pattern. I
10
believe it is useful to make excursions to other, related disciplines as well as the arts. Without
interplay each discipline gets caught in its own „bounded rationality‟, developing professional
blindness. We need to open the windows, get fresh air and start rethinking.
I hope this syllabus may contribute to a better understanding of the policy process as part of societal
dynamics.
It is a syllabus, an outline of some chapters on public policy development. So this is not a textbook.
This means you will find many statements, „notes‟ and „points of attention‟ without adequate
explanation or argumentation. Apart from a few exceptions, there is little discussion with authors who
hold different points of view. That would add too many pages to the many pages and paragraphs that I
already had in mind. For this syllabus I have decided to use a theoretical foundation (the four sources
just mentioned), which I consider myself to be firm, and have used my own experience as well as
ample literature that fits, to build on that foundation. This foundation is somewhat elaborated in
several paragraphs, notably the one on sociological theory, on pattern theory and on how to develop
„true‟ knowledge of society. (Which by the way is bound to be awkwardly inconsistent and incomplete)
Often I will repeat myself. But repetitions are not necessarily bad. A different context may throw a
different light on the same issue and contribute to clarification. You may compare it to a fugue in
music, which uses counterpoint as a way of melodic interaction as a subtle way to ask attention for
different dimensions of music as a way of expressing the human mind. Some themes turn up several
times in interaction with other themes in such a way that a new dimension of meaning appears.
A more serious deficiency of this syllabus is that it summarizes viewpoints more than it elaborates. I
hope the reader will not just take for granted what I am suggesting, but much rather respond critically
and creatively, using my statements as a little fuel for the mind. Indeed, some themes deserve more
attention and elaboration and of course more discussion. To put that right you will find a number of
references to relevant literature. It is up to the user to make ample and creative use of them.
The syllabus is built on logically related questions and answers. If you want a very quick reading, you
can limit yourself to just reading the questions at the beginning of each paragraph and the conclusion
at the end, plus read the summary at the beginning of the chapter and the concluding paragraph at the
end. I have inserted quite a few „points of attention‟ about issues that deserve some special attention
indeed. They may be skipped if the subject matter does not appear to be of interest. The syllabus opens
with a policy issue which contains many important elements of the art of policy development: the
syllabus in a nutshell.
Brede Kristensen
11
Syllabus in a nutshell: how do public policies emerge?
Illustration about social assistance and welfare policies against the background of the
Amsterdam policy situation in the 1970‟ies.
I vividly remember a discussion with the local Amsterdam government in 1972. As a board member of
a CSO committed to social work in the Red Light District, specifically geared to prostitutes, we were
informed that the new social-democratic commissioner intended to stop subsidizing our work. In
actual fact he followed the new strategy devised by the new social-democratic government of prime-
minister Joop den Uyl, which favored strict equality. The commissioner too did not want to support
philantropic initiatives which were somewhat arbitrary in his eyes. We could continue, but just with
the help of donations from the 3 or 4 churches that supported us. The civil servants told us the
municipality would set up its own centre to offer social services to prostitutes who needed help. We
asked them if they realized only very few ladies would come to ask for help, if any. Really? Yes, most of
the ladies who need help do not have a Dutch passport and no work permit. They get intimidated by
their „pimps‟ on top of it. They are afraid of being put in prison, expelled from the country, heaving to
return to a sometimes extremely miserable future. That the pimps were collaborating with some of the
police, we kept silent about. But it surely was in important factor. The police had adopted its own ways
of keeping things more or less under control. We kept silent about it, because awareness of these
informal police policy might just complicate the issue. Imagine them to consult with the police of
figure out what was happening behind the scenes. Better not wake up sleeping dogs, so we had argued.
So we continued to explain that in our centre there is no official intake. Ladies just pop in, for some
meal, a conversation and regular medical help (there was also a free medical centre). Slowly they start
trusting us and when they face a crisis they may have the courage to come and ask for juridical and
social assistance. This way we managed to help some 10 ladies per year to start a new life, often within
The Netherlands, sometimes back in their home country. And so does a similar centre, run by the
Salvation Army.
The civil servants were quite surprised for they had never considered that the ladies might be afraid to
approach an official office of the municipality. They decided to discuss it with the commissioner. Some
weeks later we were invited for another discussion and the end result was that they gave up their plan
and increased subsidy to us.
In actual fact the end result was pattern change. The municipal government decided to cooperate with
civic society organizations to deal with social problems and arrange for subsidies to support CSO‟s.
They changed their viewpoint about civic society initiatives as well about their own (lack of) capacity to
deal with social problems. At a particular moment there even was a tendency to leave everything in the
hands of CSO‟s and the redefined the mission of their own social assistance department. Its purpose
was limited to provide financial assistance to citizens without income. Amazingly, we as civic society
organizations were suggesting the municipal government to carry out an independent external
evaluation, for we wanted to see whether our approach was useful or could be improved well and we
assumed the government wanted to find out whether their funds were correctly spent.
12
This simple example of a policy issue is exemplary for a number of important aspects of the art of
public policy development. What does it tell us? Let me summaries by formulating some conclusions.
Conclusions
This simple example of a policy issue is exemplary for a number of important aspects of the art of
policy development. It tells 12 immediate lessons:
a thorough analysis of the problematic situation before taking any action is to be
recommended both to governmental agencies and to CSO‟s; that a noble ideological (political)
principle like „equality‟ does not automatically lead to effective policy instruments, nor to
desirable outcome; the analysis should include the factors that lead to the problematic
situation.
Policy actors (usually a governmental agency) need to consult with stakeholders before taking
a decision. Stakeholders not just have their own (local) point of view, they also have experience
and, sometimes surprising, insight; and vice versa stakeholders should approach the
government if they see that something might go wrong; this is a type of advocacy.
Stakeholders also behave according to their own local point of view. They all have developed
their own ‟common policies‟, which should to be taken into account in order to avoid chaos.
Pimps have a common policy to make money; police need to keep things under control; ladies
desire to survive mentally and physically; we, the social service centre were committed to offer
social assistance in a human way.
the policy actor (government) needs to anticipate a possible response from stakeholders, lest
there will conflict and obstruction; what type of responses can be expected?; here „policy
imagination‟ is indispensable; vice versa, stakeholders should provide governmental agencies
with feedback on important issues before the government has already taken a policy decision;
in other words, all actors should be aware of each other‟s agenda (political, public, professional
agenda);
we need to be on the alert for the „policy paradox‟: even if the intention is to help a particular
category of people, and even if the intended policy measures appear to be beneficial, they may
have an adverse effect and even work out disastrously;
co-operation is better than solo-action; wherever possible the government should consider to
charge civic society organization(s) with tasks and responsibilities that suit them well, building
partnerships; this will also stimulate a feeling of „ownership‟ and a sense of responsibility.
That is why an initiative taken by a CSO may have positive results. A positive result depends
on a number of factors, including the right moment, a wise, trustworthy and well-documented
presentation; the presence of relatively open minded people in the governmental institution;
regular critical and independent evaluations are indispensable, followed by discussion with all
stakeholders to process the feedback information; and the different actors should be open to
take the sometimes unpleasant conclusions of evaluation into account and, if need be change
the course rather than stay the course;
13
All actors - the ladies, the CSO, the pimps, the police, and the local government - have their
own particular perspective from which they view and interpret the situation. Their viewpoint is
part of particular „pattern‟. It is not wise to overlook other actor‟s viewpoints, because we
consider our own as self-evident. If we are aware of such patterns of relevant actors, our eyes
will be directed to see and interpret particular issues in the perspective of that pattern.
Becoming aware of a different viewpoints may lead to pattern change. In other words, once
patterns interact via actors, patterns they uphold might change. Insight in pattern dynamics
(society is an aggregate pattern) is conditional to policy imagination and without policy
imagination workable policies cannot be developed. For we need to anticipate possible
responses and imagine how somebody might react to a new policy. If we have no feeling for the
patterns he or she adheres to adequate anticipation of responses is unlikely to happen;
Any policy decision by a policy actor (in casu the local government) is the result of a conscious
or unconscious weighing of pros and cons, paying attention to interests and threats, likes and
dislikes of various parties, riding hobby horses or yielding to aversion. There is no such thing
as „the one best policy way‟, the most effective way to get somewhere. Decision regarding
policies may also be the result of a rational consideration, as was the case in Amsterdam. But it
could have been different;
Thinking of the causes of the problematic situation, it is clear the (central) government should
take some policy action to take away or mitigate the causes of a problem, i.e. to make sure the
influx of sex-slaves and the trafficking of human beings comes to a halt. Lest all action is like
running on the spot;
As always there are suppliers and consumers. They fit like a zipper. In this case any effective
policy should include measures to forbid consumers to make use of ladies who are forced into
prostitution and sanction those who do so consciously;
Last but not least, consulting with stakeholders is no guarantee for a good and workable
outcome. We, our service centre, as one of the stakeholders needed many years of trial and
error to learn how to deal with this situation and be able to be of any help. Were we consulted
10 years earlier, our advice might not be helpful at all. There are good moments and bad
moments to deal with an issue. In actual fact all our human efforts to improve our living space,
is trial and error, learning and unlearning, ad infinitum.
All this is going to be the subject matter of this syllabus. Roughly speaking.
14
1. Structure of the syllabus and how to read and use this syllabus?
Gijs Kuypers: “Policies are about organizing society. Without policies centrally governed societies
become deserts and societies with decentralized governmental systems become jungles”.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Question/
paragraph
Issues Page
Q.A.1.1
Issues addressed in syllabus
Structure of course
14
Q.A.1.2
Objectives of course (general) 19
Q.A.1.3
How to read the syllabus: 2 perspectives 20
Q.A.1.4
Main objective: the idea of a policy and the practice of policy
craftsmanship
22
Q. A.1.1. Which concrete issues are addressed by the course? And how is the course structured?
Roughly speaking we will be following 3 lines. These 3 lines are intertwined.
Point of attention
The main line is: public policy development, how public policies should be developed and how public
policies may yield the desired results. Results need to be imagined by the policy designer and so should
be positive and negative side- effects, or response patterns as we will call them.
The collaborating lines deal with different perspectives
1. Perspective of citizens or society as a network of patterns: policies interfere in existing patterns
of behavior, positively or negatively. And vice versa, civic society is naturally interested in
taking part in the policy development process.
2. Perspective of the policy actor (government) within political system, to govern society,
improve conditions, serve the public in general, the public good, or rather serve a particular
sector in of society or serve itself
Public policies impinge on society. We cannot understand the policy development process without
understanding how society works. In this syllabus I suggest to view society as a multiform, not
uniform network of dynamic and intertwined patterns, which often are at loggerheads. We insert our
15
minds into a particular pattern because of what seems „normal and familiar‟ to us, or because a pattern
so beautifully fit our interests, or just because „it is in the air‟, or because it flows from our basic
feelings of solidarity with a group of people we belong to, or, to mention something quite different,
because we did a lot of reading and reflection and we came to the conclusion this this pattern) is the
way the world should be organized. Or whatever. Patterns serve as means to orientate ourselves in the
world, to assess situations and people and to make the right decisions. Other people adhere to different
patterns. The result is misunderstanding and conflict. It would be better to use misunderstandings as
moments of learning. Misunderstanding may spark interesting discussion and creative dialogue. This,
so we shall see, will be an important aspect of policy development.
Society is multiform, first because it consists of different spheres (home, market, civil society and
government). Second because people are not identical. Not only do all personalities differ, people also
take different positions in society and embrace different worldviews. These differences can be best
understood by means of patterns. Modern multiform societies are like networks of patterns. Good
policy development should take these patterns into account, as they operate in different spheres. For
policies are meant to create some order in society. That means pattern change. Patterns however will
resist change and we need to understand the nature of that capacity to resist.
The policy actor who decides which policies to implement, terminate, continue or put on hold or who
initiates the development of policies, naturally is playing a crucial role in the process of policy
development. So we need to understand how the policy actor functions. In the case of public policies
this is the central or local government. The policy actor does not function in isolation. The policy actor
is connected to society and so we need to understand the dynamics between the two. Maybe the policy
actor desires to cooperate with society. Maybe not or just hesitatingly.
In this first part of the syllabus, „Basics‟, we will not deal with these 3 lines or perspectives one after
another. They are intertwined anyway and I believe the best way to get an understanding of the
intertwinement is to deal with them as they are, intertwined. The syllabus is about policy development,
but wherever it is useful or necessary, some sociological discussion will be offered.
The practical issues addressed are all connected to the phases of the policy and project development
cycle. We distinguish between 9 major phases or 9 critical steps to be taken. In actual fact consciously
or unconsciously these steps these steps are always taken by policy actors, except for the 6th step, the
critical review. All too often policy actors skip that one. For by the time you have arrived at that stage
in the process, not just excitement and impatience hit home, but worse, premature commitment. So
the policy actor focuses straight on the final decision process. So, let us sum up the 9 steps:
Agenda setting,
problem definition,
formulation of objectives and strategic choices (or „policy formulation‟)
16
facilitation: finding appropriate facilitating instruments, taking possible response patterns
into account
implementation plan and budget
critical review
decision process
implementation or realization, monitoring and reporting
evaluation and adaptation
Naturally, these issues do not deserve equal attention in all situations. In some situations some of
these steps are more problematic and complicated than others. Some are well-known, while others are
little known. Some of these issues are more important to particular actors than others. Or they will
approach the issue differently. For instance, take the first one: agenda setting. Stakeholders will be
interested how to get an issue on the political agenda. Politicians might be interested in finding out
how the agenda of different stakeholders looks like. And so on.
You will find the practical guidelines in Part III.
From a policy development view, these 9 steps are not all of the same kind. We may distinguish 4
major and logical phases in policy development, each with their critical steps:
Deliberation (which is mainly communication in the real sense of the word)
Agenda setting
Problem definition
Policy formulation (a policy idea is formulated)
Decision process
Elaboration (which is mainly technical, applying professional expertise)
Facilitation or instrumentation (the policy idea is elaborated into a policy design)
Implementation plan
Critical review
Implementation: realization, monitoring and reporting (which is mainly practical)
Evaluation and adaptation (which is mainly reflective communication)
The going from policy deliberation to evaluation and adaptation may be called the „policy cycle‟.
Schematically:
17
What do you find in PART I? Some of the above mentioned theoretical issues.
Which are these more theoretical issues regarding the deliberation phase:
Understanding of the nature of a policy and its contribution to good governance and the public
good; modern governance without good policies is inconceivable;
Understanding the nature of the policy environment: the meaning of a policy is very much
dependant on the environment in which it is launched; the policy discourse; policies in
different environments are different policies; the environment is constituted by a large
Deliberation
(communication):
Result: policy idea
Elaboration
(‘technical’)
Result: policy design
Implementation
(practical)
Result: realization of
policy goals
Evaluation, Revision and Adaptation
(‘reflective’)
Result: adapted policy design
18
number of unfolding and enfolding patterns; the need to use imagination to understand
pattern unfoldment;
Understanding the nature of response patterns: people always respond to policies, supporting
the policy, obstructing the policy or remaining totally indifferent; anticipating response
patterns by means of policy imagination is not just a matter of good communication but also of
good policy development;
Understanding of the nature of the policy process: interaction between a number of actors, like
the governing body, stakeholders in society, civil servants, the press etc; in short,
understanding of the nature of the deliberation process; a successful deliberation process is
half the work;
Understanding different styles of policy development, each with their pros and cons;
politicians and civil servants each have their own different style; likewise there are differences
between policy consultants and academic experts.
Issues regarding the elaboration phase:
Understanding how to find the appropriate „ facilitating instruments‟, given a particular policy
goal and taking into account a particular problem definition; here policy imagination is
playing a crucial role;
Understanding of „roomification‟ the need to provide room for actors to develop their own
initiatives without hampering other actors.
Understanding of how to apply an instrumentation realistically, given limitations of budget
and human resources;
Understanding of how to make a realistic implementation plan, including a monitoring
system;
Understanding of need of indicators; without clear and concrete (if possible measurable)
indicators, you cannot monitor a policy; so how to identify the right indicators
Issues regarding the implementation phase: we will deal with such issues when we discuss the ins and
outs of an implementation plan (see elaboration phase)
Issues regarding the evaluation phase:
Understanding of various types of policy evaluation and their contribution to policies
Understanding of how to conduct an evaluation, how to report and use the results to improve
the policy
What do you find in PART II? Some support methods and insights that are useful.
How to analyze existing policies, their intentions and effects
19
What different styles of policy development exist with their strong and weak characteristics
How to start and to manage the policy deliberation process
How to organize a policy department
What do you find in PART III? Here you are offered a practical manual how to actually develop a
workable policy, going from Agenda setting first and on to Evaluation and Adaptation of policies at the
end, 9 chapters altogether.
At the beginning of each of the 9 chapters you will find tables that summarize all practical steps that
need to be taken.
Conclusion: Although it might be very useful to read though Part I first, it is not absolutely
necessary. If indeed you go immediately to Part III, the practical part, you may want to get some
background information, argumentation and explanation in order to get a better understanding of the
steps to be taken. In that case you turn to Part I for additional help. Or you feel you need a better
understanding of the support tools, like managing the deliberation process. So you turn to Part II.
Q. A.1.2. Which are the objectives of the course?
The main objective is to learn about all the ins and outs of policy practice, including concrete policy
development. But this is very general. Let us be a bit more specific:
to learn how to analyze existing policies and documents
to learn how to analyze problematic situations and identify problems and policy solutions
together with stakeholders by practicing policy imagination;
to learn how to involve relevant actors (even with contradictory viewpoints) in the process of
policy development, how to discuss policy ideas and how to avoid policy conflict
to learn how to apply knowledge and experience about policies from other countries and how
to adjust to one‟s own local situation
to learn how to develop and use your ability for policy imagination, to set clear goals and to
find an effective and efficient instrumentation to realize the goal and make sure no response
patterns emerge that obstruct the policy, or take adequate measures to regulate response.
to learn how to design a realistic implementation plan and budget
to learn how to evaluate and appreciate policies and projects
to learn how to write clear and readable documents, how to present a proposal supported by
arguments and how to communicate and discuss with societal and/or organizational actors
and the public in general to learn how to organize, monitor and evaluate the implementation
of the policy/ project
General conclusion: We learn not just by listening, talking and studying. We learn by doing, by
putting things into practice, receiving feedback, drawing painful conclusions and learning from it.
Understanding that we lack of understanding is already a great step forward. For it is a major
20
inspiration to reflection and the beginning of improved understanding and insight, provided we realize
we will never fully understand. Insight comes with reflective practice. So the best way to follow this
course is by continuously practicing and reflecting on practice.
Q. A.1.3. How to read and use this syllabus?
First an important note. Most of the syllabus is about public policy development, written from the
perspective of the policy expert. However, sometimes there is a perspective shift towards the
perspective of the policy recipient, the citizens, civic society institutions, business world. I have noticed
that not all users of the syllabus realize that a perspective shift was made. That is why each paragraph
written from the citizens or society perspective, starts with a notice in brown: society perspective.
Needless to say that these paragraphs are somewhat sociological in nature. Do consider this: policy
experts need to take into account the dynamics of society which is the subject matter of sociology. For
policies emerge, develop and are put into practice in society.
And other paragraphs specifically deal with the policy actor who decides about which policies to launch
and which to put on hold or to terminate. The policy actor, the government, is part of a political
system, in which all sorts of stakeholders, including citizens, have a say. And the policy actor also is an
important contributor to the policy discourse. Paragraphs who deal with the political system are
marked by the notice: political system perspective.
As stated before, these perspectives or lines are intertwined with the main line: policy development.
Let us now go from end to beginning of this course. Most users will be interested in the practical steps
to develop a policy. These steps you will find in PART III. You may ask: can I turn immediately to
PART III or should I first read through the first 2 parts? This question is asked again and again. Well,
in actual fact: yes. But you will find a number of useful support instruments in PART II, like a
paragraph on the policy deliberation process. Such paragraphs contain useful information that will
help you to design better policies. But indeed, you do not need to study chapter II in order to
understand III. And how about PART I? Should Part I be studied first? Not necessarily. However, this
first part contains some definitions and ideas which indeed are important to understand the practical
steps of PART III. But PART I is a lengthy chapter and not all users will be happy to study it all. So I
have included short summaries of each paragraph. Each chapter starts with a summary that contains
some crucial information. The summaries are put in blue boxes. You can decide just to read the
summaries. If there is something you do not understand and you are curious about, I am afraid you
have to read through parts of the text of this chapter I. Of course there will be readers who are eager to
know more and want to read all. That is fine of course. By the way, in this first part you will also find a
number of pink boxes. These boxes all contain 1 or more cases that serve as practical illustrations to
the text.
All chapters of PART III start with a table that summarizes the steps to be taken. The text of the
paragraphs merely offers comments to understand better what needs to be done. They kind of explain
the tables.
21
At the very end of the syllabus you find some schemes, a glossary and a list of literature used by me, of
which some might be useful suggestions for the reader. As I am using quite a few terms that nobody
else is using or others are using in a different way with a different meaning, the vocabulary or glossary
is important. It helps you to quickly find out the meaning of concepts and terms and may also take
away some possible misunderstandings.
Hopefully this syllabus will provide more insight in the policy development process as well as help you
acquiring and improving skills to develop effective policies which serve the public good.
Conclusion: the methodical aspects of policy development that you need in order to develop your
skills or craftsmanship are to be found in Part III. Part I en II contain background information that
you may find useful to absorb to reflect on and prepare for good practice. Once the background
knowledge is absorbed the application of the practical knowledge will go more smoothly. Background
knowledge usually is needed to improve our abilities to apply knowledge.
Q. A.1.4. Lots of objectives were stated, but what in fact is the main objective of this syllabus? This
question is naturally related to this other question: as the syllabus is dealing with policies, what are
policies aiming at? Or again, and now more sharply, what is the idea of a policy? And last but not least:
what is policy craftsmanship and how should we envisage the practice of policy craftsmanship?
If we know what policies are aiming at, we also know what the main objective of the syllabus is. We
want to get somewhere. Often we want to get somewhere together. Why? Because we all know the
present is not perfect and we are still far away from heaven. We learn to get insight, to improve and to
find out how to get somewhere, a better somewhere. How do we manage to actually get somewhere?
We try to imagine how to get there, which ways are best to follow and how to choose at cross roads,
and to imagine what it will involve in terms of time, food and petrol to be put in the tank. And to
imagine which dangers might occur and what measures should be taken to avoid such dangers. The
more experience we have and the more we know about the road to follow, the better we can imagine
what „course of action‟ is needed and how to plan that course of action. That is what policies are about.
The place where people gather together to discuss public issues in ancient Greece was called „polis‟. In
actual fact the „polis‟ was the public structure of a human settlement, often fortified, in other words a
city. Gradually the meaning shifted. It was meant to mean the centre of public affairs, the place where
public issues were discussed, the organization of the state, geared to the public or common good. At
least in the formal sense of the word. In his Republic, the philosopher Plato put forward that any type
of public governance, wanting to serve the public good, should observe the major virtues: moderation,
courage, justice and wisdom. We will come back to this later. The word „policy‟ is derived from the
„polis‟. For the time being we may define as follows: a joint course of action in order to realize a
„political‟ objective, i.e. for the public good. A political objective is an objective that we believe is good
22
for all citizens who live together. In small societies it rarely is easy to come to agreement about the
desired course of action. In big, complicated and abstract modern societies it is even more difficult.
Politicians sometimes, all too often I fear, believe they know „what the people want‟, because they
naively or arrogantly think all others want exactly the same as they want, or because they discussed it
with a limited number of selected individuals or stakeholders. However, the desire tends to be the
father of the observation. Surely, the feeling that there is a consensus is sometimes justified, but not
always. All too often there are covert or even overt discrepancies between the ideals of different actors.
Or many people agree with the objective, but not with the ways to realize that objective, the
instrumentation. That is why policy making is not just the art of designing technically effective
policies, but also the art of getting different actors together for a policy dialogue with a good measure
of consensus as a result. For after all we must live together, which means we should agree on basics,
lest we have to force people to behave in line with others, which may imply energy-consuming battles
as a not so pleasant, conflict-prone result.
Interesting is the way Aristotle described the public good so long ago: the public good, he said, should
be good for all citizens, not for just an exclusive club of powerful citizens; it should be an expression of
wise use of resources and exhaustion of resources should be avoided, and thirdly it should promote
social cohesion. In the Aristotelian world view the idea of a policy is 1. to distribute wealth justly; 2. to
grant equal opportunities to all citizens; and 3. to maintain social cohesion and stimulate well-being.
Discussing the idea of policies today, we get answers that are remarkably similar.
Point of attention: we should distinguish between public policies and common policies.
Public policies are geared to the public good, carried out by actors who represent public authorities
(government). They may be instigated by the public authorities and by the public. A common policy is
something different. All societies teem with common policies: how to settle a quarrel between
neighbors, how to handle unruly young people, when to go to a doctor, when to speak up and when to
keep silent and so on and so forth. Some common policies are geared to the benefit of a particular
group of citizens (or other entities like private companies) and carried out by private actors in order to
maintain or adapt an existing pattern of behavior or a pattern of values. Most common policies are
hardly elaborated. Often they consist of activities that are just taken for granted. It is only when we
behave differently of „misbehave‟ in the eyes of our fellow human beings living in the same
environment, that we become aware of the existence of a common policy. We may call these the
unwritten laws of society, the „mores‟ or folkways of a society. But it is important to realize unwritten
laws are kind of policies, uphold by particular groups of people. Often people know well how to argue
in defense of them. That is why I like to call them „common policies‟. In this syllabus we focus on
public policies. But we will have to pay attention to common policies, because they quickly interfere in
public policies. In such case we witness the emergence of „response policies‟, i.e. common policies
specifically meant to respond to the impact of an official public policy that some people do not
particularly like or which are at loggerheads with their interests and core values.
23
So here, in just a few words, we have all the crucial elements of the course again:
The desire to get somewhere, to a situation where things are better compared to where we are
now; yes „we‟ want to get somewhere, we, policy actors, politicians and citizens representing
different groups of stakeholders; to imagine how to get there, what course to follow best
(policy imagination is needed to develop an effective policy)
That the desire to get there is shared by some or by most people and is, hopefully, the result of
discussion or policy deliberation process rather than a dictate from above, facilitated by
propaganda, organized by a governing body that is aloof;
That the course of action to get there can be clever or stupid. It may take us there effectively or
not at all; so policy imagination is needed to anticipate possible responses, positive as well as
negative; put differently, opportunities as well as dangers and risks;
That human beings discuss things together before they move, rather than acting instinctively
like animals or mechanically like robots. That is the idea of a „polis‟ and of a ‟policy‟: all citizens
participate, not just a happy elitist few. And all citizens participating in the policy discourse
represent one or more spheres of society: the home, the market, the middle field, the
government.
Please note that these elements indicate we have to do with a process to go from a starting point to a
(temporary) finish! A process consisting of getting the right people together, discussion, design and
decision making. The art of developing policies, is the art of managing a process, which is carried out
within society. That is why some basic understanding of society is not unimportant. And no sinecure
either.
Let us put the idea of this course in academic language:
To develop policy craftsmanship involves: “the acquisition of knowledge, methods and skills to discuss
and analyze actual and desired situations with stakeholders and to design an effective course of action,
or a policy that effectively contributes to the improvement of a situation or to a solution of a problem
that is felt to exist in society (within 1 or more spheres) and/or contributes to the realization of a
political objective that most people adhere to”. Later in the syllabus we shall use the metaphor of an
architect to explain the nature of the practice of policy craftsmanship.
Conclusion: in order to develop policies we need to understand the policy process. For developing
policies, discussing policy needs and ideas, finding a suitable and acceptable instrumentation or
facilitation, followed by ways of implementation, evaluation and adaption, is indeed a process which
its own characteristic dynamics. The art of policy development (policy craftsmanship) is the art of
managing a process which is carried out within society. So some basic understanding of society is not
unimportant. And no sinecure either.
See: Wu X, Ramesh M, Howlett M, Fritzen S, The Public Policy Primer: Managing Public Policy, London 2010; Aristotle,
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Engl. ed 1999, p67ff
24
2. On to some basics: patterns and policy imagination
R. Buckminster Fuller: “We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims”.
Summary
This paragraph introduces the policy process. We can look at the policy process from many different
points of view. Here we take the „pattern point of view‟ as our starting point. What does that mean?
The policy process is more than just a political decision to take action or to adopt a law to change the
public administration in a particular area of society or force people to behave differently. It also is
more than a technique to effectuate change. And it is more than a discussion or deliberation process
with stakeholders to agree on goals to achieve. By definition policies function in human environments
and affect these environments. Society can be considered as an environment in which numerous
patterns of values, attitudes, ideals, habits and common sense judgments that people foster, are active.
Good policy development should take such patterns into account. Patterns serve as frameworks to
make sense of life. Insight in the dynamics of patterns is fuel for policy imagination and hence for
creative policy development. Patterns have their own rationale and people who think according to that
pattern develop a similar rationality (bounded rationality)
Effective policies take into account the characteristics of patterns that are typical of the target group
within a particular sphere in society. Sometimes it is just a matter of „nudging‟ people into the „right‟
direction. Sometimes persuasion is needed, with the public good in mind
Policies are joint courses of action to create some new order in the patterns that characterize our social
environment. Policy development is the art of improving, adapting and harmonizing patterns of
behavior in order to create a more coherent environment which serves the public good and includes
the interests of stakeholders. The verb „improving‟ is used. Who decides what an improvement is and
what is not? Politicians will usually have their opinions, with or without consulting citizens and
stakeholders. Preferably „with‟. Citizens and stakeholders will have opinions as well, putting pressure
on politicians to improve a situation that is seen to be problematic.
Main 4 phases of a sound policy process are:
- deliberation (discussion with stakeholders about what is on their agenda, problem definition and
setting, goals together)
- elaboration (about how to realize goals, which instruments and laws are needed etc)
- implementation (how to put a policy into practice)
- evaluation and adaptation
The paragraph starts with a brief exposition of the sociological pattern theory which is the basis of this
syllabus.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Q.A.2
Question/
paragraph
Issues page
Q. A.2.1 How to understand society 26
25
Q. A.2.2 Why policy imagination is the essence of policy
development
29
Q. A.2.3 Is policy development a technique or an art? 31
Q. A.2.4 Why good policies need to be inclusive policies 31
Q. A.2.5 In which ways can policies be approached? And what does
the pattern approach mean?
32
Q. A.2.6 What do we mean by patterns? And why are they so
important for policies?
34
Q. A.2.7 Can patterns be changed? 41
Q. A.2.8 Why do patterns resist change and how can policies break
through resistance?
48
Q. A.2.9 Differences and similarities with Talcott Parsons‟approach. 54
Q. A.2.10 Difference with the idea of memes 56
Q. A.2.11 May different patterns manifest themselves
simultaneously?
58
Intermezzo Reflection and time 59
Q. A.2.12 Do patterns create a moral order? Or does a moral order set
limits on patterns?
60
Q.A.2.13 Policy and patterns again 63
Q.A.2.14 Does behavioral change as aimed by policies need pattern
change?
68
Q.A.2.15 What do we mean by policy discourse? 69
Q.A.2.16 Why and how should the policy discourse be taken into
account by policy experts?
71
Q.A.2.17 Why s theoretical knowledge of the policy development
process useful?
72
Q. A.2.1: As policies don‟t function in a vacuum but in society, we need to pay attention to the
dynamics of society. There are so many ways to understand society. How are we going to understand
society in this course?
society perspective.
We start with pointing to an important aspect of policy development that is generally neglected. It is
the simple fact that policies operate within societies and act upon society. That is why a basic
understanding of society is needed to develop and implement policies. In order to understand society
some understanding of sociology is needed. This is not something theoretical. It is in order to
26
understand the possible impact a policy has. Surely there are many approaches to the study of society.
Let me elaborate a bit on the basis of the particular sociological approach that seems to be useful in my
eyes. It is an approach, a theory, a way to look at society. Like any other theory, it needs to be tested.
The sociological basis for this syllabus is provided by what I call the „general social definition theory‟. It
serves as the theoretical framework for this particular approach to policy development. This is a
theoretical paragraph. You can skip it, unless you are curious to find out how the theoretical
framework is put together.
The social definition theory consists of a general theory, followed by several specific theories.
The general social definition theory says that:
What we call society is the continuously changing result of ways in which 2 or more people
define social situations, act, judge, feel, believe accordingly, thus proving their definition to be
more or less right. We calibrate our thoughts to what we perceive as common opinion,
common habit, common accent or vernacular, and so on and so forth. The result of any joint
definition is a pattern of habits, judgments, values, norms, checks, balances, theories, policies
and sometimes institutions, which slowly unfolds itself within a particular societal sphere (
home or oikos, work or private sector, public sphere or public government and fourthly civil
society or middle field) to make that sphere function well. The heart this process is: a. the
finding of appropriate values for orientation and related norms (norm development) to
regulate action. In fact calibration or norm development (in Dutch „sociale normering‟ ) for an
increasing number of activities is the basis of pattern development or pattern unfoldment; and
b. Regulation of behavior according to the norms that people have tacitly or explicitly agreed
on (social control as a form of pattern maintenance);
The number of possible patterns might in principle be considered as unlimited, the number of
minimally adequate and workable patterns appears to be limited though. Each pattern, so I
suggest, is a concretization of the universal implicate order that applies to society or a societal
sphere. Universal order? Some people will be inclined to protest against the term „universal
order‟. How do we know such order exists? My response is also a question: are our patterns
the result of bringing something into existence „ex nihilo‟? That I find impossible to envisage.
We have intimations and intuitions, convictions and criticisms, ideas and doubts, inspirations
and aversions. And as we experience and consider them and ponder, a feeling emerges and
may even take us in its grip that they are the natural result of a connection with some „order‟
that we do not know and that is making itself manifest in just this act of pondering. We may
work something out this direction or that direction, but not in all directions ad libitum. That
is, different patterns may co-exist and struggle to develop or even compete for dominance; this
competition manifests itself mostly in discussions about values and value hierarchies. To put it
in entirely different words: there is the realm of the possible and the realm of the impossible,
constituted by some universal principles. A totally open and unstructured world (perhaps the
result of some ‟divine being which is playing dice) seems an absurdity.
27
If a pattern poses problems in a changing environment for which it cannot find a reasonable
solution or if 2 or more patterns are at loggerheads with one another, an enfolding process will
start. The pattern will become less „credible‟ and hence less „workable‟. It loses its credibility
and social support. So it will entirely or partly fade out and enfold. At the same time other
patterns will become more prominent and unfold themselves. But old ones may come back
and re-unfold.
Patterns get mirrored in both the language (syntax and semantics), in world views (value
hierarchies), and, so I suggest, in the human brains of people who adhere to the pattern,
expressing themselves in brain activity that resembles the pattern. This idea is based on the
hypothesis that „experienced based plasticity‟ is one of the characteristics of the brain. At least
a short explanation is needed here. In our culture we have a remarkable preference for
reductionist thinking. This implies that we think of the brain of just an immense network of
hundreds of billions neurons which all respond to signals. The question is whether neurons
respond blindly or „mechanically‟ or according to patterns which transcend the individual
neuron. I personally find it impossible to believe that mechanical responses of individual
neurons have the capacity to call into existence any pattern or any state of consciousness. And
if, by coincidence, it does, why should it be maintained, unless the pattern somehow makes
sense. But what does that mean: sense? To me it seems infinitely more likely that brains,
neurons, atoms, human beings and so on, function holistically, meaning that „bottom up and
top down are intertwined and interdependent processes. In the words of Sperry who describes
mental events as “holistic configurationally properties that have yet to be discovered, but
which will turn out to be different from and more than the neural events of which they are
composed….they are emergent‟s of these events‟. Once we view the universe holistically, we
become aware of the possibility of mirroring interconnections between different levels of being
or existence. Once the „association cortex‟ in our frontal lobes starts becoming active in
working with all types of associations and connections, it will help deciding what type of
behavior is fitting in a particular context. This happens in early adolescence. But its style of
working will be different from person to person and will also depend on existing cultural
patterns. As Greenfield concludes: mind (personal and social) might be considered to be the
„personalization of the physical brains it develops and adapts throughout life‟.
The specific social definition theory says that:
Patterns (at societal level) maintain their credibility by moral discourse (norm development,
which is a continuous process).This will be elaborated later.
Patterns unfold according to their own logic (i.e. creating their own order of things) which can
be understood by „sociological imagination‟. But friction with the environment, due to
inadequate or non-creative response, may reverse the process and cause pattern enfoldment.
In general, policies (including public policies) are geared to pattern maintenance and
adaptation to changing environments, or they may initiate pattern change.
Patterns belong to societal spheres and support the functioning of the sphere (home or oikos:
bringing up children and provide intimacy etc; private sector or market: produce and
28
distribute products and services and provide employment etc; civic society: with a multitude of
additional functions, ranging from religion to education, to advocacy, to health care etc);
public sector or government: take care of the public good by means of laws and policies,
providing a meta-framework for the other spheres. If any pattern starts having an adverse
effect on the sphere, the pattern will fade out.
In the following pages this will be elaborated, mostly in paragraphs related to the functioning of
patterns. The examples and elaborations are efforts to test the approach.
See: Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint, New York, 1988. Davies quotes the neuroscientist R.W.Sperry at page 191; and the
interesting overview of brain research provided by Susan Greenfield, The Human Brain, London, 1997, p 19o ff.; and
Kristensen, B. ,Vooronderstelling, intentie en begrip, uitgave Windesheim Zwolle, 1993
Q. A.2.2: Why is policy imagination the essence of policy development?
The title of the course suggests „policy imagination‟. The idea is that development of policies is
essentially an activity of the imagination, rather than a technique to be applied. In order to develop
workable policies we need information about the present (policy) situation, we need to have knowledge
about other comparable policies and about many different facilitating tools to develop and apply
effective policies. This is all to be found in this syllabus. However, without policy imagination we will
not be able to develop any policy at all. Imagination points to visualizing a desired situation, as well as
a visualizing of steps that will take us to that desired situation. Plus, not to forget, imagining how
people will respond to policy measures.
We imagine certain sets of related activities to yield a number of desirable results, and, not so desirable
results. This is inevitable. Let us be a bit more precise. Not just me or us (the circle I belong to), but
also others who will be affected by the policy, included or excluded. It is important that we try to
anticipate their responses to the policy. Will they cooperate or thwart the plan or back out? What is
more, policies mean different things to different spheres in society, like the market or business world,
the home or oikos, the middle field or civic society. In order to anticipate responses to a policy we
should take into account the measure of fit between a policy and the sphere in society where the policy
is implemented. Once we are able to visualize possible responses, followed by a „response policy‟ (a
common policy as a response to a public policy) and take them into account, we may further develop
our skills to design workable policies. Without anticipation, we will not know how to apply our policy
skills wisely. This will be explained in detail later.
So there are 2 aspects to imagination. First aspect is about the way society (keeping different spheres
into account) and its actors will respond to a policy. Second aspect is the policy itself, which will have a
certain impact on society (again, within different spheres). We need to imagine what impact it will
have. Naturally the 2 are interrelated.
29
Conclusion: without imagination there will be no policies as a set of related activities to realize a
desired end. Imagination is both about imagining resp0nses from actors in different spheres and about
the impact of a policy in different spheres. The 2 are of course interrelated.
Q. A.2.3. If imagination is at the heart of policy development, can it be said that policy development is
a technique or is it much rather an art?
There is a big misunderstanding about method and technique. Technique suggests neutrality,
instrumentality and a strictly methodical way of using the technique or applying the technical
instrument. Indeed a technique of method is based on experience. It is a tested way of doing
something. Technical knowledge or methodical knowledge can be applied in a standardized ways with
sure results. At least we suppose it may be applied that way. „Evidence based‟ as we like to say today. Is
that professionalism? Every craftsman knows this is only part of the story. We need to see what we are
doing, be sensitive to feedback and adapt to the responses of the environment. „Making means
thinking‟, and, as Denis de Rougemont was eager to stress „we think with our hands‟. Our body is
experiencing something and this experience leads to thinking and knowledge. Without the body there
is no thinking. And as our human bodies are relatively unfit to survive in the environment, it raises lots
of issues to think about. Merleau Ponty coined the term „practognosie‟. Making or putting something
together is essentially a creative act as well. Sure, we may make mechanically, methodically or
habitually repeating or by following a recipe. That is a repetitive act, or to put it more negatively
„autistic making‟. It ignores the time dimension, the fact that each moment is different from the
previous one. So there is no escape: we must take change into account and adapt, lest we get out of
tune and the product of our hands and mind gets obsolete. True professionalism therefore has a
creative aspect. Thinking with the hands is the way of craftsmanship: working (according to method),
being attentive to feed back, adapting working and method used. That is why we should say that policy
development is an art. Art in the sense of craftsmanship, which is the result of a combination of
knowing and doing, experience and discovery, evidence and novelty, observing the effects of doing and
improving the doing, of conscientious trial and error, of theoretical development and practical
improvement. Craftsmanship relies on a continuing involvement (or even commitment) and springs
from the basic human impulse to do a job well for its own sake. Good craftsmanship involves
developing skills and methods and focusing on getting the desired results within a never stable
environment. It usually takes years of practice for complex skills of making to become engrained, so
that we can say: now I know how to use my knowledge creatively, this method or technique within
changing environments. „The enlightened way‟ to use a technique or a machine or a method is „to judge
its powers, fashion its uses, in light of our own limits‟, so the sociologist Richard Sennett observes,
writing about craftsmanship. Craftsmanship can therefore be defined as „the ability to use a technique
conscientiously and creatively, taking the environment into account‟. This syllabus is meant to suggest
how to develop the art of policy development as an art.
30
Conclusion: policy development requires the mastery of a number of techniques and skills, but
quality of policy design depends on applying- ability within our time-bound reality. That is why we can
say policy development is an art.
See: M. Merleau-Ponty, Phénoménologie de la perception, Paris, p164.Denis de Rougemont , Penser avec les Mains, 1936; and
Richard Sennett, The Craftsman, 2008.
Q. A.2.4. Why are inclusive policies conditional for good public policies and good governance?
political system perspective
The syllabus is dealing with public policies. Naturally public policies are geared to the public good. If a
government is just focused on the interests of an exclusive club of citizens, it cannot be considered a
legitimate government for all the people. Policies, whether implicit or explicit, whether basic ways of
doing things or elaborate schemes of control or service, are the governments‟ ways of acting‟. This
syllabus is based on the conviction that all individual citizens have equal rights to be heard and their
interests to be taken into account as much as possible by the governing body. It assumes that
governments are governments of the people living in a particular territory, in the service of the people,
geared to the public good. Whether they do or not, intentionally or unintentionally, is another matter.
We also assume that societies are never uniform. There is always a measure of multiplicity. There are
different spheres and different patterns of behavior and thinking at work. It requires sensitivity
towards them, in combination with creativity on the part of politicians and policy experts to develop
policies that fit and work and are for the public good. The interests of citizens and institutional
stakeholders do not harmonize naturally. Nor can harmonization just be imposed. Interests are often
conflicting and difficult to combine. Policies that serve the interests of an exclusive group will clash
with those of others, who may refuse to collaborate. The result is an ineffective policy. A government
that desires to serve the entire public, like a true democracy, will at least endeavor to be inclusive, find
a common ground in order to develop inclusive policies. However, means are limited, space is limited,
time is limited. Somehow we should see to it that means, space and time are distributed fairly. This is
why „roomification‟ is essential. Roomification is meant to ensure that all citizens and all legal entities
in society have „space‟ to develop themselves without running the danger of getting colonized by
external powers. Room to live is basic to respect. Of course there is a vice versa as well. Nobody should
use its space in such a way that it causes trouble to others, or worse, is used to exert some sort of
colonizing power.
Roomification is needed to be inclusive though. Policy craftsmanship implies the art of practice of
respect, inclusiveness and, more concretely, roomification. Later the term roomification will be
explained and elaborated.
Conclusion: as public policies are geared to the public good (in theory at least), they naturally have to
be inclusive. I.e. they should not just benefit an exclusive club of citizens or networks. A government
31
that desires to serve the entire public, like a true democracy, will at least endeavor to be inclusive, find
a common ground, as well as a fair distribution of „space‟ (roomification) in order to develop inclusive
policies.
Q. A.2.5. Inclusive policy making sounds attractive, but there are so many different policy approaches
and practices! Do these approaches exclude one another? If not, how do they relate to inclusive policy
making? What does the pattern approach mean?
Indeed, we can look at the policy process from many different points of view. Put differently, we may
approach policies in different ways. As it is impossible to look at anything without a point of view, this
should be a matter that speaks for itself. The major types of policy approaches which we find around us
are: the technical, the regulatory, the ideological and the deliberational. We may call these „policy
approaches‟. There are numerous ways to approach policies, more than listed here. But if we categorize
some these approaches according to the rationale that behind it, the number of approaches seems
limited. Let us list the most prominent approaches:
The technical: policies are considered as technical „instruments‟ to achieve a desired end, often
related to a specific problem that needs to be solved. Lots of actors may have lots of different
ends in mind, but they all have in common that they look at policies instrumentally, or
consequentially: you apply an instrument or tool, or follow a proven method and you can
expect a result, preferably the desired result...... This may also be called the classical approach
to policies;
The regulatory: policies are basically fulfilling a regulatory function; they are means towards
cohesion and control or maintenance of societal order, often of a legal character. In this
category you find actors (citizens, politicians, CSO‟s etc) who look at policies as ways to
maintain order or to create order and prevent chaos;
The ideological: policies are expressions of a particular world view or ideology (based on
values) that prescribes how society should be built or developed. This approach appeals to
visionaries, ideologues, activists, angry men, but also to people like Martin Luther King who
had a dream, who was dreaming of a society based on equality and suggested to adopt
inclusive policies;
The deliberational: policies are the outcome of a public deliberation process in which
stakeholders and/or individual citizens decide what needs to be done, how and by whom
(usually the government). Another bunch of actors stress the need to talk, discuss, inform,
indoctrinate or consult and listen. Nota bene: the process can be dominated by negotiation, by
domination or by dialogue.
32
These approaches do not exclude one another. On the contrary. They should not. In practice however
they often do. Lots of policy experts opt for one specific approach. This may turn out to be the cause of
ineffectiveness or conflict. I consider these approaches all to represent an important dimension of
policies. As far as I can see these 4 dimensions are characteristic for all policies. These dimensions are
never of equal importance though. Their importance varies from case to case. Policy actors (policy
designers, politicians, civil servants) are inclined to a particular approach, but should have an open eye
to the relevant qualities and possible contribution of a different approach.
There is one point of view, which I believe is encompassing and very useful for developing policy
craftsmanship: the pattern approach. That is why I opt for it: the „pattern point of view‟. It is not a
dimension of policies. It much rather is a way to make sure all dimensions are paid attention to and a
way to find out how a policy may function once it is being applied. Policies are kind of patterns
themselves (sets of related activities, some of these related to values) and they act on patterns in
society, i.e. on behavioral and cultural patterns that people adhere to. By means of the pattern point of
view we can better imagine how a policy will affect the social environment. For naturally policies are
meant to be applied in society. That is why we should take into account the patterns that are distinctive
to the target group, lest the policy will not be understood, accepted or function. On the contrary, the
policy will turn out to be a failure. It will be the cause of friction and obstruction.
Taking into account the pattern point of view means that we stop looking at society as a bunch of
identical particles who will all respond exactly the same way to policies, according to some general
laws. Society (and its spheres) consists types of people (like the employee, the business man, the
scientist, the intellectual etc) ,types of societal landscapes(like country side, border areas, metropolis,
airport cities etc) and within these landscapes we find an infinite number of groups, institutional
entities and networks who have their own way of doing things, have their own sub-cultures, common
policies and ways of responding to new situations: characterized by optimism-pessimism; trust-
distrust; power-cooperation; creativity-obedience; friendly-aggressive, rich - poor etc. Plus, not to
forget, values to which they adhere, expressed in ideals that they desire to realize and make more
concrete and practical in specific norms to regulate behavior, that they attempt to impose on others or
that they presume will be respected by others. To different spheres in society belong different values,
norms and habits. In other words different spheres suit different patterns. Policies need to take such
patterns into account, lest the policy will be ineffective or become a source of conflict. Policy
imagination is based on some knowledge (often tacit knowledge, i.e. knowledge that we are hardly
aware of, knowledge that we just take for granted) of patterns that are at work, with their specific
rationale and specific ways of reasoning (often called „bounded rationality‟ i.e. rationality as it appears
within the framework of a particular pattern): technical, regulatory, ideological or deliberational.
See for a mapping of societal landscapes Robert Nisbet, Sociology as an Art Form, London, 1976.
33
So the policy process is more than just a technical matter or regulating threatening chaos or realizing a
beautiful and promising ideology. It is also more than a discussion or deliberation process with
stakeholders to agree on goals to achieve and choice of instruments. Good policy development takes
into account the patterns of attitudes, ideals, habits and common sense judgments that people foster
within different spheres of society. That is why some understanding of sociology is really required to
become a good policy expert. Policy experts should not ignore existing patterns, for policies will always
interfere in these patterns, disrupt them, and replace them with an alternative pattern. In some cases
policy experts may take an existing pattern for granted and improve the pattern by stimulating desired
behavior in harmony with the pattern, within a particular sphere. That we may call „nudging‟ people.
Awareness of patterns will stimulate our (policy) imagination. Why? Because imagination does not
function ex nihilo. Imagination is always based on interpretations of patterns and the way they might
unfold and about influencing the way they unfold. And here we come to the question bout
inclusiveness. Policies need to be inclusive if they are meant to serve the public good. That means the
policy actor should make effort to understand citizens and take into account what they are concerned
about. Lest respect is an empty slogan. This is exactly why sociology is important for the policy actor
and expert. How to understand citizens and groups and categories of citizens and other entities in
society? I suggest we take the pattern point of view into account. People do not think and act just like
that, haphazardly. There are always reasons why have hold an opinion and are inclined to act in a
certain way. Psychologists try to understand people from individual psychological and physiological
motives and drives. Sociologists see patterns and relate patterns to culture, worldview and religion.
A policy actor who desires to be inclusive, will try to understand and include the viewpoint and
interests of all relevant others or stakeholders and stakeholder groups. To do so the policy actor needs
to understand patterns that are at work. I believe it is helpful to develop the capacity to understand the
dynamics of patterns, how patterns will develop and which role policies play in that development. And
by the way, policies too are kind of patterns interfering in other patterns causing relief improvement or
friction and decay.
Later we will elaborate further and discuss pros and cons
Conclusion: there are 4 main approaches to policy development (technical, regulatory, ideological
and deliberational) which can be considered as dimensions of the policy process. The pattern approach
to policies takes these dimensions into account. However, as policies will be applied in society, they
must take into account the patterns that are distinctive to the target group, lest the policy will not be
understood, accepted or function. A good understanding of sociology and pattern dynamics is
indispensible for policy experts.
Q. A.2.6. It is time to elaborate: what do we mean by patterns? And why are patterns so important for
policy development?
society perspective.
34
In order to understand how patterns work, let me start with a personal experience.
Personal experience.
A personal experience from the time I studied sociology and political science in Amsterdam. One of
the most well-known students from our faculty was Marius E. He was a few years older than I was and
he was the informal leader of the so-called ROES (Red Units Social Faculty). They were quite dogmatic
neo-communist, somewhat anarchistic. Marius was passionate about radical social-democracy. I liked
him, though I did not believe in his program. One morning I was having a coffee with him. The evening
before the ROES had ousted a person who I knew very well from the time I fulfilling military service. It
was Peter S. Marius, why did you dispose of Peter yesterday? „Ah‟, Marius responded, „you know very
well, he is just interested in power.... this will destroy us‟. I understood him very well, for I got to know
Peter as a person who indeed was focused on power. „So you agree? Marius asked me, seeing the
reflective expression on my face. „Yes, I think this it is a wise decision....but maybe you have to dispose
of quite a few more people....‟, so I suggested. This was confirmed by Marius. Anyway, sometime later
he made it to the Dutch Parliament, but he was never happy in the communist party, like quite a few
others who were more interested in ideology than in power.
Now it strikes me that Marius had a great insight in pattern dynamics. He understood that for Peter S.
power had top priority. All the rest was subordinated to this. In actual fact, in the eyes of Marius, he
had inserted a very risky element into his ´communist pattern´, namely ´power priority´. Others were
more pragmatic, which also combined badly with communist or radical social-democratic principles.
Such elements might destroy the entire pattern and eventually replace it for an opportunist pattern.
Years later I read the biography of Fidel Castro, written by the former English Ambassador to Cuba,
Leyster Coltman. It is both a sympathetic and a revealing biography. As a student the young Fidel too
was ousted by the Havana communist movement, for they were aware of his greediness for power and
understood he would eventually betray communist ideology. Also dictator Fulgencia Batista realized
Fidel was out for power, when a few months later he flirted with him to become his assistant. Very few
people know he approached Batista with this request. It may also be that many prefer not to know.
Anyway, it was only later in Mexico that Fidel, supported by his brother Raul, made it to the ranks of
the communists.
See: Coltman, Leyster The Real Fidel Castro, London, 2003.
Nobody actually lives and nobody will be able to live in total incoherent chaos. We would be at a loss
about the intentions of our fellow men, and worse, we would be unable to plan anything in our
personal life. We just cannot live without a minimum of coherent patterns of thinking, doing, believing
etc. Arnold Gehlen pointed to the „relieving function‟ of habits, institutions and patterns. In other
words a sort of automatic pilot on which we can rely for 80% of our manifold activities. But there is
more. Patterns serve as frameworks to make sense of life and to orientate ourselves. The longer we
think and act according to a pattern, the more we take its credibility and usefulness for granted. Very
35
few individuals think idiosyncratically. Much rather we think according to a pattern we are tuned into.
Put differently: patterns become self-referential. So, to understand people, we should develop an
understanding of pattern dynamics. Patterns reveal the ways of our thinking.
Erving Goffman has contributed much to our understanding of frameworks. He defines frames as
clusters of rules to regulate our activities or to interpret the activities of others and subject them to
sanctions. Within a particular frame we more or less know how to behave, to clothe, to shake hands, to
engage in small talk and to know when to switch to the real issue, which names to mention and which
names to ignore, what jokes to make and what jokes not to make, how to be polite and when and how
to end a conversation. This is daily life. But there are frames for professional life, ecclesiastical life,
bureaucratic life, gangster life and partner life. Each of these „lives‟ has a characteristic linguistic
dialect too. Jargon, as we call it. And within all these spheres and sub-spheres there are several frames
or patterns at work. In daily life, which is the sphere of primary frames, there is quite a difference
between the frame used by upper-class families, villagers, youngsters, gangsters, unemployed poor
people, university colleagues or bus drivers, meeting informally. They greet one another differently,
engage in different types of small talk, read different newspapers (if they read at all), vote for different
political parties with different motivation, have different food and beverage preferences, clothe
differently, use their own language code (they all have their own restricted code to reveal and conceal
taken for granted knowledge, to use Basil Bernsteins distinction between restricted and elaborated
code) and employ different stereotypes, labels and preconceived judgments.
Let us use another metaphor: syntax of a language. A language does not just consist of a vocabulary.
Characteristic for a language is syntax: the way words can be put together and become meaningful in a
sentence, a phrase or a clause. Patterns are expressions of syntax. Societies should be viewed as multi-
syntaxic. Or multi-jargonic, if we also take the specific vocabularies into account. That is why some
people, using different syntax and different jargon do not quite understand one another. Jargon is an
expression of a. Like the communist and pragmatist, the entrepreneur and trade-unionist, or the
Catholic and Protestant pastor, or the regular farmer and the ecological farmer. They have difficulties
in understanding each other. Or the average citizen who receives an official letter from public
administration to inform him that is request to extend his home is taken into consideration and that he
will be informed within 6 months. The average citizen does not have a clue what the letter is supposed
to convey to him, written in hopeless public „service‟ jargon, and asks his neighbor to interpret the
letter (which was me...). Some 8 months later he received a second letter that stated he received a
green light and could go ahead. He was happy, but he did not at all understand why the civil servants
needed 8 months to take that decision. I told him their ways of reasoning were somewhat complicated.
His reply: they are a mysterious bunch of people, as if they come from another planet, but I am happy
this time they are in agreement with me.
Sure this is not always the case. Patterns may also diverge.
Patterns are frameworks which are configurations of elements consisting of the following elements:
Basic attitudes and assumptions (sometimes called world view) regarding the world we live in;
including elementary „theories‟ how the world works and why people act as they seem to do,
36
including problem definitions ; and values and ideals or objectives we would like to realize;
and including judgments and problem definitions that flow from it. Note: basic attitudes are
reflected in a characteristic vocabulary. This is the „world as taken for granted‟ as Alfred Schutz
called it. Most of the knowledge that belongs to this „world as taken for granted‟ is „tacit
knowledge‟, which means that we just assume this or that is as it is. Tacit knowledge is
„unreflected knowledge‟. Like: „people make rational choices‟, „nobody is to be trusted‟, „life is a
matter of survival‟, or „all you need is love‟, „tomorrow will be better, for progress is steady‟.
The sociologist Talcott Parsons suggested a limited number of „pattern variables‟ which we will
discuss later.
Habits, mores, norms which characterize our daily way of working and living together: the
common ways of acting and judging and expecting others to act. Like: „you need your daily
meat‟, „never too young to prepare for your pension‟, „don‟t lose your temper‟, „limit of intimacy
in the family‟, „one service deserves another‟, „an agreement is an agreement‟, etc. This is why
we come across a number of sociological „portraits‟ in each society, types of people who have
incorporated these habits, like the general practitioner, the consultant, the businessman, the
teacher etc
Readymade solutions and model-solutions, including more refined methods and methodology
and common policies , considered to be„common sense‟, to deal with problematic situations or
to deny the existence of a problem. Like: „training children to use the toilet‟, „directive or non-
directive management style in organizations‟, „political campaign culture with flags, brass
bands and motivational speeches, or without‟ etc.
Concepts, words, metaphors and slogans: metaphors in particular are important. Because
metaphors may change the grammar of our thinking pattern, and hence the entire pattern. A
new metaphor may „reconceptualize‟ our mind. Like: „ keep smiling‟, „survive!‟, or words like
„product‟ used for public service or education as if these were kind of factories. In the past
colleges and universities were teaching students, supervising and supporting their professional
development. As from 1985 colleges and universities started to be considered as „educational
production facilities‟, supposed to „produce‟ and to deliver a „product‟ in a certain quantity.
New metaphors and words are indications that a new pattern has emerged.
To put it in different words: patterns are tacit (implicit) orientation structures. They help us to
orientate ourselves in the world. But it is not just we, human beings, who use patterns to orientate
ourselves. This would imply that the human subject is simply his own master. The other side of the
coin is that patterns are characterized by dynamics of their own. We may compare patterns to external
brain structures with their own characteristic communication patterns that function by means of
„neuro transmitters‟ and „synapses‟. The human brain may be tuned in to such patterns and reproduce
the system in its own brain and let it work there in its own way, reproducing the pattern almost
mechanically or creatively. Reproduction will never be exact, but every mistake is n opportunity for
37
creative change. And of course our brains are tuned in to numerous patterns, which support, enforce
or obstruct one another. It is Rupert Sheldrake who suggested this analogy.
The idea that patterns have their own dynamics was already discussed by Max Weber who spoke of
„ideal types‟, which are kind of patterns that unfold in a particular way, never completely. But our
human reality gets shaped by dynamics of ideal types, because they function as a guiding principle or a
means of orientation. Ideal types, so Max Weber asserted, have a rationality of their own. As patterns
have. Outsiders may consider some choices weird and totally un-rational. But insiders truly believe
they make rational decision. Rationality is the result of reflection on practice. It was the British
philosopher Michael Oakeshott who pointed out that theory and rationality are the children of
practice, not their parent. It is practice that indicates a particular way of doing is „rational‟ or self-
evident‟. That is why we say: each ideal type and each pattern is characterized by its own „bounded
rationality‟. Do note how similar it is to what Denis de Rougemont put forward in „penser avec les
mains‟, thinking with the hands, practognosie. Thinking that is unrelated to practice is futile. Its
futility will appear sooner or later. According to De Rougemont all functional thinking springs from
some immediate or remote practical experience and need to be (re)linked to experience in order to be
developed. Here again we observe a „to and fro‟ process.
For a discussion of patterns, brains and ideal types, see B.Kristensen, Welzijn in Patronen, Amsterdam, 1992; and Paul Davies,
The Cosmic Blueprint, New York, 1988; and on bounded rationality see Michael Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics, 1962, in
Rationalism and Politics and Other Essays, 1991. For types Robert Nisbet, Sociology as an Art Form, London, 1976, p 68ff
Meanwhile lots of other sociologists, biologists and linguists have suggested similar ideas. For
sociology the ideas of a „vision of the world‟ as a way of orientation is important. As part of a pattern
different elements of orientation tend to be more or less coherently linked together. Together they
constitute a „vision du monde‟, a „world vision‟, to use the terminology of Lucien Goldman, the
Romanian sociologist of literature. He also uses the term „collective group consciousness‟ which of
course was taken from Emile Durkheim, that binds people together and which gives them the feeling
they „speak the same language‟. Groups of people get tuned in to the same „language‟. But Goldmann
was particularly interested in the novel as an expression of a world view and/or as factor that may
cause a shift in an existing pattern. Naturally a novel is not (just) about ideas, but mainly about the
way people put these ideas into practice. It was his world view that encouraged Raskolnikov in
Dostoyevsky‟s Crime and Punishment to murder an avaricious and unscrupulous bitch and it was his
repentance that changed his world view and behavior. Such novels develop into archetypes of meaning
and orientation. We read them, feel connected and identify with the protagonist. Not that we will also
murder someone. But Raskonikovs despair about his poverty and indignation about the avarice of
people around him we do understand. Reading his considerations, make us aware of our own tacit
world view and so we understand his decisions and questions. We also understand his almost
obsessive remorse afterwards. Then there are the people around him, who see different aspects of the
situation, notably Sonya, the girl who was forced into prostitution because of poverty. Step by step the
author‟s own worldview is unfolded for the eyes of the reader. By then the attentive reader will have
‟copied‟ that worldview in his own mind, where it starts doing its „work‟. This is what we may call the
„inner dialogue‟ which always is a dialogue between different worldviews we are acquainted with and
38
with problems, questions and enigmas the environment is challenging us. Some of the problems can
easily be interpreted or reinterpreted. But some are less easy and pose challenge to our mind.
Or to mention another example: Franz Kafka (1883 – 1924) and read The Trial. Reading The Trial
means that your awareness of the patterns of governmental bureaucracy and modern judiciary will
never be the same anymore. You become aware of the power of bureaucracy, the misery of anonymity
and the reality of institutional evil. We use Kafka as a metaphor of surreal distortion of the world as
taken for granted, and a sense of impending danger (i.e. „kafkaesque‟). Reading Kafka means that we
physically have a different experience when we enter a post office, a bank, or the registry office of the
municipality. We observe differently, we notice different things, we interpret situations differently. We
observe the civil servant behind his desk, his communication with colleagues, his „paper greediness‟,
his inability to be flexible or to find a creative solution. Talking about bureaucracy, Max Weber
considered it all and he spoke of an ideal type. Nowadays paper greediness is replaced by a type of
„digital addiction‟ which is quite the same. There is nothing the bureaucrat can do without the
computer anymore. What a shame if a civil servant is not quite able to work with a computer. The
client (only his identity number counts) gets nowhere. So there is the unfathomable pattern of
anonymity of the bureaucracy, which is duplicated in the paperwork or the digital world of the
administration. And finally there is the duplication in our minds. We think, reflect and act accordingly.
We respond to that particular thing, that we experience as profoundly powerful and perhaps even
frightful. We are aware we may get lost, captured, tried.
Or read Robert Antoni‟s great novel „As Flies to Whatless Boys‟ (2013). It is about the seemingly
evidence of technological progress, expressing itself in the Satellite, a machine developed in the 19th
century by some weird engineers, the machine that promises to free us from manual labor (like the
wheel did before). The designers present it to a group of interested people, including potential
investors in England. Even though the demonstration is not really convincing, the engineers manage to
collect people and money for the absurd enterprise to start an agricultural business in Trinidad. The
idea that no tiresome manual labor is needed. The machine will do all the work. The novel is in fact
about gullible people who like to be cheated by technology and by rubbish promising tattle telling
politicians, about our inability to grasp the essence of reality, about our ephemeral existence and all
the „great things that inevitably ebb away‟. It makes the reader aware of the short sightedness of
political promises and the limitations of technological progress. In the end Nature is still there. We
may move from England to Trinidad with the highest possible expectations, but in the end it is Nature
that takes us back to reality. From the perspective of a world view, this is indeed a very interesting
novel. For it not only shows how world views work in our lives, how they „dictate‟ us, it also shows how
they collapse, or enfold, due to powers of the external environment and how people respond to this
collapse and have to come to accept that they were wrong. Like Raskolnikov, but differently.
On to policies. Policies consist of patterns of activities which are always based on a number of
assumptions regarding the environment, in other words a world view (intentionally or
unintentionally). Each policy, once it gets implemented, starts having an impact on our mind.
39
If new policies disrupt the pattern I am used to and familiar with, even happy with, or is seen to
disrupt a pattern, this may result in confusion, disorientation, disobedience and even anger and
obstruction. It goes without saying that this will limit the effectiveness of a policy. But a policy may
endure and slowly start being duplicated in our minds. Something like that we have seen in communist
countries, where after years of propaganda lots of policies that went against the grain of the original
Christian Orthodox people in Easter Europe, started to appear „natural‟. They even became part of
„common sense‟ of the „world taken for granted‟. Of course there never was any discussion with
stakeholders. The new „powers that were‟ just went ahead and imposed policies on the people.
Negative response policies abounded. But the „powers that were‟ managed to extinguish these response
policies by means of secret police, or isolate them by means of a gulag archipelago.
Proper policy development is a matter of collective orientation, together with all relevant stakeholders.
Discussion with relevant stakeholders can take away unnecessary misunderstandings or result in
adaptations of the policy which renders it acceptable to all parties.
Example: emigration and immigration policies
The Israeli journalist Ari Shavit recently published „My promised Land‟. He discusses the Israeli
policies to marginalize Palestinians living in Israel. A number of mostly social-democrat Israelis were
and still are perplexed by what was and is happening, like in the village of Lydda and in Gaza. And so
are many Arabs and Palestinians. Such governmental policies run entirely against moral principles,
which are dear to them. But there is also a lack of discussion, of policy dialogue and hence no
anticipation of possible negative effects. As if different people observe differently and notice different
things, while not seeing other things. Just not seeing. Discussing settlement policies he observes that
the policy solution of settlement „completely ignored the demographic reality on the ground.....they did
not realize this because they did not think through the consequences of their action‟. In other words,
Shavit deplores the absence of policy imagination on the part of the Israeli politicians. A new pattern of
authoritarian imperialism is imposed, leaving lots of Israelis, like Shavit, puzzled.
In her biography on Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel, Anita Shapira describes a moment
in 1948, when the commanders Yigal Allon and Yitzhak Rabin came to Ben-Gurion asking whether to
carry out “a large-scale population evacuation.” Rabin reported that Ben-Gurion responded with a
wave of the hand, saying “Expel them.” Not for a moment Ben-Gurion asked himself what might be the
long-term consequences. He just assumed this to be the only „solution‟. The Israeli project was just
looked from the purely zionist perspective. Remarkably, his friend, teacher and first ideologue of the
Israeli Labor party, Berl Katznelson, had always emphasized that Jews should not repeat the failures
against other people as other people did towards the Jews in the diaspora. But in 1948 Katznelson had
passed away, leaving Ben-Gurion without a respected partner in dialogue.
Example: building a railway line
During the reign of empress Cixi in China, plans were made to build a first railway connection between
Bejing and Wuhan. The railway was expected to be of crucial importance to economic development. In
40
1889 the empress signed the decree to go ahead with the building. In her „explanation‟ she strongly
recommends to pay attention to inform the local people about the important usefulness of the railway
and help to find solutions to graves of ancestors in case they are located in close proximity to the
railway trajectory. We should listen to the local people, lest they will obstruct the building‟.
Remarkably this is written in traditional 19th century China in 1889. It shows the empress had a good
understanding of patterns and an ability to imagine how people will respond if the pattern they are
used to and adhere to, is disturbed.
It should be clear that „coherence‟ of patterns may serve a coherent and creative purpose, but not
necessarily so. It may also serve downright incoherent and destructive purposes. Common sense
theories, interpretational frameworks to define situations might be aggressive or defensive, and may
lead to collective resentment, collective arrogance, collective distrust and scapegoat appointments,
collective power play and colonization, collective submission to a power elite and so on. Put differently,
the (always bounded) rationality of a pattern may serve very irrational ends. Such patterns may fit a
particular psychological pattern and fulfill a number of dubious psychological needs. Vice verse
stimulate such problematic psychological patterns.
Conclusion: This paragraph was an elaboration of the previous one. It is about patterns as
frameworks or configurations of elements: attitudes, values, assumptions, habits, concepts and jargon,
which together constitute a world view on the basis of which people act. The paragraph also contains a
warning: all policies should take existing patterns into account. The policy designer should try to
understand relevant patterns and ask the question: is this policy in harmony with relevant patterns or
is it going to disrupt these patterns. This is a matter of policy imagination.
In actual fact my approach is based on the sociology of P.Berger and T.Luckmann, (see their The social construction of reality,
New York 1967) and on Alfred Schutz, especially his On Methodology of the Social Sciences, in A. Schutz, Collected Papers I,
The Hague, 1971; Erving Goffman, Frame Analysis, New York, 1974, p 250 ff; and L.Goldmann, Le dieu caché, étude sur la vision
tragique dans les Pensées de Pascal et dans le théâtre de Racine, Paris, 1955. See for the impact of metaphors Eva F.Kittay,
Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure, Oxford, 1987. Plus A. Shavit, My Promised Land, The Triumph and
Tragedy of Israel, New York, 2013, p213 and for China : Jung Chang, The Empress Dowager Cixi: The Concubine who launched
Modern China, 2013. Anita Shapira, Ben-Gurion, Father of Modern Israel, Engl translation 2015
Q. A.2.7. This all sounds as if patterns, once established, put into practice, trusted and taken for
granted, cannot change. It seems they dictate the way our brain works and the result is that the brain
reinforces the pattern. So can there be any change?
41
Indeed, a pattern as „organized rationalism‟ is not easy to change. Oakeshott presented a clear picture
of the „rationalist‟, who conceives reality in a particular coherent way, who is sufficiently realist to
admit reality does not always fit, who hires an engineer to come up with a solution and who then
proposes the solution as the „one best way‟, convinced as he is of the existence of one best universal
remedy to any (political) problem, as well as to problematic policies in general. In the name of public
good he will proceed, tackling one problem after another, without questioning his own assumptions
that form a very coherent foundation of the pattern as well. What we see here is a sort of seduction, the
seduction of coherence, that continues to seduce as long as there is an expectation of problem solution.
Once we realize that expectation is doubtful or once we realize the set of assumptions after all are not
that coherent as it seemed to be, pattern credibility starts fading. Things get somewhat blurred and
suddenly it dawns upon us it is all nonsense. Now the fading accelerates and the pattern gets enfolded
quickly. Naturally this is also the case when we encounter different parallel patterns which are active
simultaneously. Such parallel patterns undermine each other‟s credibility.
See: Michael Oakeshott, Rationalism and Politics, 1962, p 10; and Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social
Construction of Reality, New York 1967.
Once we get back to our senses, so to speak we see that reality provides a clear answer. What appears
to be so self-evident to me and others around me, may appear to be non-sensical or ridiculous or
erroneous to others. And look at history, are patterns not regularly replaced by other patterns. Even
though they appear to be very resilient. Their resilience we will discuss in the next paragraph. Let us
first focus on change. Or much rather focus on abrupt change in a short period of time, followed by
pattern enfoldment and replacement by another pattern that appears to be more relevant.
The issue reminds me of Kuhn‟s discussion on what he called paradigms and paradigm shift in
academic thinking. In 1962 he published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , where he argued that
as a rule science does develops in a linear way, with unexpected jumps that are not linear at all. Indeed
for shorter or longer periods of time all noses of all self-respecting scientists in a particular field point
in the same direction. If as a scientist you turn into another direction you are no longer considered
„one of them‟. Idiosyncrasy is rarely stimulated. However, history of science clearly shows there are
regular paradigm-shifts though. Apparently a particular paradigm, taken for granted by many, is step
by step approaching a crisis. One discordant fact after another emerges and the traditional paradigm
fails to offer credible explanations. At some point of time a „critical mass‟ is reached. The questions,
problems, anomalies become so numerous that serious reflection about the credibility of the paradigm
is inevitable. Until the very last moment there will be people who cling to the old pattern and who
passionately argue that our trusted ways of thinking are still to be fully trusted. Suddenly the tipping-
point is reached. It dawns upon someone that maybe it is the earth circling around the sun, rather than
vice versa. Others follow quickly, wondering how they could ever believe the opposite, „why they did
not see it‟. However there is no „seeing‟ outside patterns.
Moving to society: maybe the emperor does not have any clothes at all. Maybe the banking system is
not as stable and trustworthy as it appears to be. Maybe the stylish interior, the fashionably clothed
employees and the stately atmosphere are meant to compensate for the uncontrollable chaos of figures
42
of unfathomable financial transactions that escape our control. How can it be that nobody predicted
the surprising breakdown of 2008? When will be the next crisis?
Maybe communism was not such a great idea after all. Back in the 70„ies Emmanuel Todd wrote a
book on the „inevitable breakdown of the Kremlin‟. He analyzed the (lack) of effective policies of the
Kremlin and the growing number of problems for which communism did not have an answer. Sure, the
party would say and propagate daily, in the words of Solzhenitsyn „we never make mistakes‟. They
brightly used the American recipe for „reputation building‟ internally and externally, creating an
impression of eternal stability, power and invincibility. However, Todd imagined which response
patterns would eventually emerge and challenge the main stream pattern. Next he looked at figures
about economy, production, demography, governmental expenses and so on. These are about the
material reality which would pose a major challenge too. And so he predicted the collapse. Until late
1988 he was ridiculed for his „wishful thinking‟.
There was another factor though, that Todd did not consider much, but which also played a major role.
All Marxist text books that high school students were supposed to study in all Eastern European
countries taught that technological development would be hampered in and by capitalism. Capitalism
would naturally get stuck. Only communism could mobilize sufficient human capacity to develop
technology. Sure there as the Sputnik. But there were also the many television images of Western
cities, Western life style, cars, computers and so on. All this contrasted with the major theory of
Marxism. As a result the average man in the street slowly developed an inability to repress his doubts
about communist ideology. This turned out to be a major cause of pattern enfoldment.
The main lesson that we can draw from historic examples is that reasonably successful patterns start
enfolding because of inner contradictions. When a pattern is unable to fulfill its own promises, either
because it fails to adapt to new situations or because it faces mere internal contradiction, it loses
credibility, which is the beginning of the end of it. In such cases different policies in different areas
lack social understanding and therefore lack social support. As a result they remain ineffective. They
become objects of scorn and ridicule. The failure to adapt to new situations may also come from
confrontation with other existing patterns that are very different in nature. If different types of pattern
clash, none of them gets taken for granted anymore and much energy is used for to fight continuous
credibility battles. When everything is over and a new general pattern has become dominant, people
wonder how they could ever put their confidence in the failing one.
In any case a lesson should be learned. The environment in which we live is dynamic and requires
continuous efforts to adapt our habits and patterns. This requires a mind that is alert and creative.
Policies should be the outcome of the interplay between relatively stable patterns and changing
environments.
See: E. Todd, La Chute finale, Essai sur la décomposition de la sphère soviétique, Paris, 1976.
Focus on some more examples of general pattern decay and enfoldment:
Romania
43
Like other Eastern European countries Romania went through a relatively long period of painful
pattern changes. During the Second World War the rightist or fascist general Ion Antonescu was in
power. Romania supported Germany by all means, delivering soldiers, oil and Jews. In 1944 when the
population started to endure hardship, the young king Michael choose the side of the Allied Forces.
After the war the country was „ freed‟ or „ occupied‟ by Communist forces. The communist party
officially came to power in 1946 after fake-elections. These years of chaos and uncertainty is vividly
described in Petru Dumitriu‟s novel Incognito (1964). The novel is about political intrigue and the
clever take-over by communists. Main personage is the intelligent Sebastien Ionescu, who we get to
know first as a teenager the years before the outbreak of the Second World War. He is enjoying the
typical Romanian pre-war stylish gentry‟s life. But it is the empty life that teenagers should become
critical of, and he does. It occurs to him he might serve humanity of maybe his country as a sort of
heroic gentleman-soldier. By the end of the war he joins the communists, but his bourgeois-byzantine
somewhat critical worldview does not combine easily with the bureaucratic rigidity of the ideological
communist world view. The chaotic environment is full of political intrigue like an ellipse with two
focal points: power and ideology. Disillusioned he backs out. What happened to him, happened to
Romania in the next 40 years. A primitive communist pattern was imposed on a society which was a
mix of Byzantine and Western European culture, that had just experienced a hundred years of revival.
An uneasy mix for sure. Art, culture, music, science and architecture were all flowering during the pre-
war period. And now the country was put in the hands of hardly literate people and a few idealistic
intellectuals, flirting with Moscow, notably Ana Pauker (born as Hannah Rabinsohn). They imposed a
radical communist pattern on the country, but the intellectuals were soon put in a corner by Stalin and
his Romanian servants. As a result Romanian communism evolved as a brutal regime. Public support
was minimal and so almost nothing worked. After 1989 the new strong man, Ion Iliescu a former
communist, introduced a semblance of democracy. Disappointment everywhere. Policies remained
ineffective. Main achievement of the new regime was allocation of nice positions to former securitate
officers, in government and in newly privatized companies. In general people were afraid to take
initiative and assume responsibility. Lots of companies were privatized, but many remained state-
owned. After 1996 when Constantinescu became president things started to change. The government
was weak, but it managed to go into a new direction: Western European democracy and transparency.
Many state-owned companies continued as before though. The former communists who took over
again in 2000, did not make attempts to go back to the old days of communism. Understandably of
course, as many of them had become capitalists with flourishing businesses and they were eager to
privatize the state-owned companies and put them in the hands of former comrades. The new Nastase
government agreed to continue to move towards a Western European type of democracy. Privatization
continued, as well as the allocation of nice jobs and ownership. At the same time lots of CSO‟s had
become active and were receiving grants from the EU and several EU-governments to promote
democracy, democratic policies, human rights and better social services.
Quite a number of foreign companies established themselves in Romania, like the Dutch ING-bank.
One of the Dutch directors of the bank was a friend of mine. We both spent our youth in Curacao. Now
we discussed the problems of doing business in Romania. The bank had decided to work mostly with
young women, unspoiled by communist organizational culture. Why just women? His answer was
44
shocking. They had noted men still tended to use the old communist organization culture as their point
of reference. So they feared to assume responsibility and to be hold accountable. „It is ingrained in
their brains‟, he added. A remarkable statement.
Around 2005, after working in Romania for several years, I started to note something interesting. I
was involved in many types of training for public government and occasionally for companies. I
noticed on the one hand a strong orientation on Western values of democracy, responsibility and
transparency. But on the other hand I noticed most civil servants and employees were reluctant to take
initiative and assume responsibility. They were clearly afraid of repercussions from above. So in
practice they were focused on survival and making the best of it, while keeping silent about matters of
concern. People in leadership position operated authoritatively, if not dominatingly. Many of them
abused their positions in different ways. They were unprepared for any feedback from below and
expected the rank and file to follow them obediently. During some training sessions participants
started to be willing to express themselves. Bosses found it difficult to listen and respond, but they
usually did, as long as the session lasted. For afterwards they expressed irritation and unwillingness to
listen. As a result everything remained as it was. Abuse and corruption continued. At the same time a
critical democratic attitude developed itself among many ordinary Romanians. In the outside world of
media discussions, intrigue and insinuation, criticism and slander, sarcasm and cynicism are all in the
air, often coarse and brutal, like in Dumitriu‟s novel. At one evening after the training session I had a
beer with one of the civil servants, who was in quite a sober-minded mood: „you see, irrespective of
their political color all these politicians are assholes. They don‟t give a damn to the public good you are
talking about. They are obsessed with money and control. Don‟t you see that? We are drinking a beer
discussing democracy and they are drinking a beer somewhere else, making jokes about our
democratic naivety‟.
In other words two patterns of organizational culture co-existed, a dominant pattern that originated
from communist times and a slowly unfolding partially hidden pattern which was sparked by increased
contact with Western European colleagues and friends. Some people torn in between.
I realized the atmosphere evoked in Incognito had not really changed. Political intrigue, ideological
ritual and counter ritual are still very much present in Romania of today.
China
One of the most interesting examples of pattern change, development and lasting impact is provided
by the early history of China. Originally there was no country at all, just a number of fiefdoms that
slowly evolved into more institutionalized kingdoms. First there was the most ancient Zhou-kingdom
that was established 10 centuries before Christ as a well-structured kingdom which had replaces the
rather cruel and arbitrary regime of the Shang. Around the Zhou-kingdom four major rival kingdoms
emerged. Around 750 before Christ chaos and conflict within and between the kingdoms were
rampant. Gradually people started to long for stability and security. The old aristocratic codes of the
Zhou (the li) were studied again and were seen to be of great relevance. A lowly ranked civil servant in
the small kingdom of Lu, whose name was Kon Qiu (551- 479), became a prominent teacher of the li.
He was convinced that peace, order and well-being should be based on li. His students and followers
called hum Master Kon, which became Latinized as Confucius. He did not teach abstract morality. He
45
presented a model person, the junzi, the gentleman. The idea was to study the ways of the gentleman
as the proper and moral ways of personal and public behavior. In Confucius analects it written: put
yourselves in somebody else‟s shoes and see a situation from another perspective. „Restrain yourself
and surrender to li”. Shortly after Confucius another teacher Master Mo became prominent. He
argued in a rational way and suggested the state should apply the principle of inclusiveness, jian-ai,
indiscriminately. Mencius was of the opinion this was a bit too abstract and too impractical. Rulers
have to take existing relationships and affections between people into account. Mencius felt uneasy
with the Mohists stressing the importance of „usefulness‟ or utility. Better to stick to values and
principles of humanness, he advised. And so the 4 main virtues of the Confucian tradition were
formulated: striving for humanness (ren), observing duty (yi), keeping to rituals (li) and striving after
wisdom and insight (zhi). Again a century later Xunzi refined the Confucian world view and applied it
more concretely to good governance. Finally it was Emperor Wu who decided the Confucian principles
of governance will be applied from now on. In 124 BC the Imperial Academy was established and
would teach civil servants for the long period of 2000 years. They became the guardians of the new
order, the pattern of private and public morality that became so characteristic for the Chinese empire.
However, some other patterns continued to have an impact as well, like the Taoist one, with its strange
emphasis on woe wei, and a more radical ritualistic pattern. Some emperors were attracted by such
rival patterns, but the Confucian one dominated and determined Chinese governance up to the early
2oth century. It shows that patterns for governance and societal stability need some strong and
relevant values, to be embodied in attitudes and concretized in norms for moral behavior. The
Confucian pattern, as the „ way of order and peace‟ offered this and appeared as a relevant alternative
to patterns of competition, power and warfare. Like the pattern of „ma‟at‟ did in the Egyptian empire
for thousands of years.
But environments change and patterns have to be adapted, up-dated, creatively responding to new
environments. If they don‟t they will enfold, as they actually did.
Iran
In his great novel The King (2011), Kader Abdolah describes the life of the tragic Persian Shah Naser
Mohammad Fatali Mozafar curing a transition period, starting in 1848. The old regime is about to fade
out. Modernists present themselves as the only rational alternative. Colonial regimes (notably England
and Russia) are eager to colonize the country. Last but not least there are the conservative Islamists
who believe it is time to purify the Persian kingdom. Four paradigms, or four patterns compete with
one another. The Shah is feeling it in his bones. He experiences the dilemmas emotionally within body
and mind so to speak. He is unable to integrate the different emerging patterns, nor to provide
answers to questions, let alone to help people to orientate anew. After the death of vizier Mirza Kabir,
the wise modernist, the country plunged in chaos. Out of the chaos several new patterns emerge, at
conflict with one another. And precisely because they are in conflict, people cling to the new patterns
like exhausted swimmers cling to the buoy in a stormy sea.
46
And on to the problems of the present welfare state: from safety net to springboard
It was William Beveridge who laid the theoretical foundation of the modern welfare state. He was well
aware of the so-called 5 evils of liberal capitalism: ignorance, squalor, want, idleness and disease. He
stressed the importance of human rights and institutional arrangements to secure these rights. The
classical welfare state was supposed to provide sufficient social security to all citizens, especially the
weaker categories. Like a safety net. It became known as the European welfare model. Sweden became
the best example of the classical welfare state. Sweden also managed to convince most of the citizens
that each one of them was co-responsible for maintenance of the system and that all citizens should
assume their responsibility. However some European countries struggled with a negative side effect of
the welfare state, namely welfare dependence. Services that were meant to support citizens in critical
moments tended to get overused, abused and undervalued. In the end the system produced
dependence, rather than freedom. It was meant to further equality but it started to create inequality.
So it became an example of the policy paradox. During the recent financial crisis it became abundantly
clear that the classical welfare state was financially impossible to maintain. It quickly became
fashionable to de-commodify the system, to introduce the contributory principle or profit principle,
demanding immediate contributions from citizens who made use of the system or profited from the
system. Also a number of services were privatized, put in the hands of mostly for-profit-agencies. As
from around 1990 we have witnessed a gradual enfolding of the Beveridge pattern with accelerated
enfoldment during the recent financial crisis.
In his updated study on the future of Europe Anthony Giddens responds to the crisis of the European
welfare model. In fact he is suggesting a new pattern to replace the old Beveridge pattern of the safety
net. Let us call it the Giddens pattern of the springboard. Giddens is aware that welfare dependency is
a very negative side effect both for the individual dependant citizen and for the government which
cannot afford the maintenance of the system anymore. He writes: the classical welfare state was a risk
management system. It provided insurance against risks, in health, work or personal circumstances‟.
The minimizing of risk was defined as „security‟. But Giddens notes that „security may quite often be
furthered more by an active embrace of risk than by attempts to reduce or avoid it‟. This is a very
important remark. The new pattern that he proposes flows from it. I would call it the „springboard
pattern‟, for the idea is to stimulate citizens to pick up their lives again. Giddens calls it the social
investment model. The idea is to invest in people, starting from childhood, to enable them to learn and
develop themselves. The fostering of human and social capital should be the centre of the new pattern.
„Human and social capital is vital not only to active citizenship but to success in the labor market too.
The social investment state therefore has to be much more interventionist than the classical welfare
state was‟. Lifetime learning, re-education and continuous training are important ingredients of the
new pattern. In health care the emphasis should shift from treating disease to promoting a healthy life
style and eating habit. Instead of expensive hospitalization of patients, the new possibilities of digital
medical care at home should be introduced. The new medical care also prevents patients from lapsing
into dependence on the medical regime. The idea of a springboard that motivates and enables people
to assume responsibility for their own life and for public life is worth considering.
47
My conclusion is that Giddens has introduced a very interesting and important new pattern that still
needs to be unfolded. However, given the present crisis the old safety net does not hold anymore. It
either will be abandoned altogether with miserable and inhuman situations as a result, or will be
transformed into a new pattern like suggested by Giddens.
So, after these four examples of pattern change we may now formulate a conclusion.
Conclusion: Patterns do change and usually imperceptibly. The change is like a silent force that few
people want to be aware, fearing the unknown. Lots of efforts are taken to reassure adherents that all is
OK. But other patterns may compete and reality may pose serious challenges as to the credibility of a
pattern once taken for granted. The inevitable result is pattern enfoldment. But enfolding patterns
always get replaced by new unfolding patterns. Policies may act as accelerators of such processes.
Kader Abdolah (pseudonym van Hossein Sadjadi Ghaemmaghami Farahani, Iran, 1954, published De Koning (The King) in
2012; See for Chinese history: Confucius, Analects, Engl transl. London, 2000; Marcel Granet, Chinese Civilisation, London
1951; Petru Dumitriu, Incognito, Paris, 1962. Karel van der Leeuw, Confucianisme, Amsterdam 2006; Georges Castellan,
Histoire de la Roumanie, Paris, ed 1995. See also Anhony Giddens, Turbulent and Mighty Continent, What Future of Europe?
Revised and updated edition, 2014, p94ff
Q. A.2.8. Why is it that patterns resist change? Even if the pattern is dysfunctional. And how can a
policy break through the rigidity of a pattern if that pattern does not function well?
society perspective
Patterns are both abstract systems and concrete models for behavior. As abstract systems they exist
external to the human mind as well as within the human mind. Following Rupert Sheldrake‟s theory of
„morphic resonance, our brains are like antennas that tune in to mental fields with a particular
wavelength. Patterns, so I suggest, are such fields. In other words, external field resonate within our
brains. The more a pattern is put into practice, the more it resonates and vice versa. If practice
becomes problematical, people start discussing problematic issues, which is a critical reflective
moment. Discussion and reflection may lead to strengthen credibility, but also to further loss of
credibility. It may restore the sense of self-evidence and it may undermine evidence in such a way that
it may suddenly evaporate altogether. Let me start with some examples.
Big colds and small colds
The Dutch novelist Anton Coolen recalled that his father who had just established himself as a young
general practitioner in a small traditional Dutch village round 1850, visited a farmer who obviously
48
suffered from pneumonia. The young doctor told the farmer he had caught pneumonia. The farmer
was very disappointed with the diagnosis and responded by telling doctor Coolen he was not trained
well and that he should leave his home. Mr Coolen was flabbergasted. Later he discovered that the
villagers distinguished between 2 types of illness: big colds and small colds. A general practitioner,
unable to distinguish between the 2 or coming up with a different type of diagnosis, could not possibly
be a good doctor…. It took Coolen senior a life-time to change this pattern of thinking. He succeeded
somewhat. Only a new generation, educated by a new generation of teachers at school, realized how
primitive the traditional distinction was….
Food and health: a pattern
Food and health are not unrelated. Nor are the food industry and the health system in a country. We
foster ideas about food and health and we develop new ideas about food and health. The food industry
will support development of trends and make the most of it. Or divert trends. The health system, in
spite of its entire noble, Hippocrates based values, is interested in illness, medication, cure,
pharmaceutical production development, hospital maintenance, employment, academic training,
research and so on and so forth. It is remarkable that medical studies pay little or no attention to the
impact of food on the body. There is a pattern here. Some people suspect that pattern is the result of
power play and economic interest. I rather think power and economic interests are by-products of the
pattern which is based on values regarding food and health, which are rarely reflected upon, let alone
be criticized.
Yet there are alternative patterns, consisting of health food, alternative medical treatment and
alternative views on the meaning of life. People who adhere to an alternative pattern are engaged in a
different discourse: read different books on health and illness, visit different medical doctors, use
different medicines and press for different policies on food and health.
We also see some political parties and ministries of health to consider alternative patterns. At present
several governments in several countries are seriously concerned about eating habits, including
smoking and drinking, resulting in obesity, diabetes and all the rest. Information campaigns, raising
taxes on fat, sugar and tobacco, even getting together with medical doctors, food producers and
consumer societies, have little or no effect. Introducing policies of forbidding the consumption of
alcohol and drugs, even seem to have an adverse effect. It all goes against the grain of an existing
pattern.
Effective policies should start with questioning some basic assumptions on the good life, making
people aware of the link between food and health, questioning eating habits and making deals with the
fast food restaurants, forcing the food industry to produce healthier products perhaps by means of tax
regulations and suggesting to health insurance companies that the cost of health insurance should be
dependent on weight, providing advice to educators of children. And so on.
This is just to show how important patterns are.
In practice we all end up sticking to patterns, functional or dysfunctional , like Snoopy‟s (Peanuts) : “I
think I've discovered the secret of life - you just hang around until you get used to it”.
49
And let us now sum up. The strength of a pattern is dependent on: MAGIC. Without MAGIC the
pattern is unstable and might quickly enfold, collapse. The 4 MAGIC forces give resilience to the
pattern.
M aintenance of fiduciary system
Value expression and/or goal attainment: somehow patterns must be the expression of its core
values or myths and fulfill promises, most of which flow from the pattern values itself, in order
to maintain credibility. This can be called the fiduciary system. It needs to be maintained by
discourse and rituals, sanctions and warnings, sayings and proverbs, letters and everyday talk,
mails and books, „ sermons‟ and motivations speeches. These fall under the category of
„common policies‟, carried out intentionally or unintentionally by numerous individuals who
adhere to the pattern.
Habit: the more and longer people get used to particular types of behavior, the more they will
consider that type of behavior „normal‟, the more they will pay attention to particular facts and
interpret them in a particular way. This may also develop into an obstacle to change.
A daptation ability:
Measure of insulation (in time and space, cultural and physical), so as to be defended against
alternative patterns that may undermine its credibility: negation, criticism and sometimes
integration of elements (and develop adequate response policies) ; or:
Ability to find ways to respond to a changing environment without disrupting basic elements
of the pattern. Parents are continuously discussing new trends and environments in which
their children grow up. They try to find new educational ways to face new challenges.
Active maintenance and adaptation mechanism: the measure in which feedback is being
received and digested, resulting in maintenance and adaptation measures. Most of these are
hardly noticeable. Sometimes it is just a matter of emphasis shift. Sometimes a shift in
priorities of habit or of value hierarchy. Or of sanctions or of an implicit or even explicit policy.
This is may even lead to active political support and development of explicit policies.
Ability to incorporate new elements and integrate these into the pattern. Incorporation of new
elements very often is the beginning off pattern change though.
G oal Attainment:
Each pattern is fulfilling a function, or, put differently, geared to goal attainment. A pattern
that promises economic growth, should realize economic growth. A pattern to educate children
should produce well-educated children. And so on. If goals do not get realized, people start
questioning the validity of the pattern. In other words a „policy‟ discourse gets started, first
informally (often in gossip networks first, followed by informal discussions, everyday talk, and
so on).
Apart from such public and explicit purposes, patterns will also fulfill more hidden, tacit and
personal purposes of a psychological nature. People will cling to a pattern to feel safe and
50
secure, to justify feelings of resentment and revenge, to justify feelings of arrogance and power
and dominance, to accept submission to the powers that be and so on. In other words, patterns
may serve irrational and destructive purposes. Here exactly the same applies: if goals do not
get realized, if people feel uneasy with the pattern, they will turn to a different one, as we can
see in the shift from a mild to a radical pattern of Islamic vision.
I ntegration ability:
Measure of coherence between elements and relative lack of tension with environment, or
measure of control over social and natural environment. In other words, all patterns are
originally responses to environmental challenges and later somehow manage to adapt to
changing environments, whereas at the same time controlling the environment as much as
possible.
Embedment in institutions which express and support the basic values of the pattern: once
institutions become part and parcel of a pattern and are seen to be the expression of a pattern,
the pattern gets pretty stable
Intertwinement with other patterns so that a mutually dependant structure is created
Embedment in a particular sphere, with a framework pattern that is fitting, resulting in
absence of critical voices, critical metaphors or alternative patterns (see „spheres‟)
C harismatic people or ability to evoke charisma
Patterns are dependent on people who act accordingly, provide information about
environment, reflect and embark on policy discourse (formal and informal), who defend the
pattern theoretically and who can inspire others to view the pattern as „normal‟. All these
people who play different roles, should be somehow convinced this pattern is indeed the
normal pattern. In other words, they should have some charisma. And the other way round,
the pattern should evoke some charisma among its adherents.
Charismatic people fulfill a dual function: they may stimulate people to pay attention to new
factors and adapt to new circumstances and they may also point to looming dangers and warn
against change. „If this is changed, all is lost‟.
Especially in times when patterns get challenged by new circumstances, charismatic people
play a crucial role and may receive strong and wide support and authority.
By the way, people consciously or unconsciously (mostly the latter) need charismatic people, especially
in time of uncertainty. The charismatic leader and the people fit like a zipper. The closed zipper feels
comfortable. So it is not just coincidence. Not at all. It is part of the pattern that charismatic traits in
some people get exposed, appreciated and used.
Let me comment on the first issue, which I believe is quite crucial. Most of the societal and political
discourse is geared to pattern maintenance, varying from small talk to heavy political statements.
Discourse is the way to develop, adapt, maintain and impose myths about unfathomable reality and to
actualize the importance of values. That is what Roland Barthes expressed by stating that „myth is a
51
type of speech‟, a semiological system with actors as „signifiers‟, using linguistic „signs‟ to signify
something (the signified) and signs being woven into a system, a story, a myth, a pattern of seeing and
interpreting situations, our own self-made condition. Barthes was especially interested in „reading‟ the
popular cultural activities, trying to understand the way they work and shape out world view. An
academic exercise? Not at all. The policy expert should be aware of existing „mythologies‟, for they
determine whether a policy is going to be successful or disastrous. Later we will elaborate the different
spheres (oikos or home, market, middle field or civic society and the political and governmental
sphere). Each of these spheres maintains its legitimacy by means of „ myths‟, habits and plain common
sense. Specific patterns which are well-embedded in a sphere, tend to be strong. The policy actor
should keep this „magic‟ in mind. That is my message here. So let me elaborate and explain further.
Some brief examples of present myths:
Private sector or Market , business and production sphere: „ stagnation means decline‟,
functions as a myth and stimulates business patterns which are centered around the idea that
there should always be progress. This is a myth indeed. For more in any quantity is not
necessarily linked with higher quality at all. May be „less is more‟ contains more truth than
„stagnation means decline‟.
Home or Oikos : home is the location where you can be yourself, where your privacy is
guaranteed, where there is harmony and peace and trust. This „myth‟ will stimulate policies
that provide support homely peacefulness (irrespective of the question whether peacefulness
exists). Of course it is a myth. If only because of the fact that there is hardly any privacy
anymore.
Middle Field or civic society: our voice should be heard and non-profit initiatives and service
be respected; between government and individual citizens there should be an organized field
to speak up to the government is its power causes a lack of sensitivity towards individual
citizens. In this sphere myths abound. Regarding sports, art, churches and so on. A general
myth is about the positive function of CSO‟s as if CSO‟s naturally and automatically represent
citizens. In some countries this might often be the case (like in The Netherlands) but in lots of
other countries CSO‟s are just instruments in the hands of some smart professionals to earn a
living.
Again each pattern is being upheld by discourse. The content and direction of discourse is strongly
determined by semantics and syntax. Jargon is especially important to the content of discourse. More
than most people think. Words and combination of words, as well as idiomatic expressions. Sayings
and cliché‟s are expressions of deeply rooted tacit knowledge and opinion. So we have to be attentive to
the characteristics of jargon and new words or cliché‟s which get introduced and sometimes quickly
resonate. The discourse within the realm of the pattern will result in some measures to improve the
functioning of a pattern. This we may call „common policies‟ of a pattern. They are mostly informal and
people are hardly aware off such policies. However they are part of the pattern and help fulfilling
52
MAGIC. Public policies do not necessarily adhere to the pattern and need to take pattern resilience
into account if such policies want to achieve something.
Molecules and „things‟ have a physical cohesion or resilience, caused by the „vanderWaals forces‟ as
well as electrostatic interaction between ions. With Emile Durkheim we may compare social realities as
physical things, but the resilience of social realities and patterns has of course nothing to do with the
„vanderWaals force‟ or electrostatic interaction in the physical realm. In the societal sphere cohesion is
of an entirely different nature. Shared values and all „knowledge taken for granted‟ play a crucial role,
as well as the basic need for survival will also play a role, in the forefront or in the background. The
more reality flowing from a pattern is seen to be the expression of its core values (its credibility or
fiduciary system) and seen to be supportive to survival, the stronger and more resilient the pattern is.
Values become more concrete in norms, habits and, not to forget, in small talk, as well as in goals to be
realized. Some policies that fit the pattern well, will be warmly welcomed. If a new policy is geared to a
different set of goals, discussions will take place, either to reject the new policy or to adapt its
traditional goals (and underlying values) to the new policy goals. If the policy fits, everything is OK. If
not, there will be trouble.
The big question is this one: Is it possible to break through the powers of cohesion and resilience? The
answer is, yes it is possible. If the values of its fiduciary system are addressed and appear to be
obsolete, if it becomes clear that survival is in jeopardy, changes are possible. Or if it can be argued the
new pattern is really beneficial and still in harmony with some core values. This is the straight route.
This route was followed by prime minister Lee Kuan Yew from Singapore (see for some elaboration Q.
E.2).He realized Singapore was sinking down in a swamp of corruption and deceit. He did not tone
down, but expressed himself squarely: we are going to the dogs together unless we put an end to it.
Though a pragmatist, he did have some charisma. People got convinced he was right en he managed to
introduce an entirely different pattern of society. Value hierarchies changed. Priorities changed.
Criteria changed. Enthusiasm changed. Trust in Singapore society got restored. In actual fact the
people from Singapore were proud of their small nation. Without saying it explicitly Lee re-introduced
a „Confucian pattern‟ of public life and service.
The example teaches us about 3 ingredients: charisma (in combination with commitment); a practical
plan of change (in combination with a strong implementation plan); an alternative value-pattern (the
Confucian one in the case of Singapore, explained and reiterated regularly).
Lee opted for the radical route. The other route is the gradual route of small incremental steps: slow
and gradual change which goes almost unnoticed. Slowly the minds of people first start having doubts
about existing „common sense‟, next they start taking alternatives seriously and more steps may follow
Conclusion: Patterns are, like things, characterized by a measure of resilience. MAGIC provides
resilience: Maintenance, Adaptation, Goals attainment, Integration and Charisma. This must be taken
into account in policy development. Pattern policies (mostly informal) are part of the pattern and help
53
fulfilling MAGIC. Public policies do not necessarily adhere to the pattern and need to take pattern
resilience into account if such policies want to achieve something.
See: Roland Barthes, Mythologies suivi de Le Mythe, aujourd'hui, Paris 1957; David Bohm and David Peat, Science, Order and
Creativity, Toronto, 1987, p 214 ff.
Q.A.2.9. Which are the similarities and dissimilarities of the pattern approach suggested here with
Talcott Parsons‟ theory of pattern maintenance?
society perspective.
Regarding the issue of pattern maintenance, it is not difficult to see a similarity with Talcott Parsons
AGIL-model for pattern maintenance: adaptation, goal attainment, integration and latent (mostly
latent) maintenance functions, of which the „fiduciary system‟, inviting people to commit themselves to
values is central. In fact none of the AGIL-functions can do without people. People maintain patterns.
However a main difference is that Parsons considers patterns consistently as systems „beyond‟ human
existence, whereas I believe patterns are not just critically dependant on active human commitment, or
even more on charisma, of people who inspire others to commit themselves. There is mutuality here.
Interesting patterns have a „wow‟-effect on some people. They stimulate the mind and adapt the mind
to the pattern values. In turn such people get excited and become „missionaries‟ or „ideologues‟ or
„change agents‟ in the service of the pattern. People with a good mind and sufficient verbal capacity
may become effective change agents. Like Fidel Castro and so many others all over the world. That is
why I think MAGIC is more appropriate than just AGIL. But Parsons elaborated AGIL.
Within the different spheres governmental policies are often expected to fulfill such AGIL-functions:
government, please make sure you create conditions to help the business world to get adapted to new
trends (like e-education, or procedures to hire important experts from abroad etc),helping the
business world to secure profits (which really is their goal), making sure by means of regulatory
policies that monopolies do not destroy open competition, and by means of communication see to it
that the business world is seen to be beneficial to entire society and of course a strong source of
employment and national pride (as for instance in Germany)
Parsons tended to view patterns as expressions of the social system. Hence his so-called structural
functionalism. I would rather stress the existence of a plurality of patterns, of networks and
intertwinement of different patterns that together somehow uphold a particular (sub)society in the
making, always in the making, always responding to new challenges, adapting to new situations, never
a standstill. And what is more, no modern society is monolithic. At least not yet. Social media and
popular culture press towards uniformity. And so do policies. They are not just geared to goal
attainment, they also fulfill maintenance, adaptation and integration functions. That is exactly the
reason why I stress the need for inclusiveness of policies, lest a number of categories of people will be
54
excluded, as well as the desire that policies should be considered as expressions of the dialogue with
the moral order. But instead of pressing for uniformity, inclusive policies may respect multiplicity.
Personal note
Here Conrad Adenauer‟s viewpoint on political parties and European cooperation is interesting. Trying
to restore Germany after World War II, he adamantly insisted that political parties should embrace the
principle of inclusiveness, rather than conflict. So should political parties collaborate by finding
common denominators. Models based on principles of conflicting interests and ideals, inevitably lead
towards division, exclusiveness, disintegration and war. His Christian Democratic Union was intended
to be the embodiment of this principle. This is surely not the place to discuss the practice of political
parties, nor the goings of a particular politician, this is just to put forward a viewpoint, that shows an
insight that seems wise and constructive. Also in the eyes of a social democrat (like me).
Some have argued that the Adenauer‟s principle was useful during the post-war period in Europe when
things had fallen apart and it was high time to pick up the pieces again. Any social and political order is
precarious. At present divisions in societies and politics all over the world are deep again. Fighting and
competing within and between parties, between parties and stakeholders and between governing
bodies and stakeholders is not the way to overcome divisions and to build bridges. Bridges are badly
needed so that adversaries can meet and discuss issues of mutual concern.
Adenauer‟s deliberate strategy had its international ramifications and implications as well. The saying
of Thomas Mann that „we are in not need of a German Europe but of a European Germany‟ was put in
practice by Adenauer. He insisted on building a federalist consensus in Germany in the perspective of
European federal integration. Embracing German federalism implied embracing European federalism.
In their essay „Identity Politics and European Integration‟ Thomas Risse and Daniela Engelmann-
Martin have argued Adenauer‟s emphasis on „europeanization of German collective identity‟ in the
1950‟ies „explains to a large degree why all German governments since Konrad Adenauer….have
embraced European integration‟, including the euro and the European central bank, the Schengen
agreement and so on. The German embrace was so powerful that it more or less was contagious. Other
nations, even France, followed suit and supported most attempts to cooperate rather than compete
and fight within the European community. This does not mean that the German public will
automatically support this European orientation, but basically the support exists. Nor of course the
average EU-citizens. But Adenauer did set a trend towards unification, inclusiveness and cooperation.
Things are always more complicated than we desire them to be. Inclusive political parties and nations
may turn out to be imaginary worlds that cover the real world of powerful vested interests. Adenauer
was aware of the danger but was forced to succumb for all sorts of exclusive pressures. So he ended up
behaving like a rope-dancer. Clever one though.
55
See: Thomas Risse and Daniela Engelmann-Martin, Identity Politics and European Integration: The Case of Germany, in
A.Pagden (ed) The Idea of Europe, From Antiquity to the European Union, Woodrow Wilson Centre, 2002, p287 ff; and Hans-
Peter Schwartz, Anmerkungen zu Adenauer, Muenchen, 2004.
Today we live in postmodern times. The big question can now be formulated this way: is postmodern
culture an expression of relative conformity or pluralism? Apparently it looks like the latter, but on
close examination the apparent pluralism might well be a façade behind which there are strong
tendencies towards conformity and control. Research is needed to find out whether the hidden
predominant function of policies is to seek consensus, to press towards conformity and keep society
under control. It was Jacques Ellul who pointed to the „proteus-like‟ culture of the bourgeois world,
able to incorporate all sorts of cultural expressions and habits. Like the ancient sea-god Proteus, who
was the expression of the ever elusive seawaters. That is why he became later the symbol the versatile,
of people and cultures which may assume many different forms. „Everything is permitted and
everything is interesting‟ as long as it is the „powers that be‟ are not affected by it. It is a way to keep
essential control. Rather than repressive tolerance, it is tolerant repression. With the following
comment: most people are quite happy with the colorful façade and agree to conform to some basics of
uniformity. Applied to the policy deliberation process, we should therefore be on the watch that under
the cloak of pluralism and openness, a powerful actor is not attempting to use the deliberation process
to impose its definitions and interpretations on others.
So the other big question is, whether the policy deliberation process is, can be (and in my eyes „should‟
be) an open process, without power play, or is it bound to be process towards consensus with
representatives from government pushing in that direction, openly or concealed, consciously or
unconsciously.
Conclusion 1: : importance of role of individual people by Parsons ignored. That is why I add:
charisma as an important factor in pattern dynamics. This produces MAGIC
Conclusion 2. The so-called fiduciary system seems essential to pattern maintenance. This does not
mean that power is of less importance. If power is defined as the capacity to define situations (as
Berger and Luckman do) we can say that the fiduciary system can be abused by the powerful party.
Conclusion 3: behind a multi-colored façade a basically uniform society may hide. In this viewpoint
policies are considered to be instruments of maintenance.
See; T.Parsons, The Social System, New York, 1951 and T. Parsons, On the Concept of Political Power, in: Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Society, Vol 107, 3, 1963, p 232 ff; J.Ellul, Métamorphose du bourgeois, Paris, 1967.
Q.A.2.10. Is there a difference between pattern elements and memes?
society perspective.
56
Parallel to biological genes it was suggested that in the sphere of human culture we might improve our
understanding of cultural patterns with the help of memes. Richard Dawkins developed the idea of
memes. He suggested thinking of a cultural element as representing a number of ideas, a sort of
„replicator‟, that has the capacity to generate specific feeling, thinking and behaving. The meme would
be copied so as to generate similar behavior in different contexts. Copying would never be exact. There
will always be some change, like the use of words in language. Some change might involve clever
adaptation to new contexts. So Dawkins used his meme-theory to support a type of cultural evolution
theory.
Now the question is whether memes are similar to what I would call pattern elements. The question is
both yes and no. The idea of a cultural element having the capacity to generate a particular type
behavior in different contexts and emerging somewhere else in a more or less similar way, I have often
observed myself. However I insist that such elements or memes only function within the context of a
pattern. In fact not dissimilar to biological genes, which cannot possibly fulfill any function
individually. It is the pattern that matters. If we use the concept of memes, or pattern elements we
should realize they have a particular function within a pattern. With „pattern change‟ you get „meme
change‟ and with „meme change‟ you get a gradual „pattern change‟.
Memes suggest an element that remains the same in different environments. It is something static.
That is why it suggests powerful determination. This seems questionable in my eyes.
I do realize that particular crucial elements may mark the start of a new process, but the way it
functions is different in each situation, time and pattern.
Philip Davies pointed out that interconnected and meaningful words, notably poetry, are in themselves
acting like brain waves, inviting the listener or reader to tune in and respond. There is no such thing as
copying. Just resonating and responding, which implies an element of creativity.
Finally I fail to see how memes would stimulate any kind of evolution as Dawkins seem to suggest. On
the contrary it strikes me that patterns and pattern elements often develop in such a way that they
have a disturbing effect on the environment or sphere. Problems and frictions are piling on. Often that
is the moment patterns start enfolding. In order to avoid misunderstanding I prefer not to use the
name „meme‟.
Conclusion: in order to avoid misunderstanding regarding an alleged evolution and in order to avoid
misunderstanding regarding the functioning of memes/elements as part of patterns, I prefer not to
adopt the term meme.
See: P. Davies, Reading and the Reader, Oxford, 2013 and also B.Kristensen, Vooronderstelling, intentie en begrip, uitgave
Windesheim HOVO, Zwolle, 1993
57
Q.A.2.11. May different patterns manifest themselves simultaneously in the same policy sphere or
policy area?
The answer is a clear „yes‟. Patterns co-exist in the same policy domain with different people adhering
to different patterns, trying to work together. Think of a quiet summer day in a park with a pond.
There is no wind and the surface of the water is calm. We see no ripples, until a frog jumps in the
water, causing a complicated pattern of ripples. A second later we see the upper back of a fish shooting
away against the surface of the water. Maybe the fish was frightened by the sudden appearance of the
frog. The fish too is causing ripples with a different pattern though. Now that the quietness under
water has been disturbed and the fishes moving around, the egret, standing like a stone statue at the
opposite end of the pond, knows the moment has come. We see his head moving a little and then
suddenly picking up a small fish with his long bill. The quick movement is hardly causing a ripple, but
still it does, a subtle one, spreading over the surface of the pond as well. A boy is throwing a big stone
in the water causing a strong fourth ripple, which seems to dominate the other ones. Now we enjoy the
scene of the four ripples interfering with one another. The last one has not entirely annihilated the
other ripples. They strengthen and cancel one another, they merge and often seem to change direction.
A few seconds later the individual patterns are no longer visible. A new inclusive pattern has been
formed.
So it is in societal reality. Different patterns coexist and eventually merge. Maybe one strong pattern
will dominate the scene for a while, though it is unlikely to annihilate other patterns entirely. In water
ripple patterns come and go in seconds. In society such seconds are like years or even centuries.
Ripples in the water are of a relatively simple nature, whereas the patterns in society are extremely
complicated. But the principle idea is the same.
Think of Andrei Bely‟s experimental novel Petersburg (1916). Great and straight city plan, like
Amsterdam built on a swamp, the underlying mysterious darkness, but with uncertain identity.
Different people viewing the city in different ways, representing different patterns, different colors,
different ideas, confusing communication. Pattern encounter,as the main theme of the novel. Symbol
of modern society in search of identity.
We can think of any policy area in any of the spheres of society. For instance we mentioned the
banking world. There will still be some banks who stick to the old-fashioned idea of financial service to
clients. The bank‟s core business is to keep and lend money. Investments are meant to support the
basic service of the bank. During the past half century we have witnessed the emergence of new
patterns of entrepreneurial banking, offering all sorts of complicated financial products to clients,
while engaging in risky investments and stock market games. And more recently we see some other
patterns unfolding, like green and sustainable banking and Islamic banking. How these patterns will
interfere and which one will eventually enfold is another discussion.
Likewise we see patterns coexist in welfare service delivery, city planning, religious expression, politics
and so on and so forth. Rarely do we see pattern unfoldment in isolation of other patterns. There
always is interference leading to adaptation of a pattern. Put differently, there is the polarity between
pattern maintenance and pattern adaptation. There will be people who present themselves as
defenders of pattern orthodoxy (like Milton Friedman in the area of economy and finance) and people
58
who argue that times have changed and new insights need to be taken into account. (like Paul
Krugman) There will be people who plead for entire pattern change, (remaining in the policy of
economics and finance we should think of pioneers like George Goyder and Fritz Schumacher). All
such voices attract listeners and some listeners get convinced or even enchanted and jump from one
pattern to another. As a result they start reading different publications, become aware of the
shortsightedness of viewpoints that in the past seemed so obviously true, adopt new methods of
working, get new insights and new friends.
Patterns tend to be relevant within just one particular sphere or policy domain. Often we see that the
moment they start having an impact on other spheres, people begin to feel somewhat uneasy and start
questioning the rationality of it. The example of the financial world is typical. Once people realize this
particular banking practice is ruining the lives of individuals (the sphere of the oikos), questions
emerge. That may herald the beginning enfoldment of the pattern. The Dutch journalist Joris
Luyendijk interviewed 300 individuals banking employees and directors in the City of London. What is
interesting is that many of them only started to have questions about the system after they were
dismissed or downgraded, with severe consequences for their private lives. Most of them are now
convinced that radical change is needed. And so are lots and lots of individual citizens who suffered
from risky borrowing.
Many are familiar with the viewpoints paradigm change as put forward by Thomas Kuhn. Indeed, the
same phenomenon co-existence of different patterns occurs in the area of science. Kuhn is focusing on
presuppositions, bounded rationality, ideas and theories. So the term paradigm is apt. Putting things
in a broader societal perspective (Kuhn does this as well, but with less emphasis), I prefer the term
„pattern‟, in order to make clear that interests, values, habits, networks, public discourse as well as
actual behavior are all related and matter significantly.
See: T.S.Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, 1962; and Joris Luyendijk, „Dit kan niet waar zijn‟, 2015.
Conclusion: So, patterns do co-exist. There will be competition, discussion, exchange, dialogue and
fight. There will be people who by all means cling to a pattern (Isaiah Berlin called them „hedgehogs‟)
and there will also always be some who break through the bounded rationality of the familiar pattern
to see whether other patterns might have something interesting and valuable to contribute. (in Berlin‟s
terminology the „foxes‟; unfortunately the hedgehogs outnumber the foxes). This may lead to pattern
adaptation or even pattern change.
Intermezzo: reflection and time
Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote a prose poem on the subject matter:
“On the surface of a swift-flowing stream the reflections of things near us are indistinct;
Even if the water is clear and without foam
Reflections in the constant stream of ripples, the restless kaleidoscope of water,
59
are uncertain, vague and incomprehensible.
But when the water has flowed down river after river
And reaches a broad, calm estuary
Or comes to rest in backwater or a small still lake
Only then, in its mirror-like smoothness, can we see every leaf of a tree on the bank
Every wisp of a cloud, and the deep blue expanse of the sky.
So it is with our lives.
If we cannot clearly see or the reflect the eternal lineaments of truth,
Is it not because we too are still moving restlessly towards some end ? ….”
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Stories and Prose Poems, transl into English by M.Glenny (revised by BK), 1970, p 204
In a poetical way Solzhenitsyn is expressing a fundamental insight in being in the world. It is about
being in time, which means that all awareness and all knowledge are limited, in waiting for further
unfolding. What we see is always a beginning of a process, an indication of what is still to come, never
full reality. It is like being in a house and looking out of the window and seeing part of a landscape,
realizing the landscape is of course much larger. But we cannot see the big picture. We are existentially
dependant on seeing through windows.
Without memory we would be unable to see anything. If all sense impressions come to us as brand
new, we would be unable to make sense of it. Without prior experience there is no experience in the
present nor any expectation for the future. This is why Augustin noted that the present is like the
upbeat in music. He compared life to music. Any musical moment, the tone, is a sort of wake up call,
for it wakens up memory of the past as well as imagination of the future. For without power of
imagination, we would be unable to imagine what might come next, nor to have any expectation, nor to
creatively anticipate the future. Nor will we experience surprise if the next tone is just different from
wht we anticipated. In fact we would be lost in chaos.
Imagination is, like memory, fundamental to human existence.
Solzhenitsyn expressed himself poetically. This is the best way to help us realize that memory is not a
matter of information and imagination not a matter of planning.
Q. A.2.12. Do patterns create a moral order or does a moral order set limits on patterns? Is there
something like a „moral reality‟ outside our patterns to approach and interpret reality?
society perspective. and political system perspective
We will come back to the rather philosophical question about the link between patterns and reality
later. For now I point to an issue that we conveniently or cynically prefer to ignore. In the eyes of
modern people, issues like this are considered to be hopelessly unclear, unfounded, un-objective (to
avoid the term subjective), uncritical, unscientific, unprofessional, unconvincing. If not „unbelievable‟.
60
But are the so-called scientific forms of knowledge well-founded? Knowledge without assumptions is
impossible. The trouble starts with the term „knowledge‟. Kierkegaard (in his Sickness unto Death,
1849) once remarked that „everything is actuation‟. At this moment, at this location, this insight seems
to me self-evident. However, he adds, there is no standing still. Tomorrow we may think again and
what appeared so self-evident to us yesterday may now appear to be utter nonsense. So we better take
a more modest attitude towards knowledge and listen to what our ancestors had to say. We encounter
the enigma of the moral or cosmic order. As a kind of surrounding universe in which our little human
universe is embedded. We often think of the moral order as of a set of rules. Is it? Or is it an awareness
that other creatures have a right to exist, next to me?
For what happens? Our individual and collective activities (like policies) often get stuck. They do not
always achieve the expected and intended output, they may have an adverse effect, they may suddenly
appear to be utterly meaningless, they may provoke moral indignation or whatever. For certain
actions, that we label is immoral, deny the existence of fellow-creatures. Starting with human beings.
The issue is really as old as mankind. 2500 before Christ the Egyptian vizier Ptahhotep wrote the first
book ever about „ Instructions how to live and work‟ . He stated that the goal of both life and work is
realizing or expressing the cosmic order. The Egyptian civilization was almost obsessed with this idea
of a moral and cosmic order, that they called ma‟ at. Indeed it is the capacity of humans to shape and
create social reality. If our man-made reality is not in harmony with ma‟ at, it will not endure, so they
were sure of. If we ignore ma‟at, we undermine existence, our own and that of others. Obeying ma‟at
will bring not just prosperity, but also justice and fairness and, by extension, happiness and a sense of
personal fulfillment. Ptahhotep recommended compassion in order to listen, and listening in order to
understand and understanding in order to act correctly.
2000 Years later Confucius would say more or less the same. In his Analects he states that a human
being can get an understanding of the dynamics of Tian (heaven) and will then start becoming aware
of his own position in the universe. Confucius was not interested in religious beliefs, he was interested
in the sacred cosmos of which the secular is an expression. If the secular is dictated by the common
man, who is focused on his own material interests, decay will be the result. If the secular gets inspired
by the „noble man‟ who is focused on the moral order, development and peace will be the result.
Again 2000 years later the Scottish philosopher William Ross wrote: “The moral order...is just as
much part of the fundamental nature of the universe (and...of any possible universe in which there are
moral agents at all) as is the spatial or numerical structure expressed in the axioms of geometry or
arithmetic”. If we ignore the moral order we run into awkward trouble. Ross discusses and criticizes
various utilitarian theories of morality and ethics and concludes that in utilitarianism the other is
merely considered to be a potential beneficiary of my action implies. Whereas in actual fact the other is
a source of responsibility, who poses a moral challenge to us. He suggests a number of prima facie
virtues to keep in mind in all situations where we face a moral choice which originates in one or more
others who make an appeal to me (see chapter on Appreciation). Later Emmanuel Levinas expressed
himself in a similar way, focusing on the face of the other person that issues a moral appeal. I cannot
face another person without becoming aware of the moral implications of the encounter.
61
For sure such theories or convictions cannot be proved in any empirical way. They are criticized and
even ridiculed widely and sometimes marked as spooky. However, daily experience is difficult to
combine with a purely empirical view of the world. The question can be raised whether purely
empirical attitude can lead to any view of the world at all. Making sense of something is more than a
matter of chemistry. This funny idea that all in nature, including our brains, depends on chemical
reactions. As the Dutch author Gerard Reve famously noticed: „I never received a letter from a
chemical process‟.
Rosenstock Huessy assumed that all discourse is a way of enacting the moral universe, one-sidedly or
fully. The act of talking and discussing is an act of searching, the search for meaning and
understanding. Here I suggest we should consider the fundamental assumption of a cosmic and moral
order of which situations and people remind us of. They appear to appeal to our moral
conscientiousness. To neglect that appeal eventually leads to trouble and force us to revise our course
of action. People with an open attitude to the world around them, prove to be open to the way others
view the world. They develop empathy, which is the basis of an understanding of whence and whither
of other people, of the patterns that direct their thinking. Without empathy the awareness of possible
responses of others will be limited. And maybe fear will be the result, with power-play as a solution to
overcome fear. Policy imagination is based on empathy and understanding and is a much more
creative way of dealing with the apparent incertitude of the environment. Of course, we should be
willing not just to understand but also to take the position and interests of others seriously into
account. That is what morality is all about.
Rather than defining morality as a set of rules, we should consider to define it as the ability and
willingness to put oneself in the position of the other and be fully attentive to the needs of others, to
take them into full account and respond creatively. That is what is essential: creative response, rather
than mechanical response.
This implies that moral awareness comes from outside, from „the other‟, not from inside. Indeed it is in
the nature of patterns that they relieve us from making difficult choices moment after moment. They
suggest order and certainty and we may be tempted to take that all for granted. As a consequence,
morality as a series of rules is like imposing a pattern on the outside world. It is like putting the pattern
in its reverse. Unlike cars which cannot be put in the reverse where it is driving forward, patterns can
be put in the reverse any time. They function well as long they are used to respond to the environment.
They dysfunction once they are put in the reverse and almost immediately start being used to control
the environment. Morality is creative. In order to be creative we have to be courageous, willing to think
out of the box. Immorality is mechanical, geared to control, destructive. And, so Erich Fromm told his
readers many times, akin to autism.
I suppose no human creature has a sound and crystal clear knowledge of that moral order. Sure the
number of people who pretend they know how to discern between good and evil is much higher than
those who have the courage to admit that doubts abound. But if we consider practical life most people
would at least agree that complicated moral dilemmas abound. Dilemma‟s make us realize that
morality is not just a matter of rules. Behind the rules and behind the people who struggle with
62
situations there is something like a general moral awareness. Usually we only have a vague feeling
about the existence of a „moral reality‟ or a „moral order‟, which is not just something ephemeral. That
is not the point. What matters is that people, patterns and policies have a partner in dialogue: the
moral order. Entering into this dialogue will lead to a self-critical attitude and a better understanding
of the partner in dialogue, never to a full understanding though. Which is the reason why moral
development is a matter of life long practice.
The crucial point is that morality favors inclusive development, whereas immorality may favor some
exclusive development but regarding the environment as a whole it leads to decay. That is why Robert
Pirsig during his long tour through North America, discussing professional quality, is starting to
realize that in order to achieve „quality‟ we need to be aware of the cosmic order and how everything
and everybody is part of that cosmos. Going against the grain of the cosmic order, whether in
motorcycle maintenance, financial management, human relations, or education, will cause friction
first, before we finally get stuck. The pattern were eager to develop gets stuck too and will enfold. (We
will come back to Pirsig later.)
The matter comes back when we discuss the appreciation of policies in Part III.
Conclusion: not everything is possible, not everything can be „patterned‟. Our world has both
physical and moral limitations. As individuals and as groups of individuals who behave collectively
according to a pattern we are bound to respond to some moral order. Whether that moral order is like
a foundation that is man-made or „god-created‟ I leave out of discussion here. Generally speaking we
can say that openness and empathy towards others and the willingness to take the interests of others
into account is the basis of morality.
See: Ross, W.D. The Right and the Good , New York 1930 ( Oxford University Press, 2002); Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of
Motorcycle Maintenance, London, 1974; and regarding Erich Fromm, see his The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, New
York, 1973
Q.A.2.13. Can we now have a look on how patterns and policies relate?
society perspective
Let me first give an illustration from daily life. I worked in the governmental sphere as a consultant in
the Caribbean, involved in national planning. When I started the responsible civil servant introduced
me to the cabinet minister. Keep in mind, he said, this minister used to be a great football player. Sport
is for him the essence of life. So your idea to reduce crime rates by stimulating sport will appeal to
him. But be short and concrete to him. He doesn‟t have time for long elaborations. The meeting went
well, lasted long and sports became a central issue of national development. Some months later the
minister was replaced by someone else. Now I was given the advice to present myself as a typical
professional with a good understanding of the „technique of national planning‟. The new minister
apparently was a technocrat. I did my best, somehow, but I failed to come across as a technocratic
professional he apparently was looking for. I got the impression that he did not have much confidence
63
in my ability to write a national plan. So shortly later my contract was ended. Apparently he was
looking for someone who would serve his technocratic ambitions and habits.
What I want to say is that in order to achieve something with people or with groups or categories of
people, you need to take into account their „ways of thinking and judging‟. If you don‟t, there will not
be sufficient trust to start a fruitful working relationship. This is exactly why policy actors should take
patterns into account.
Patterns need people and policies, formal and informal, common and public, for maintenance reasons,
like keeping things under control and adapt to changing environments. Vice versa effective policies
take into account the characteristics of patterns that are typical of the target group. By means of policy
imagination we conceive of a particular pattern development if this or that measure is taken. If a policy
does not reckon with patterns at work, it is unlikely to be effective, for it may spark a negative
responses. This will come as an unpleasant surprise to the policy actor who did not make the effort to
use his imagination. The risk of negative responses to a policy does not mean that the effectiveness of a
policy just depends on whether it is in harmony with a pattern that characterizes the target group. If
that were the case policies were just instruments to stabilize existing patterns of the status quo and
perpetuate problems that the pattern is causing. Just a matter of (pattern) maintenance.
No, the idea is to be aware of all sorts of preconceived ideas and habits (part of common policies, part
of existing patterns) that might be at loggerheads with the policy measures proposed, with the result
that the policy does not work. They have to be taken into account. The policy actor must deal with
them, just like the consultant must deal with the idiosyncrasies of his client, the government minister
or whoever. By taking that into account a possible negative response can be anticipated. All effective
communication is anticipation and so is a good policy. In actual fact a policy may be a way to change
and improve a problematic pattern, or realize a needed shift in an existing pattern or even offer an
alternative pattern.
„Imagination of what might happen if….‟ will lead to reflection and discussion. Imagination starts with
an inner dialogue and the inner dialogue might be extended to a dialogue between two or more
partners. All speech by the way, is an expression of the human ability to reflect and change. By
expressing an experience or intuition in words we become conscious of that experience or intuition. It
is the inception of the inner dialogue, a type of reflection with an inevitable outcome. Reflection
fundamentally implies change, whether in the sense that an opinion or conviction about an experience
or intuition is strengthened or weakened or fading out or replaced by another weak or strong opinion.
By definition reflection means change. Conversely there is no reflection without speech, without
language. Language is to reflection, what patterns are to policies. They are mutually interdependent
with human beings, policy makers as the go-between.
This means there is duality here, 2 systems in dialogue with one another, facilitated by human beings.
We have the pattern as a foundation of meaning, on the basis of which human beings converse in
policy dialogue, leading to new policies as a new system of meaning, interacting with the pattern.
Let me elaborate further.
64
A pattern approach to policy development will take into account that all actors involved in policy
dialogue base themselves on a set of assumptions that color the world. Like: „life is full of
opportunities‟, „only people belonging to the privileged class have opportunities‟; or „our town is safe‟,
„when you go out on the street by night, you need a hand gun‟; or „for each environmental problems is a
technical solution‟, „our planet is going to the bottom‟. Such assumptions lead to all sorts of related
attitudes, choices, and preferences, styles of behavior, ideals and judgments. Together they form a
pattern. Different categories and groups of people feel attracted to different patterns. Some (neuro)
psychologists call it „priming‟ and they have observed that priming tends to evoke similar types of
behavior.
At the level of the individual human psyche, the approach followed here is akin to the „Gestalt theory‟
as originally developed by Köhler and Koffka. They stated that „psychological phenomena should be
conceived as occurring in a „field‟- as part of a system of coexisting and mutually interdependent
factors, having properties as a system that are not deducible fro knowledge of the isolated elements of
the system‟. Patterns are kind of mental fields, which are directing our feelings, beliefs, assumptions,
preferences and so on. Within a particular space with sociological boundaries mental fields may
resonate relatively strongly. Without boundaries they fade out. Fields need space to get intensified and
noticeable to the human mind or brain. Once we get connected to a field we may start conforming
ourselves to it and contributing to the maintenance of the field. Dissonance is avoided. That means
that people will understand and embrace policies that are coherent with the patterns they adhere to.
Whereas policies that are not coherent will be considered as weird, useless or even detestable.
See: For a discussion on Gestalt Theory and Festingers cognitive dissonance theory: M.Deutsch and R.M.Krauss, Theories in
Social Psychology, New York, 1965; and for recent popular and more empiricist study: Daniel Kahnemann, Thinking fast and
slow, New York 2011, p 60 ff. and Rupert Sheldrake, The presence of the Past, Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature,
Vermont, 1988.
Patterns are related to economic class, religious affiliation, education, age, gender and so on. If people
get together to discuss something, they get together not just as „individuals beings‟ but also as
„representatives of a particular pattern‟. As people communicate, patterns change. If we communicate
with people who think very differently, we may get new insights and adopt a somewhat different
viewpoint or may change our attitude. This will result in more discussions with more people and, after
a while, in a minor or major pattern shift. For instance, we may adopt a different attitude to a minority
that so far we considered to be a threat. Or we may change our opinion about health and how to
maintain health.
If we communicate with people who think similarly, our opinions might get strengthened. Our
convictions may even become even more unchangeable. This is a type of change as well. The pattern is
getting more rigid and more stable. By definition communication means change.
65
Let me give 2 more examples that show patterns do matter. The first one is about different patterns of
thinking which lead to an incapacity to develop a needed policy. The second one is about a shared
pattern that the government fails to take into account.
Oil spill
1. One of the many tanks of the big oil refinery on the island has started to leak oil into the sea. Nobody
notices. It starts with a few liters per hour, but some days later tens of thousands of liters flow into the
sea. A major part of the oil is taken by the current into a beautiful lagoon, where is badly effecting the
flora and (marine) fauna. Suddenly some people notice that a disaster is taking place. Slowly action is
taken. First by some individual citizens, environmental NGO‟s and institutes, next by the government
and finally by the oil refinery as well. The main actors seem unable coordinate their rescue activities. A
month later they get together to discuss whether some policy measures are needed to prevent such
calamities to occur again. What exactly was the problem? That is the first issue to discuss. The refinery
is of the opinion that there was a technical problem, due to a failing alarm system. They have already
taken measures to repair and improve the system. So that is it. The environmental NGO‟s are
flabbergasted. Does the refinery not understand an ecological disaster has taken place? „Don‟t you
understand you are a permanent threat to our environment? That is the heart of the problem‟, so it was
put forward by one spokesperson. The civil servant representing the government just seems concerned
about the big number of angry citizens and how to communicate to them that everything is now under
control.
It is not so difficult to see that these three actors with very different „problem perceptions and problem
definitions‟ did not manage to agree on any policy measure. There were some attempts to formulate
issues differently, or to „frame the issues differently‟, but these attempt were not successful. They each
left the discussion with their own thoughts, concerns and anger about the other actors. From a policy
point of view the end result is that nothing was achieved.
Later it was suggested that stakeholders get together, keep one another informed and create a win-win
situation for all. Put differently, it was suggested to form a new network and communicate with one
another regularly. Unfortunately this was not achieved.
See for the sometimes helpful practice of framing: B. Gray, Framing and Reframing of Intractable Environmental Disputes, 1997
2. Tolerance.
Imagine a country where nobody is very particular when it comes to rules. There is a general climate of
tolerance and taking things easy. „Tolerance is the policy of the day‟. Whether traffic rules or coming on
time for an appointment, or obeying tender procedures, paying fines or whatever, few people will stick
to the rules and among those who are charged with checking (police, inspectors etc) tolerance is
customary. Imagine a fresh new minister who wants to change this. Where to start? He decides to start
with some traffic rules, like forcing drivers to obey speed limits, red traffic lights, priority rules and so
on. But he realizes there is not sufficient police force to check everything, so he decides to concentrate
on speed limits first. The new policy is announced on television and on huge bill boards at the
roadside. However, after one year the policy turns out to be a disaster. Why? First of all drivers warn
66
one another by light signals in case a radar is checking speed. Secondly, nobody is paying the penalty
and thirdly drivers continue to drive too fast where they suppose is no control. Why? Tolerance
continues to be the dominant and general pattern. A-typical elements can only be successfully and
effectively introduced if the entire pattern is changed. In other words, without the introduction of a
general zero-tolerance policy (a new and different pattern) individual policy measures will probably
remain unsuccessful.
There is something else as well. I like driving fast and so I do. Suddenly a car coming from the opposite
direction is warning me with a light signal that police is checking speed. So immediately I reduce my
speed with a feeling of thankfulness regarding the solidarity that is apparently emerging among
drivers. I too start warning fellow drivers. Everybody is. Great solidarity. What is happening here? A
so-called „response pattern‟ is emerging as a response to the ministers policy on speed control. All
policies spark response patterns. Policies naturally go hand in hand with response patterns. Effective
policies spark response patterns that are more or less in harmony with the policy pattern. The art of
policy development depends on our capacity to predict response patterns and to take adequate
measures to prevent the wrong patterns to emerge: „response regulation‟.
The minister was aware of this and he decided to consult with different stakeholders how to deal with
the situation. He installed an advisory board and a sounding board with citizens. A new network
pattern emerged which turned out to be crucial in developing a more workable policy
These examples also show that most policy problems are caused by failing patterns, patterns that are
incoherent, contradictory, or without boundaries, unfit to deal with new environments, creating lots of
negative side effects and so on. Such failing patterns stimulate reflection, policy discourse. However,
both individuals and groups of individuals excel in denying negative effects. Most of our daily
conversation at home, at internet and in meeting places is geared to justification of negative behavior
and denying of negative effects. Conversation, discussion and small talk are all ways to uphold our
„ways of being, thinking and doing‟. Policy discourse can be geared to justify and confirm existing
behavior and the pattern underlying that behavior (this is a confirming discourse) or can be a critical
discourse, geared to change.
Fast driving
Fast driving is not a particularly healthy practice. It is a failing pattern of behavior. But the pattern is
strong, for it is supported by masses of impatient people like me, by high tech engines in high tech cars
that can be used on big motor ways, but also, and more excitedly, on small curvy roads with a high risk
of accident. Driving fast means high petrol consumption and more air pollution. People like me will
tell themselves and others that driving fast is adventurous and does not need to be risky as long as you
drive well, react quickly and do not use the hand phone while driving. It may even keep you on the
alert! Yes, indeed, I never had an accident. You see how safe it is? Reassuring reflection. Until
something happens. How to change this pattern? How to change the reflection mode from the
reassuring mode into the critical mode?
67
Conclusion: policies and patterns are closely related. Without basic or elaborated policies to adapt a
pattern to the (always) changing environment there will be no pattern maintenance, just pattern
failure. Policies can also be a way to change and improve a problematic pattern, or realize a needed
shift in an existing pattern or even offer an alternative pattern.
Q. A.2.14. Policies imply a change of behavior and/or habits of people. Does behavioral change
always require pattern change?
society perspective.
Designing policies is like designing new patterns or adapting existing patterns so as to solve some
awkward problems. Policies may offer workable alternative patterns and, first of all, challenge people
to „think and consider‟ the advantages of a different pattern. Like creating conditions so that people on
the road will consider speed limits and drive more safely. In actual fact our modern mobility pattern in
which the car is playing a central role, does not need to be changed in order to improve safety. More
speed control, quick sanction policy in combination with quick cashing (a „tit-for-tat policy‟), a safety
awareness campaign etc are means to support the existing mobility pattern.
Often policies will be ways to „nudge‟ people into desired behavior, according to the pattern that they
take for granted. Maybe with some minor adaptations. It very much depends on the way we think
about situations and interpret problematic situations. For instance by stressing safety. Most people
will agree that safety has priority. Focusing on safety will make it easier to „nudge‟ people into driving
more slowly.
However, policies might also be invitations to think and reflect, to develop „second thoughts‟ with
different behavior as a result, sometimes very different and according to a new pattern. For example;
For a number of urgent environmental reasons it might be necessary to replace the use of private cars
by public transport. That would mean a pattern switch. For our entire life style is dependent on the use
of private car. To abandon private cars and rearrange our life style so as to fit public transport is a
radical change, including new ways of thinking about priorities of visiting friends and relatives. This is
not a matter of nudging people into some change. It will be a matter of tough persuasion or even
enforcement. In other words a different pattern. Or the same pattern but with very strict anti-pollution
policy: demand for smaller and cleaner engines and lower speed.
The way people define situations is never without consequences, positive or negative. Discussing
situations and problems existing patterns may change and new patterns may develop between the
„partners or actors‟. Communication is crucial to deal together with the environment, to interpret, to
understand, to cope with challenges, to adapt, to realize ideals, to check and control and so on.
Communication may lead to adaptation of an existing pattern or to a different and more desirable
68
pattern. In other words, the policy discourse may either lead to adaptation of an existing patterns ( by
means of a policy to improve safety and reduce pollution) or to a total pattern change.
Conclusion: policies and patterns are closely related in that policies are means to adapt patterns to
new environments or attempts to replace a failing pattern for a pattern which is more suitable given
new environmental conditions.
See: John,P. Sarah Cotterill,S. Richardson,L. Moseley, A. Stoker G., Wales, C., Smith, G., Liu, H., Nomura, H.: Nudge, Nudge,
Think, Think: Experimenting with Ways to Change Civic Behavior , 2013; and of course Amitai Etzioni, The Active Society, A
Theory of Societal and Political Processes, New York, 1967, p 223 ff. Much of what is said in this syllabus is based on Etzioni‟s
work.
Q. A.2.15. What do we mean by policy discourse? And who is involved in that discourse?
society perspective.
Goffman frequently pointed to the importance of conversation (everyday talk) : individuals coming
together, expecting some experience of togetherness „which lodges them together in some sort of inter-
subjective mental world‟. This mental world offers a basic perspective to view, frame and interpret the
world and its events. And, vice versa, by interpreting events together, the people involved in this
mental world become even more aware of their togetherness, as if this is the ultimate reality that gives
sense to our daily experience and underlines the credibility of our interpretations. Who is a crook?
Who is a hero? Who is to be trusted? Who should be kept at a distance? Who is right and who is
wrong? What is right and what is wrong? And, likewise, policies will be discussed, interpreted,
assessed and judged.
Policies are patterns of ideas, rules and instruments to cope with the environment together and to
create a situation that appears to be an improvement, a situation we desire together. Many people
believe it is just the government that is discussing public policies, whereas in actual fact lots of societal
actors are engaged in the policy discourse. Moreover, the borderline between common policies and
public policies is not so sharp. There is quite heavy cross-border traffic. Common policy ideas (often
issues that are on the public agenda) cross the border and become public policy issues. CSO‟s,
companies, trade unions, media and individual citizens with their networks and households all discuss
policies, criticize, suggest new policy ideas, get involved in actual policy development and, as a matter
of fact, respond to existing policies in words and behavior. If we look at the almost infinite number of
informal conversations while we are drinking our morning coffee together in the local café, or when we
comment on some policy developments during an evening party, or when we read newspaper articles
or comment on these articles, or participate in meetings at work where some relevant policy issues get
discussed……or when we participate on formal political party discussions, altogether these discussions
contribute to policy opinion formation. And on top of all that is the academic discourse on policies, the
professional discourse as well as the discourse of the civil servants. They all influence one another.
69
Public service policy
A citizen gets nauseated by the slowness, lousiness and lack of customer friendliness of public service.
It takes too much time to obtain a new passport and she has to cancel an important business trip. She
decides to write an open letter to be published by a newspaper. Lots of other citizens with similar
experience write to the newspaper to endorse the viewpoint. Members of Parliament read the letter
and see the many endorsements and call the minister to account for this. Some are shocked. Not
because of the content of the letter, but the fact that somebody dares to question the good intentions of
the public service. They consider the letter is a sign of malignancy. Others consider the criticism
seriously and put forward that we should always be open for critical feedback. As a result a new
internal policy regarding a more customer friendly public service is developed and introduced.
This is what we mean by policy discourse and the positive or negative outcome of it.
The policy discourse gets energized and stimulated if a particular policy idea appears to be at
loggerheads with the interests of some stakeholders or appears to be a conflict with an existing pattern.
In that case a policy discussion with critical reflection is emerging. People will respond. Responses are
always part of the policy discourse. There is the body of communication within a pattern, geared to
pattern maintenance, or the maintenance of the credibility, plausibility or fiduciary system. This type
of communication consists mainly of „enouncements‟, to use this term coined by Foucault, a series of
mutually dependant statements and signs to support a popular opinion. There is little reflection and
little self-criticism. Reflection is too tiresome. Most enouncements are expressions of a myth in the
sense of Roland Barthes (see above Q.A.2.7.). The myth that our public service is customer friendly,
that we should be proud of it and that people who question the customer friendliness are mal-intended
people. However, networks cut across patterns and people adhering to different patterns meet and
talk. So a discussion is emerging that puts different statements and opinions on the table. This results
into an exchange of ideas, critical reflection perhaps, leading to new opinions about what should be
done, what policies are needed. That is why an open and critical policy discourse contributes to
„monitory democracy‟, a term suggested by John Keane.
See John Keane, The Life and Death of Democracy, London, 2009
This may result in stakeholders who press the government to adapt the policy. Some governments
engage themselves in response regulation in order to keep responses under control (see below).
In any case public policies are not just governmental affairs, they are public affairs. And they are
complicated affairs because in modern societies the public is extremely diversified or pluralist.
Evaluation studies too are part of the policy discourse. Especially when evaluation reports are made
public
70
Conclusion: Policy discourse is the body of communication, consisting of conversation, discussion,
dialogue and reflection, plus evaluation that leads to an exchange of ideas and insights, as well as
opinion formation regarding a political issue.
Erving Goffman, Forms of Talk, Oxford, 1981, p 70ff
Q.A.2.16. Why is it that policy discourse is geared to collective action and should be taken into
account by policy craftsmen or experts who develop and design policies? What are the implications of
policy discourse for the nature of policies?
political system perspective
By definition the policy discourse is dealing with more than the course of action of a single person.
Individuals discuss policies and related action together, so in fact they discuss how „one or we should
act or should not act‟. They discuss together and sometimes they discuss directly to representatives of
public service and government or parliament of local council or any person sitting on a public
platform. This way such representatives get feeling of what is going on in the street, what people like
and dislike, what the fear and desire. Policies are about doing things together, thinking together,
dreaming together, imagining new future situations together, being stupid together, ignoring
miserable side-effects of an intended course of action, creating problems together, fighting together,
solving problems together, acting together and correcting others and ourselves. This sounds very
abstract. In fact it is daily practice. “We together‟ form network patterns in which all this happens.
So, on the one hand we have the reality of the policy discourse, which is a sociological fact. People
discuss policies and policy elements daily, at home, in the bus, at work, during a „happy hour‟, at the
newspaper office, in the lecture hall and in public administration buildings. On the other hand policy
designers should pay attention to the policy discourse and make use of it. Unless we understand how
to deal with all such networks, meetings places and discussions we do not get very far. All too often
stakeholders that have an interest in a particular policy, are not involved in networks, or even
excluded. Policy conflict will be likely. So we should make efforts to take network patterns into account
in such a way that all relevant stakeholders get involved.
However, designing policies is a wicked matter. Before you know where you are, you may be on the
wrong track. I have seen lots and lots of policies which initially were beset with positive expectations,
turned out to be a waste of effort, time and money. This is notoriously the case with policies to reduce
crime rates. So you need to be well-aware of the ins and outs of the environment and its cultural and
behavioral patterns as well as policy experiences elsewhere. You need to understand the impatience of
political parties and executives who like to show their muscles and desire to achieve something as
quickly as possible. You need to understand the dynamics of stakeholders, who like or dislike policy
proposals and who mobilize people to support or obstruct. Their interests are at stake. And you need to
be informed about the results of comparative policy analysis. The policy designer must take all this
into account. He or she needs quite a bit of wisdom, creativity and diplomacy to proceed.
71
Point of attention: policy discourse and policy deliberation
The reader will have noticed that in my point of policy discourse is a wide concept and a sociological
concept. Discussing policies and notably the initiation of policy development, we cannot understand
what is happening and why things are happening without paying attention to the general policy
dialogue. It contributes and a myriad of ways to policy development. It is an expression of the informal
policy deliberation process. We may characterize it as the „expansive approach‟ to policy deliberation,
or, as I prefer, call it the „deliberation environment‟. It is within the deliberation environment that any
type of formal policy deliberation is initiated and practiced.
See David Owen and Graham Smith, Two Types of Deliberative System, paper prepared for delivery at the 2013 Annual Meeting
of the American Political Science Association, August 29-September 1, 2013.
Conclusion: By way of conclusion we can redefine the terms policy and policy development: policies
are joint courses of action to create some new order in the patterns that characterize our social
environment. Policy development is the art of responding creatively to the policy discourse by
improving, adapting and harmonizing patterns of behavior, or even initiate new ones in order to create
a more coherent environment which serves the public good and includes the interests of stakeholders.
See: Wu X, Ramesh M, Howlett M, Fritzen S, The Public Policy Primer: Managing Public Policy, London 2010; and Hajer, M.A.,
Wagenaar, H. (eds) Deliberative Policy Analysis, Understanding Governance in the network Society, Cambridge, 2003
Q.A.2.17. Why is theoretical knowledge of the policy development process so useful and needed to
design good policies?
political system perspective
In order to develop workable policies it is not just useful, it is indispensable to have some theoretical
knowledge of the nature of the policy process. It is a process indeed, with a variety of actors involved,
each with their own interests, values and ideals: first the process of deliberation; next the technical
process of elaboration; next the implementation process which involves working together with
different partners and finally evaluation and adaptation if need be.
Maybe you ask why theoretical knowledge about these 4 processes, including some critical steps, is
useful. Well, it is like repairing the engine of your car. You may be clever and repair the engine yourself
without knowing what exactly the fuel is doing in all these cylinders and why these funny pistons are
behaving as they do, going up and down. However, with some theoretical knowledge about the engine,
you will understand its working much better, diagnose a problem more quickly and repair it more
efficiently.
As the great pragmatist philosopher John Dewey put it: „nothing is more practical than a good theory‟.
72
Few policy experts have knowledge of sociology. In my viewpoint knowledge of sociology is a must for
policy experts. Policies impinge on society. If, as a policy expert, you have a poor understanding of
society, the dynamics of society (its patterns) will take you by surprise again and again and you will
have to face the fact that your policies do not work as you expected them to work. In other words, it is
of crucial importance that policy experts anticipate possible responses from society. Policy imagination
is the capacity to imagine which impact a policy will have on society in general and its different spheres
and patterns in particular and how the policy process may influence that impact.
Conclusion: without a good theoretical knowledge of the dynamics of society and of the policy
process, a good policy is unlikely. A good policy is like an adequate and well-communicated response
to a problematic issue in society.
73
B. What is a policy?
1. The term policy
The former Dutch prime minister Ruud Lubbers once made the following remark: „if a government is
without consistent policy the only thing that will be achieved is chaos and misery‟.
Summary
In this paragraph we try to understand the implications of the fact that policies are based on „logic of
finality‟ (Aristotle). Aristotle was sure the logic of finality is at least as important to understand human
behavior as causal logic. The logic of causality is based on the assumption that external factors
determine our behavior and personal development. Whereas the logic of finality focuses on goals that
people try to achieve. Such goals are an important determinant of behavior.
The goals that we cherish color the way we look at our environment or experience the present. They
may even determine the diagnosis of the present. That is why we may speak of „objective directed
analysis or diagnoses.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Q.B.1
Question/
paragraph
Issues Page
Q. B.1.1 Meaning of the word „policy‟ again 75
Q. B.1.2 What does „logic of finality‟ mean? 76
Q. B.1.3 What are the policy implications of logic of finality and what is
„objective directed diagnosis‟?
78
Q. B.1.4 What do we mean by the principle of indeterminacy of
behavior?
82
Q. B.1.5 Importance of evidence and novelty for policies 85
Q. B.1.6 Policy discourse and public morality 87
Q. B.1.7 Link between indeterminacy of behavior, objective directed
diagnosis and public morality
88
74
Q. B.1.1. Again, what is the meaning of the word public policy?
A commonly accepted definition of a public policy says: “ A policy is a plan (or a chosen or joint course
of action) of a policy actor to solve a particular problem or to realize a valued goal, in coordination with
other actors, with the use of a coherent number of activities (means or instruments), according to a
certain time schedule”. This is a somewhat technical definition of policies. This is OK, but it bypasses
the complicated nature of the policy process. The more complicated description of policies that is
suggested here, forces us to realize that policies are more than a technical process. Anderson is a bit
more careful. He formulates: „a relatively stable, purposive course of action, followed by an actor (or
set of actors) in dealing with a problem or matter of concern‟. It focuses more on what is being done
(policies in practice) than what is ideally intended.
Most policy definition focus indeed on policies as such, while neglecting
1. The intricate relationship between a policy and its social environment the processes which leads to
the adoption of a policy. Put differently, there is no such thing as a policy without an environment.
Policies impinge on the targeted environments and necessarily affect other environments and its
various patterns.
2. The intricate relationship between policies and values. Policies are always expressions of values and
attempts to put some valued ideas into practice, to shape the environment. Even within the
technological approach for it is the expression of the idea that a good society can be engineered, that
an engineered order is what human progress is heading for.
3. The entire process that leads to policy formulation and adoption. In other words, policies are the
result of a „policy discourse‟. In actual fact this is the policy development process.
That is why I prefer to define public policies as : joint courses of action in order to realize a „political‟
objective, i.e. for the public good, or to shape the social environment according to some values. Policy
development is the art of responding creatively to the policy discourse by adapting, improving and
harmonizing patterns of behavior, or even initiate a new pattern, in order to create a more coherent
environment that serve the interests of stakeholders better, and ultimately serve the public good.
The „joint course of action‟ implies that not just one actor is involved in carrying out a policy, but
usually a number of actors together. In the case of public policies a governmental agency acts as the
main policy actor, the coordinating actor.
There is something hidden here, which in my point of view is essential. The policy development
process and the policy-in-practice point to attempts to gain or to keep a process under control. The
process of policy development with a myriad of actors and factors involved and the process of policy
implementation geared to improve the environment or keep a changing environment under control.
75
In Dutch the word „beleid‟ is used, which literally means „guided or coordinated or controlled‟, so in
practice the word (as a noun) means „a well coordinated process intended to realize a set of objectives‟.
Most languages use the word „policy‟. In Papiamentu however a similar word as the Dutch „beleid‟ is
used: „ maneho‟ , which is related to the management of a process.
It is very useful to keep in mind that policies are indeed about managing a process, of implementing
the policy, shaping the environment, reflecting on feedback, of evaluating and adapting the policy.
See: Anderson, J.E. Public Policymaking, Boston, 2006
Point of attention : Policies, programs and projects
Nowadays we like to work with „programs‟ in order to improve the quality of governmental service or
in order to combat criminality or poverty and so on. International donor organizations like to support
programs in countries that they work together with. Sometimes different donor organization support
different programs in the same country that overlap one another. That has sparked discussion on the
links between policies and programs.
To me it seems wise to make sure a „program‟ is a set of activities that fit a policy and contributes to
goals realization of that policy. Programs will be carried out over a limited period of time. Whereas
policies might have an undefined end. Programs tend to be clearly defined with concrete objectives,
activities (projects), indicators and a time schedule. Programs may boost the policy implementation
for a while. After completing the program the general policy implementation should be easier and
more effective.
We may think of a policy to combat criminality in a country. There is the general policy, with its laws,
financial incentives, institutional arrangements etc. But for a short period of time a program might be
adopted to carry out a number of very specific activities, like training of police, pilot projects in
neighborhoods, activities to reduce the number of private weapons, street control etc. All these
activities can be called „projects‟. The projects fit meaningfully in the program, as the program fits
meaningfully in the policy.
By linking programs with official policies, donor organizations are forced to see to it that programs
they suggest fit national or regional policies too. This will be conducive to coherence of efforts.
Conclusion: thinking of policies we should think of the outcome of a policy deliberation process that
can easily get out of control, of expressions of values to shape the environment and last but not least to
the actual process of shaping or reshaping the environment.
Q. B.1.2. Why is the „logic of finality‟ important for policies?
According to Aristotle policies are based on „logic of finality‟ and need a particular kind of wisdom
(which he called phronesis: see below) to determine desirable ends and appropriate means of attaining
them. Aristotle was sure the logic of finality is at least as important to understand human behavior as
76
causal logic. The logic of causality is based on the assumption that external factors determine our
behavior and personal development. They do. However, by one-sidedly focusing on the logic of
causality people are seen to be the „outcome‟ of external factors and start seeing themselves likewise, as
unlucky victims. This is what the French philosopher Sartre called „facticity‟. Bowing to facticity has a
paralyzing effect. But think of daily practice. Usually we adopt a totally different attitude. We are
somewhat aware of external factors having an impact on our lives, but living is a way of overcoming
these external determinants, of not letting ourselves be determined, dictated, imperialized, colonized,
terrorized or whatever by these external circumstances. Daily practice is rather a way of overcoming
restrictions. Finding a way out. Finding loop holes. Dreaming and setting goals, realistic or unrealistic.
Never mind, as long as we don‟t get reduced to the status of a puppet. Aristotle is crystal clear on this.
We seldom accept reality as it is. We are set in time, in past and future. Time is a dimension of
existence. As dreaming creatures we desire some of our dreams to become true or to be like the model,
or pattern, that we have in mind and that we feel we can or should achieve. Collectively we try to create
an environment that is healthy for all of us, and we take action in order to achieve what we believe is
desirable. This is what we call policy imagination. “The end of the polis (the city-state in his days) is
the good life”. The purpose of the political organization with its policies is to give to persons what they
need, in some equitable, fair and just way. Goal-directedness is essential to any organism. That is why
we say, for instance, there is a reason for having valves in the circulatory system of the blood, namely
to prevent the regurgitation of the blood. Organs and their function exist in view of the functioning of
the entire body. It is only when something does not function well, that we look for causes. „Physiology
is a system of rules of rightness‟, of right functioning, Polanyi stated. And not just that. Because the
environment is basically surprising and always changing, any physiological system should have the
capacity to adapt as flexibly as possible, using feedback information. Likewise social and political
systems have rules of rightness and ways to use feedback information to correct, adapt and change, if
needed. When we see we are not achieving what we want to achieve, we adapt our plan of activities
and we may also adapt our goals. This is learning. So learning does not just belong to the realm of the
logic of causality, but also of the logic of finality.
But there cannot be any learning without memory. It I because we remember experiences from the
past that we learn from it and do not fall in the same trap again. It is because we remember
experiences that we can extrapolate and imagine future situations and take timely and adequate
measures. It is because we remember experiences from the past and imagine future developments that
we have the power to be creative, relating the past with the future, being in the present with the power
to act conscientiously. What for?, we should ask again. „The good life‟ sounds like a hollow phrase. Is
it? Is good or healthy living, individual and collective, not the condition of flexible exchange with the
environment? And is it not also freedom to development without harming others? Room for all? Room
in the „common space‟? We will come back to it later.
Talking about the hollowness of phrases and the dreaming character of humans, it is a good moment
to pay attention to the need to look into the future in terms of pattern unfoldment, rather than just
formulating some unfeasible objectives. Pattern unfoldment links the present to the future. Most
citizens get tires of politicians with their beautiful but empty promises. In several countries the joke
77
goes that the only way to make sure politicians stop talking, is to abolish the future tense in the
language. The message is clear. But we should not forget the lesson: patterns are needed to imagine the
future.
Conclusion: there is no such thing as a policy without goals that are seen to be of value. The entire
policy process is meant to adapt ourselves to our environment or shape the environment in accordance
with that valued objective, which is living in dialogue with the environment. That is why we say that
policies are goal-directed, and hence belong to the realm of logic of finality. And in order to imagine
realistically we need to have a good understanding of pattern dynamics of unfoldment and
enfoldment.
See: Aristotle, Politeia, III, 9, transl. B.Jowett, Oxford, 1905; Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge, Towards a Post-Critical
Philosophy, 1958, p360 ff; for an extensive exposition see M.J.White, Political Philosophy, A Historical Introduction, Oxford,
2012, p65 ff
Q. B.1.3. Which are the implications of logic of finality for policies and what do we mean by „objective
directed diagnoses?
Policies are „about the (valued) ends or goals of action....and the discovery of the proper actions which
are means towards it‟. Activities can only be understood in the perspective of the ends or goals they are
supposed to achieve. Logic of finality shows how different activities relate towards one another as
means towards ends.
Much of our reasoning ignores the logic of finality. To give an extreme example think of the many
yellow colored houses in Curacao. Why are all these houses yellow? Somebody replied: that is because
the walls were treated with yellow paint….. This type of reasoning is in less exaggerated form rather
usual. And indeed the yellow paint-particles do stick to a stone wall and do evoke a yellow experience
to the human eye. A better answer is of course that over a hundred years ago a Dutch governor noticed
the white colored houses in the tropical sun light were causing irritation to the eyes in headaches in the
head. So he ordered to paint the houses yellow, intending to reduce irritation.
On the basis of Aristotelian logic the Dutch Kuypers based his very original view on policy analyzes.
And he defined:
Activities (or means) are deliberately selected „causes‟ of desired ends; i.e. they are expected to
effectuate the desired goal.
Ends, objectives or goals are intended „consequences‟ (of the planned activities).
Peter John formulates sharply: the idea of policies and outcomes of policies involves the „deliberate
setting into motion chains of cause and effect‟.
78
Sure, reality is always more complicated than the models we use to understand it. Two remarks. First,
not all our desires will be translated into intentions and not all our intentions will be put into practice.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, so the saying goes. Furthermore, not all our intentional
activities will achieve what we desire to achieve. Maybe even the opposite. Activities may have a
contrary effect. Almost always our activities have some intended and unintended side effects, positive
or negative. In other words, we cannot just base a prediction on the intentions of actors. Intentions
and intended actions matter a lot, but do not determine what is going to happen. Later we will see that
such observations (elaborated by the British the philosopher Anscombe) are of the utmost importance
for policy development. Secondly, looking at a new situation which is the result of some intended
activities (policies), Kuypers likes to call such situations „intended consequences‟. Maybe and maybe
not. Maybe other factors were at work and have created the desired situation. In other words, the
(policy) actor was lucky. But maybe next time is no longer lucky and the policy turns out to be a failure.
What is more, one actor my indeed have wanted to achieve something. But this actor cannot carry out
the activity alone. Others are needed. These others might not at all be interested in achieving that
situation. Perhaps they just want to earn some money. So they help and provide support. Or they
collaborate in order to secure a service in return. Or they do not have the guts to say no. Or they get
hypnotized by the charm of the person who is asking to collaborate. This means that lots of actors
involved in realizing a desirable situation are not really desiring that situation. Their intentions may
point in different directions. However, often such diversity of activities does more or less lead to the
desired state of affairs of the policy actor. So they somehow „fit‟. This is sometimes called the „direction
of fit‟. In policy development we should pay attention to „fitting‟ planned activities and instruments
and , not to forget, intentions. If intentions more or less fit, we get very far with a policy. If not we will
get stuck. By now the reader will understand why this type of approach is often called „intentionalism‟.
(see: G.E.M.Anscombe, Intention, 1957 (Harvard ed 2000); Aristotle, Politeia, VII, 12, transl B.Jowett, Oxford, 1905
G. Kuypers, Beginselen van beleidsanalyze a en b, Muiderberg 1980, and H. Van de Graaf en R. Hoppe, Beleid en Politiek, Een
Inleiding tot de beleidswetenschap en de beleidskunde, Bussum, 1996 and Peter John, Making Policy work, 2011, p16.
Let us have a closer look at what the originator, Aristotle, had to say on the matter. For Aristotle the
causa finalis is essential to human and societal development. Development is by definition directed
towards a goal. There is also a causa materialis, which point to all external and material causes that
determine our existence: varying from skin color to cultural roots. External means that it is external to
human decision power. Above we noticed that Sartre was speaking of „facticity‟, by which he meant the
aggregate of facts of the situation we were thrown into (like Heidegger‟s „Geworfenheit‟, the fact we are
„thrown‟ into being). This includes the consequences of the previous choices we made. If considered
one-sidedly the causa materialis or facticity has indeed a paralyzing effect on our existence. It lures us
into quietism, or passivity as Sartre would say. Whereas a focus on goals to realize, the causa finalis,
has a mobilizing effect. Existence means that „we are propelled towards a future and we are aware of
it‟. Such focus on a future state of affairs to realize stimulates development: I or we want to get there
or become like that, irrespective of „determinations from the past or from material obstacles‟. It is
about dreaming and trying to turn a dream into reality and about not wanting to become a victim. This
is important even if our dreams, leading to intentional activities, do not yield the desired results. This
79
is all part of our complicated reality. It is complicated for dreams can be realized both in a destructive
and a creative way. Destructive, if just one own perspective is valid which of course is exclusiveness).
Creative, if the perspectives of relevant others is taken into account as well. Destructiveness is easy.
Creativity is a complicated challenge.
Sartre used a similar distinction in his existentialist view of being. To be „en soi‟ leads to passivity. To
overcome the „en soi‟ and start being „pour soi‟ means moving from non-existence to existence, to
making fateful choices. Hiding behind thousands of reasons why you cannot do this or why you should
do this, is escaping responsibilities, reducing ourselves to pitiful dummies. The scapegoat and victim
mechanism is paralyzing indeed. Assuming full responsibility for one‟s own life and setting goals to
achieve is like moving from a self-destructive attitude to a creative attitude. Ian Smart analyzed the
paralyzing effects of the history of slavery on Afro-Americans. He stresses the importance of „studying
the past in order to understand the present and to prepare adequately for the future‟. The past is not
limited to Europe. It includes Africa and Asia. Likewise the future should include all nations and
people.
See: J.P.Sartre, L‟ Existentialism est un humanisme, Paris, 1946; Emmanuel Mounier, Introduction aux existentialisms, Paris,
1962; Ian I. Smart, Affirmative Action and West Indian Intellectual tradition, Port of Spain, 2004, p 154 ff;
As policies belong to the sphere of the causa finalis, they have a strongly mobilizing effect on society,
especially when the right and relevant people get involved in policy development and the fitting goes
well. But that does not mean that problem analysis, searching for causes, is not a crucial activity in
policy development. It most certainly is important. The point is that problem analysis is not the whole
story. It is the background story on the basis of which a new story must be built. Policy development
should pay ample attention to external factors which effect present situations and might support or
contrarily obstruct the realization of the policy objectives. Bad policies ignore such factors.
The Greeks pointed to Prometheus who apparently was charged by the gods with „foresight‟ and to his
brother Epimetheus who was charged with „hindsight‟. We need both. The latter to learn and the
former to hope and to imagine and improve creatively.
The causa finalis is about a desirable situation to be realized. What is desirable is determined by values
and ideals, interests and rights. They tell you where to go and they tell you what is wrong with the
present. It is a continuous thinking towards a desirable future and from there back to the present to
see what needs to be changed. Here the „to-and-fro‟ dynamics gets manifest: thinking towards a
desirable situation will lead you back to the situation you come from and put that situation in the light
of the desirable situation. Put differently: desired ends illuminate the present situation. They may even
determine the diagnosis of the present.
In other words, thinking in terms of the causa finalis is not just instrumental thinking about how to get
somewhere, it sparks a discussion about the nature of the present as well. This can be called „objective
directed analysis or diagnosis‟. Let me give an example.
Quality of education
80
In the Republic of Moldova a number of civil servants of the Ministry of Education got together with
school directors and various stakeholders, who were concerned with improvement of quality of
education. At first the features of an ideal educational system were discussed. The list was long and not
particularly consistent. Suddenly somebody suggested focusing on the question which main objectives
the educational system was directed to. This turned out to be a very creative exercise. Main objectives
that were mentioned were: personal development, labor market features, needs of employers for
specific young professionals, national development. Now it was much easier to analyze the present
educational system. As we focused on the ideal situation, the more we discovered what was lacking in
the present situation. A typical case of „objective directed analysis‟.
We argue that all analysis and diagnosis is basically „objective-directed‟. Our desires tell us that
something is not right in the present situation. Problems have been defined as the gap between the
present situation and the desirable future situation. The objective is providing the fuel for reflection
and investigation. What is more, we are not dealing with a static reality. Reality is in continuous flux.
We may compare the analysis of social situations with determining the course of a ship at sea. It is
moving into a certain direction. Which direction is the situation developing into? Is that the direction
we want? Is that the direction others want to go, perhaps? There is nothing to say about the course of a
ship at sea if we do not have any harbor in mind.
Already long ago St Augustine (354) pointed out there is no „seeing‟, no observation, no orientation, no
exploration, no investigation and no thinking without an intention. Intention, knowledge, reflection
and change go hand in hand. Polanyi suggested the term „heuristic field‟, suggesting that „reality‟
(whatever object) moves our thoughts and senses as a result of our intentional attitude, geared to
knowing. So there is mutuality. Our mind gets „inserted‟ in reality as it were, and vice versa. We may
speak of „mutuality of insertion‟ (we will elaborate in paragraph Q.C.7.2.) Under the guidance of some
rules and checks – we increase our understanding of reality and as we seem to understand better, we
discover more and more. Gradually reality divulges. And as it is divulging it is at the same time
evolving.
See: Polanyi, M., Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, Chicago , 1958, p 403
Anscombe‟s analysis (see above) is useful in understanding policy imagination, which we will elaborate
later. Seeing, observing and communicating always means change. We cannot „touch‟ (I use the word
now metaphorically!) anything without changing it or changing its course of development. Karl Popper
never got tired of saying that observation never takes place in a mental void.
That is also why Merleau-Ponty and Denis de Rougemont stated that „thinking and acting go hand in
hand: practognosie as Merleau Ponty called it. We may touch intentionally or accidentally. As we
move around, we touch things with our senses, including our hands, we „discover‟ something, literally
un-cover. The un-covering is the response of reality to our touching, intended or unintended. The
point is that reality is not static. Reality is fundamentally „response‟ to whatever touch, whatever input.
81
Knowing reality is knowing the way(s) it will respond. This is what we discover or uncover by touching
it. To stretch our mind towards the object of attention, is in fact what attention is all about.
It is impossible to just touch anything without any change. So, as we „touch‟ something we witness a
process of change and the change reveals an aspect of its being. But that aspect of its being cannot be
detached from the link with the person who touches. If we touch unintended and if we are sufficiently
attentive to notice the response, this response is a sort of wake-up call, an unexpected insight.
The question: "What is the object of knowledge?" is answered by De Rougemont by the statement:
„There is no object of knowledge. To know is to be able to operate and think adequately in an individual
or cooperative situation‟. All doing leads to some sort of knowing, and all knowing is related to doing.
But there is no movement of the body, which is not directed towards a goal.
We need to take one step more: the process of knowledge formation is a process determined by mutual
intentions and responses. Especially (though not exclusively) in the sphere of humans and society. As
we proceed we discover something and as we discover something we change or adapt our intentions
and as we change our intentions, we discover more, or less, and we change. This needs elaboration. But
before we elaborate we draw a conclusion
Conclusion: logic of finality not just leads to envisaging a desirable future environment, concretized
in goals to achieve, but also to viewing the present situation in the light of the desired future situation.
It means looking differently at the present, looking with a different intention. This leads to a different
diagnosis, which we call „objective directed diagnoses.
Q. B.1.4. What do we mean by the „principle of indeterminacy of human behavior‟? And why should
we keep this principle in mind when we engage in policy development with different stakeholders, so
engage in a policy deliberation process?
society perspective.
On to a crucial principle. This requires a little elaboration of some phenomenological principles.
Reality in general and human-social reality in particular can never be compared to a mechanism. It
much rather is a living organism. Therefore: we should pay attention to the principle of indeterminacy
of human behavior. An understanding of this principle will lead to an understanding of the
fundamental flaws of any „instrumental view of policies‟, as if it is just a matter of developing and
applying the right instrumentation in order to reach the desired goal. Human beings do not fit the
Pavlov model. Likewise it is futile to dream of any kind of „evidence based‟ type of therapy, policy or
whatever.
The issue emerges with a simple observation.
Example
82
As a young student we were expected to interview a number of middle aged people to find out how
strong and how widespread the need for homes for the elderly is. The province of North Holland
needed that information in order to develop a policy for the elderly in the future. The day we started
our interviews there appeared a shocking article on the front page of a major newspaper (De Telegraaf)
with the heading: „abuses in homes for elderly‟. We realized that our interviews were likely to reveal
that the need for a home for elderly was minimal.
During one of these interviews I noticed something else. We had to ask some questions about lifestyle,
needs, desires etc before asking the main question: do you think a home for elderly people might be a
good solution for you in the future? One person answered: „well, now that we are discussing this I
realize it might not be a bad idea‟. At that moment I realized the interview had changed his mind! In
other, methodological words, it is impossible to get a static picture of reality. As we are taking a
picture, reality is changing. A reflection process is sparked the moment we start with an interview or
an observation, with a very uncertain outcome.
A conversation, a discussion may make people aware of something they were not aware of before. Even
a word or a gesture or an event may raise awareness. Awareness and consciousness are strong words.
Rightly so. They indicate an immediate relationship with the reality around us. A thought, an opinion,
a theory, a presumption, a conviction, a piece of knowledge are all constructs of the mind. Awareness
on the other hand suggests a kind of insight in the matter-as-it-is. Or more philosophically, in the
matter or the person „being-here‟, in that it discloses itself at that unique moment of awareness. If
existence (or „Dasein‟ to use Heidegger‟s term) means „disclosedness‟, or „openness‟, the human state of
mind that seems to sense what is happening we call „awareness‟. Awareness is the discovery of
existence. It is a mode of the mind that is altogether different from having a thought or opinion.
Awareness is fateful in that it changes our way of orientation, our attitude, our opinion, our way of
thinking. In whatever we do or say, there is always the possibility of awareness. Especially when our
mind is in the reflective mood, for it is a state of readiness to perceive what is going on. But not
necessarily so. Awareness may also take us by surprise. Awareness, in turn, will switch our mind into
the reflective mood. The potential of being aware, is, so it seems to me, the heart of the principle of
indeterminacy of human behavior. Hannah Arendt tried to say something similar and calls it the „ two-
in-oneness‟ of reflecting people: I observe, consider and act, but I also check, reflect and reconsider.
Consider now the following: There are several types of logic of finality! In astronomy the logic of
finality is different from biological logic of finality, is different from human logic of finality. Focusing
on the human logic of finality the mind is playing a crucial role. The human mind cannot be programd
like a robot. Sure, sometimes we respond „mechanically‟ or „automatically‟ to an external policy
incentive and without realizing we thus contribute to the success of a policy. Most of the time we
behave and act according to behavioral patterns that we share with the people around us, without
much reflection. But even then our minds are not entirely passive. We always digest information given
to us, individually and together with others. Sometimes we consciously ask: is this right, useful,
meaningful? Are they playing tricks on me? Giddens was speaking of „the continuous reflective
monitoring of action‟. We just cannot stop reflecting on the way we are doing things, or planning to do
83
things, or the consequences of our doing. Before we embark on an adventure we deliberately decide to
do what we are used to do and to „obey‟ an existing pattern or to „protest‟ and to change the pattern or
to „neglect‟ any past experience and creatively go a completely new way. That is why on close
examination prediction is impossible in the human sciences, there is only a certain probability that
people will act this way or another. The human mind does not work like any kind of mechanism. It
much rather functions as a disturber of normal patterns and procedures. This is the „principle of the
indeterminacy of human behavior‟. The methodological implication is the moment a prediction
regarding behavior is expressed it is already obsolete. For the subject matter which concerns the
prediction, man and society, will receive the information and superficially or thoroughly respond to it.
Response means change. Later we will say more about this „principle of obsoleteness‟.
The implications for the policy deliberation process are obvious. The policy deliberation process is
indeed a process which puts the actor into a reflective mode in which opinions of different actors are
being developed. Actors start reflecting on the implications of a possible policy. In other words they
start imagining what might happen if no policy is introduced or if a particular policy is introduced.
What might be the consequences? How will I or we respond to such a policy? Will that be in our
interest? Will it be in accordance to our values? Do we want that? But the discussion may also lead to a
change of opinion, especially when actors become aware of something they were not aware of before.
In other words, the policy deliberation process, if carried out without the shadow of power, can be
expected to be an awareness raising and opinion formation process.
This also means that all information and communication theories which are based on a „fixed target
group‟ are bound to have limited value. There is much talk about information campaigns, information
tools or information-based implementation tools and persuasion tools, as if citizens can be „treated‟
with information so as to affect their behavior in the direction that the government considers
desirable. Unless citizens are stupid, such mechanistic views are really nonsense. All we can do is to
motivate citizens to consider changing their opinions and behavior, or to challenge them or to invite
them for dialogue.
Possible responses to policies and „response patterns‟ are crucial in policy work. The policy designer
must tell himself frequently that policies are geared to humans who will respond consciously, rather
than mechanically. Between any policy incentive and the (desired) human response to the incentive,
are the human minds with capacity to reflect. The outcome cannot be perfectly predicted. Reflection
and creativity are twins. So are memory and expectation. The twins are continuously conversing with
one another.
Conclusion: The principle of indeterminacy of human behavior means that the human mind may any
time switch to the reflective mode and a thinking/changing process is starting up. The switch is very
likely in any discussion or interview. That is why sociological knowledge is never „hard‟. This applies to
the policy deliberation process as well. This process is indeed a process which puts the actor into a
reflective mode in which opinions of different actors are being developed into a policy that is,
84
hopefully, likely to be acceptable to all. The policy deliberation process, if carried out well, is both an
awareness raising and an opinion formation process with uncertain result.
See Giddens, A, The Consequences of Modernity, London 1992. For an extensive analysis of reflexive monitoring see Giddens, A,
The Constitution of Society, 1984.; ; MacKay, D.M. The clockwork Image, London 1974; W.V.O.Quine, From a logical point of
view, Cambridge 1961; C.Verhoeven, Het besef, Woorden voor denken en zeggen, Baarn 1961.
Q. B.1.5. Why is the combination of evidence and novelty crucial for a good understanding of policies
and the process of policy development?
society perspective.
We already noted that Prometheus was charged by the gods with „foresight‟ and to his brother
Epimetheus with „hindsight‟. The first with a good understanding that imagining a future state of
affairs mobilizes peoples, whereas the latter understands that the lessons from the past put us in the
caution mode. Novelty and evidence too are twin brothers.
Today there is a strong interest in developing „evidence‟ based policies, therapies and medications,
ignoring the basic fact that human beings have the ability to reflect, judge, deny or deliberately accept
something. And ignoring the fact that any application of knowledge takes place in ever changing
environments, about which human beings reflect..... „ Evidence based‟ (better would be to speak of
„probability based‟) policy solutions as such do not exist. But of course there is the likelihood that
experience from the past will be applicable today. We can learn lessons from the past, especially if
these lessons are based on reliable research. But each situation is unique and, what is more, no
„evidence‟ will ever switch off the reflective mode of human beings, unless they choose to be stupid for
a while. None of the one-sided empiricist approaches manage to deal with human intentionality, nor
with the ability of humans to reflect and creatively develop alternative responses. Winking to Popper
and Polanyi we may call this the „poverty of empiricism‟ and the „vanity of evidence‟. There is no
knowledge without personal judgment and commitment. Whatever empirical evidence, there is bound
to be a moment that we commit ourselves to it or refrain from commitment ( a slight feeling of doubt is
creeping into our mind) and decide to follow a different course. That is why I propose a mild variety of
evidence-based policy solutions. In other words, there is always the possibility of „deviation from
evidence‟.
But that is half the story. The other half is that we should take into account the logic of finality which
implies that we always dream of desirable and undesirable future state of affairs. We live by
imagination, so to speak. And as we are developing policies we might imagine new objectives.
Likewise, as we are putting policies into practice, we also might imagine new and better objectives.
Sure “policies need to be evidence based and novelty geared”, but let us take into account the policy
development and implementation are processes. During the process some specific lessons from the
past might not be relevant anymore and others might gain relevance. And objectives might also
change. The renowned historian John Lukacs discussed these issue with regard to his discipline:
85
history. „Facts‟, so he stated „are dependent on their associations with other facts as well on the way
they are used to make statements‟. Nobody will ever take the trouble to find out the facts, without the
intention to use them for a statement. History is not just a matter of studying and seeing, but thinking
about what is seen. And so he came up with the idea that the proper study of history „conscientious
history‟, as an ongoing process of memory development.
This does not mean that everything is basically uncertain. It just means that all good theories,
including all „evidence‟ derived from our theories, are not just open to objective falsification, but also
need to be applied in new environments. Our quest for evidence and effectiveness is „unended‟ so to
speak.
To approach it from another angle, thinking laterally so to speak, we may say that living is determined
by reality and dreaming. A mere focus on reality leads to entropy, to decay. A mere focus on dreams
leads to futility and vanity. The art of policy development, like the art of living, is to combine the two.
see: Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge. Toward a Post-Critical Philosophy, 1958; Karl Popper, Unended Quest, 1992, 45 ff,
162ff, London 1992; and John Lukacs, At the End of an Age, London, 2002, p 82ff
So, policy development is not a „technical or instrumental way of doing things‟ nor a bureaucratic,
ritualistic or symbolic type of state activity, no, it is potentially much more, it should be an inherently
creative and‟ syntropic‟ (in contradistinction to „ entropic‟) process of activities.
If policies and policy development become just instruments to maintain the status quo, there will be
little noveling up, there will hardly be any syntropic effect. Such policies are directed to control. In
such cases the only novelty they serve is a new instrument of control for an existing pattern in a
changing environment. Indeed lots of policies are part of MAGIC: pattern maintenance.
Above we referred to policies as the reflective mode of patterns, facilitated by reflective humans. The
continuous policy discourse evokes reflection and imagination, which may lead to further pattern
unfoldment and improvement and sometimes to necessary pattern change.
Conclusion: The policy discourse may at times lead to deliberate strategic change, i.e. to policies,
aimed at realizing a new set of objectives (geared towards a novelty). Policies may lead to quite
substantial environmental change. Sometimes intended. But not necessarily the change that was
intended. Response policies and unforeseen side effects may lead to a different kind of environmental
change than intended. The policy process is fundamentally a process and the challenge is to render
that process syntropic rather than entropic.
See: M Howlett, Designing Public Policies, Oxon, 2011, p18; and for further reading: Anderson, J.E. Public Policymaking,
Boston, 2006; Dye, T.R. Understanding Public Policy, New York, 2002
86
Q. B.1.6. Why is public morality crucial for a successful policy discourse?
society perspective. and political system perspective
Of course different partners in the policy dialogue will not naturally desire the same things. Their
particular policy imagination can be expected to be quite diverse. There is always a conflict of interest
between different groups and categories of people in society. This means that it might not be so easy to
embark on a policy collectively and in harmony. Unless we favor disharmony for some Machiavellian
reason, we need to get together and start a policy dialogue directed to at least a minimal „communis
opinio‟ regarding goals to achieve and ways to realize them. For we all need one another. This is what
Aristotle had in mind when he characterized man as a „political or social animal‟ who is in need of a
polis and who cannot develop himself outside the polis. We all need to be properly acculturated into a
polis, which means that we learn to live together with others, take the interests of other into account.
This is what we call a „moral attitude‟. Without public morality the polis ceases to be a polis and starts
being a jungle. And jungles get colonized.
Society (with its different spheres) may be compared to an organism, but that does not mean there is
any natural harmony. It is an aggregated organism consisting of an infinite number of smaller
organisms each with its own patterns, often obstructing one another, or responding differently to new
challenges. Each with their own learning styles. Policies are meant to cope with challenges coming
from within and from without, from the ever changing environment. In other words: policy
deliberation is a way of learning together from a problematic environment, facing the challenges from
the environment and responding to them. Great if all actors in the learning process are willing to listen
to one another and refrain from intimidation. This is positive collective learning. As a result of this
learning together, proper policies, as the outcome of this collective learning process, become
expressions of morality, attempts to structure the polis in a fair and just way. Sociologically speaking,
policies fulfill maintenance, adaptation, repair and development functions. Policy deliberation
processes facilitate communication and stimulate public morality. The result may be a minimal
consensus on the basis of which workable collective policies can be built. Policies themselves can be
understood as mechanisms to ensure a healthy equilibrium of exchange with the environment directed
towards development. That is why we may say: the art of policy development is the conscientious
application of the technique. Conscientiousness assumes openness to the environment, which is the
basis of „morality‟, the ability to look at things from the perspective of the „other‟ and the willingness to
take that other perspective into account.
See: Denis de Rougemont, Penser avec les Mains, 1936 and M.J.White, Political Philosophy, A Historical Introduction, Oxford,
2012, p77 ff
Open deliberation is the ideal. But reality is often at loggerheads with the ideal. That is why dialogue is
sometimes impossible and the executive resorts to negotiation as a next best approach. Sometimes
87
dialogue and negotiation get intertwined. But…..the policy discourse will go on in any case. There will
be some chatting and discussing in press rooms, editorial media offices, social media, restaurants,
salons, kitchens and buses. The discourse is practically unstoppable. This may frighten an insecure
executive, which might get it in the head to get the discourse under control. First by means of an
information campaign, next an „awareness campaign‟, next the executive may hire spin doctors and the
end result might even be dictation, control and security measures as in „1984‟. Information
departments are needed, but in order to function healthily and stimulate, rather than dictate and stifle
the policy discourse the information department needs to balance itself and listen as much as it
informs. Real communication is a two-way type of traffic.
Conclusion: the practice of deliberation shows that morality is part of the game. If the deliberation
process is a true and positive learning process, we may say it is a moral process. If some actors try to
impose their will on others, morality is at stake.
Q. B.1.7. Which conclusions can we draw from these accounts on objective directed diagnosis, the
principle of indeterminacy of human behavior and public morality?
society perspective.
Let us sum up again, now with intentions in mind.
Situations are never static. Always dynamic. They are dynamic because we are never totally satisfied.
There is always something to improve. That is why we look, analyze, think and reflect. As we analyze
them we change them, we get changed. It is impossible to analyze a situation as an independent
observer, neutrally. That is like looking around while ignoring the background. It is impossible, for
there is always the (future) horizon of meaning and intention that shapes our perceptions. And indeed,
it is „we‟ and „ ours‟ , never „ me‟ and „mine‟, for all of us are part of a social world with shared patterns
that shape our mind. Public policies are about policies of the public, of „we‟ instead of „me‟, about
future situations we want to realize together.
The policy discourse is the coordinated and informal, non-coordinated, complicated, societal process
of numerous actors who think and discuss policies and policy situations, problems, goals etc., who
demand action to be taken, action to be redirected or to remain deliberately inactive. Expectations,
hopes, and notions of a better future society are collectively developed, shared and shifted. Nothing is
stable or fixed. The policy discourse consists of a continuous flow of ideas, suggestions, questions,
criticisms, discoveries, opinions. It is an opaque awareness process.
Policy deliberation process is about actors getting deliberately together to discuss situations, problems,
goals and ways to realize these goals. It is wiser to include other actors who are related to a situation
that we want to pay attention to. Ignoring stakeholder interests will always spark negative responses,
directly or indirectly, openly or secretly. Public morality is about including others, analyzing situations
with others, trying to understand the horizons of meaning and intention of others and, next, learning
together with others and, next, imagining new situations together as well as ways to get there together.
88
What is more, there is a continuous „to and fro‟ process, from the notion of an ideal future situation or
society to the interpretation of the present, from the evidence of past policy experience to the
particular characteristics of the present, from the present problems via an imagined policy process to
the ideal future. The imagined policy is considered as the most agreeable road to the future.
Imagination that ignores the lessons of history will lead to a repetition of the failures of the past. So
there is another „to and fro‟ process. Knowledge and experience based on history will help us to
critically examine our imagination. And once we imagine an ideal future and ways to get there, we
should always ask history to have a critical look. So from history to future and from future back to
history is a „to and fro‟ process as well.
This is why it should be said that policy imagination should be „evidence based‟ and „novelty geared‟.
The two are inextricably bound up with one another.
Conclusion: Evidence based policy practice uses available international and past practical and
professional experience and research to develop new policies. Evidence of the past however, is no
evidence of the present, for the present is different.
Novelty geared policy practice acknowledges history as a continuous process of enfolding and
unfolding patterns, which lead to desirable or undesirable new situations that need to be taken into
account, anticipated and creatively responded to. Devising novelties is a syntropic activity.
For „syntropy‟ as the opposite of entropy see Buckminster Fuller, ibid
89
2. types of understanding policies
Summary
At the start we distinguished between 4 different approaches to public policies. These approaches
make use of different methods to analyze and understand policies. In this chapter we explore the use of
these approaches and methods and plead for a encompassing pattern approach to policies. The pattern
approach make ample use of an interpretive method of policy analysis for it we interpret the attitudes
and intentions of actors well and are aware of the pattern that they adhere to, we are in the position to
imagine how new policies will work and not work, what response patterns may be expected.
However, we will also have a critical look at the ways we interpret the actions of others and at our
preoccupation with being consistent
Meanwhile we pay attention to the synoptic kind of model, usually called systems model. It focuses on
the way input and demands from inside and outside the government are processed by the political
system (parliament and public administration, policy departments and dialogue with the public) and
converted into objectives which are decided about. The systems model is also used to analyze
development, evaluation and redefinition of policies. So it also focuses on the way feedback is received
and processed and support is organized.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Q.B.2
Question/
paragraph
Issues Page
Q. B.2.1 What do we mean by policy approaches? 90
Intermezzo Against interpretation and consistency 95
Q. B.2.2 Interpretive method of policy analysis. 99
Q. B.2.3 Making it more concrete 101
Q. B.2.4 Usefulness of other methods of analysis 103
Q. B.2.5 Interpretation and facilitation 105
Q. B.2.1. What do we mean by ‟policy approaches? And how should we understand and interpret
policies based on different policy ideas?
At the start we distinguished between 4 different approaches to public policies and we called them
„policy approaches‟: a plan (in the minds of policy designers or politicians or executives) of some
strategic activities to improve a situation, springing from a basic notion how social reality is
constituted and can be maintained or improved. Each of these policy approaches produces specific
definitions of policies. Each of these approaches suit a specific way of „policy analysis‟, for each type of
90
policy analyzes focuses on a specific dimension of a policy, considering that dimension the essential
one.
Policy approaches make use of different types of policy methods to analyze and to develop new
policies. The result is a new policy. There are different policy models. We will deal with policy models
in the next chapter.
Please note that in actual fact these different approaches do not exclude one another. We may
therefore consider these approaches „dimensions‟ of policies. Most policies are dominated by one
particular dimension. Listing them again and including a matching definition and matching method of
analysis:
The technical, rationalist or classical approach:
social reality is viewed as a structure or pattern of elements and entities that can be rationally
understood, changed, manipulated, reconstructed; elements (in this case human beings and
entities) are supposed to be driven by rational choice or conditioned behavior; policies are
considered as technical „instruments‟ to achieve a desired end, often related to a specific
problem that needs to be solved; instrumentation can be diverse.
Problems are challenges for which a technical solution must be found and in principle can be
found. The primary feature of the rationalist approach is the belief that problems of human
practice can be adequately tackled by means of a “guidebook” comprising explicitly stated
rules, formalized technical or methodical procedures.
Policies can be defined as: a plan (or a chosen, purposive and relative consistent course of
action) of a policy actor to solve a particular problem or to realize a valued goal, in
coordination with other actors, with the use of a coherent number of activities (means or
instruments), according to a certain time schedule;
The method of analysis that fits this approach best is: „rational policy analysis‟ studies the
likelihood that the policy instruments produce the planned results and contribute effectively
and efficiently to goal realization with minimal negative side-effects. Rational policy analysis
in its pure form is analyzing the finality or instrumentality of the elements of the policy, to find
out to what extent they are effective;
Preferred support methods to develop policies: quantitative research by means of surveys,
experiments, statistics, cost – benefit analysis
Typical policy expert: the professional with professional authority in the realm of policy
development, design and implementation
Typical relationship with policy actor (government): government wants quick wins and
electoral approval and sometimes an ideological approach. This is difficult to combine with the
technical approach. In the long run however the policy actor may appreciate technical advice
Policy outcome: depends very much o type of instrumentation and model. Incrementalist
policies tend to be quite effective and flexible. The integrative approach is rarely successful
91
The regulatory approach:
social reality is seen as basically precarious, continuously in danger of falling apart and in need
of maintenance, control and correction. Deviant behavior should be minimized. Social order
and cohesion are main policy goals. Laws and regulations are needed to maintain order and
well-being. So there is a strong preference for rules and regulations as an instrument.
Problems are failures to keep things under control and challenge to get things under control
again. They are caused by misunderstanding and/or by differences of priority, value
orientation or interest. However, it is in the interest of any community to reduce friction and
misunderstanding to a minimum.
Policies can be defined as: a series of regulatory measures to exert social control in different
societal domains, to combat deviant behavior, to maintain or improve social cohesion and
stimulate development.
The method of analysis that fits this approach: „constructivist policy analysis‟ studies the
extent to which a policy is contributing to „building‟ a harmonious society, with social
cohesion, active participation and minimal deviant behavior
Preferred support methods to develop policies: experiments, statistics, police reports,
discourse analysis, (cultural) anthropological research
Typical policy expert: the regulator (or lawyer) and the experienced „man from the field‟.
Typical relationship with policy actor (government): government is quite open to the advice
from the regulators, lawyers and „men from the field‟.
Policy outcome: often an incrementalist policy model based on regulations that fit local
knowledge, with positive outcome in the long run. Sometimes also a typical crucial model, with
great outcome.
The ideological approach:
social reality is viewed as the expression of a particular world view or ideology that prescribes
how society should be build or developed; policies are part of that world view and are meant to
express that world view even better. There is a preference for communication as a major
instrument, but where it fails other instruments will easily be used.
Problems are situations that are at loggerheads with basic values and need to be put right
according to these values
Policies can be defined as: a plan (or a chosen and purposive course of action) that reflects the
world view of the actor and is meant to mould society according to that world view.
The method of analysis that fits this approach: „critical policy analysis‟ studies the measure in
which policy actors (the government and particular stakeholders) are using their policies to
strengthen their own position (power), excluding others, as well as the assumptions on which
the ideological word view is based. This second aspect might lead to an appreciation of the
policy (see chapter o appreciation)
Critical policy analysis is usually meant to reveal power structures, the measure of inclusion
and exclusion as well as to critically investigate and assess the reality and value of ideological
view.
92
Preferred support methods to develop policies: theoretical, ideological, comparative policy
research with a strong focus on the „right‟ example.
Typical policy expert: the advocate, the ideologue and politician.
Typical relationship with policy actor (government): at first the sympathizing government
might embrace this approach, but once it discovers its usual ineffectiveness, it may look for
more modest and incremental approaches.
Policy outcome: usually disastrous
The deliberational approach:
social reality is viewed as an immensely complicated informal and formal discourse of
networks and individual citizens; policies are considered as the outcome of a public
deliberation process in which stakeholders and/or individual citizens argue endlessly and
sometimes decide what needs to be done, how and by whom (usually the government).
Variants: negotiation; and otherwise if any type of discussion is seen to be risky the executive
may resort to dictation, i.e. the public discourse is determined by one actor, the powerful
executive. Strong preference for communication as an instrument.
Problems are misunderstandings between stakeholders and need to be tackled by discussion
and dialogue.
Policies can be defined as: a chosen, joint and purposive course of action, based on a
temporary format of consensus or trust as the outcome of a deliberation or negotiation
process, to improve conditions so as to fit the interests of the actors involved in the policy
discourse. In some cases deliberation is narrowed down to dictation.
The method of analysis that fits this approach best: the interpretive (which includes non-
rational factors) method of analysis takes into account many different factors that determine
their preference for a particular policy, ranging from ideological factors to collective emotional
factors like fear, to factors related to serving the interests of powerful elites in society. Deborah
Stone assumes that all participants in the policy process operate in a politicized environment
in which policy ideas function as a medium of exchange and „shared meanings motivate people
to action‟. The deliberation process is directed towards openness and an inclusive-rational
decision making process. So deliberation is about bridging the gap between the many
rational/non-rational and irrational factors that determine the policy interests of stakeholders,
towards a shared opinion about what policies serve the joint stakeholders or public best.
Preferred support methods to develop policies: strong emphasis on deliberational
arrangements, opinion research
Typical policy expert: the facilitator, communicator often with limited relevant policy
knowledge
Typical relationship with policy actor (government): government wants quick wins and
electoral approval and sometimes an ideological approach. This is difficult to combine with the
technical approach. In the long run however the policy actor may appreciate technical advice,
93
Policy outcome: depends. It depends on the quality of local knowledge, the ability of the
facilitator to focus the discussion on content rather than relationships and on the input of the
professional expert.
In policy practice you will find executives, politicians, civil servants, policy experts, advisors and
citizens who will be attracted to one of those approaches (and sometimes its related methods of
analysis as well).
At present most policy experts focus on policies as „technical instruments‟, in other word technical
approach to policy development. A growing group of policy experts is getting interested in the
deliberational approach . Personally I would stress that these approaches should all be considered as
dimensions of policies. We cannot conceive of policies without these dimensions. And, on the bases of
arguments put forward above, I opt for a pattern approach‟ to policies, which does justice to and
incorporates the other policy dimensions.
Point of Attention: a pattern approach to policies will take different „approaches‟ as different
dimensions into account.
- The technical approach is geared to pattern development and problem solution.
- The regulatory approach is geared to pattern maintenance, notably behavior patterns
- The ideological approach is geared to maintenance of the fiduciary system of patterns, or it is geared
to replacing a problematic pattern for an alternative one
- The deliberational approach is geared to getting commitment to conform to the pattern or it is
geared to finding an alternative pattern which is agreeable for more stakeholders.
So, I consider the pattern approach as an all-encompassing approach. That is why we may say it is of a
holistic nature.
By the way, we should not forget that policies are not just instruments to improve patterns in society.
Policies themselves should also be considered as expressions of a particular pattern. If there is a fit
between the policy and the pattern it is supposed to improve, the policy is likely to be effective. If there
is no fit, the policy will either be ineffective and encounter awkward response patterns, or it will lead to
pattern change. This is how problems are viewed: a dysfunctional pattern, which may either be
adapted by means of a policy so as to function better, or be replaced by another pattern.
In practice, policies will either be geared to improve the functioning of the pattern or adapt it to new
circumstances, or revising the pattern or introducing a new pattern. Policies can be defined as: joint
courses of purposive and coherent action to create some new order in the patterns that characterize
our social environment. Policy development is the art of improving, adapting and harmonizing
patterns of behavior in order to create a more coherent environment which serves the public good and
includes the interests of stakeholders. Or, if an existing pattern appears to be dysfunctional, to replace
the dysfunctional pattern by another one.
94
The pattern approach makes ample use of methods of the interpretive and constructivist method of
analysis : which is based on the idea that human society is the result of joint efforts to construct a
reasonable and livable reality. Policies play an important role in maintaining the plausibility of our real
environment. Problems are defined as factors that undermine the credibility of the present state of
affairs. They are a threat to our collective peace of mind. Power is defined as the ability to impose a
particular definition of a situation on other people. This approach is especially attractive to
sociologists. The basis of it was laid by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann.
Conclusion: there are 5 main approaches to policies and policy development: the technical, the
regulatory, the ideological and the deliberational approach, each with their distinctive definition of a
policy, its distinctive method(s) of analyzing situations and its distinctive strategies. Different policy
experts, politicians and citizens will be attracted to one of those approaches. However, these
approaches in actual fact are dimensions of policies. The pattern approach to policies is holistic and
can take these different dimensions into account.
Intermezzo: 2 related points of attention: interpretation and consistency
First point of attention: against interpretation
Here a word of warning is needed. Susan Sontag wrote an important assay, titled: „ against
interpretation‟. Sure, she is discussing art and interpreting art and literature. But her warning is
relevant to policies as well. She notes that in our culture we witness a „hypertrophy of the intellect at
the expense of energy and sensual capability‟. Scientific analysis is an expression of the hypertrophy of
the intellectual organs of our society, and so is policy analysis. She then notes that „ interpretation is
the revenge of the intellect upon art‟. Doesn‟t this apply to policy analysis as well? A revenge of the
intellectual policy scientist upon the politicians in the street? Let me explain a bit. Is interpretation
not something like this: look, don‟t you see that policy X is really – or really means A? That policy Y is
really means B? That policy Z is really C? In other words, we see what we don‟t see and interpretation
is meant to be a revelation of what we normally do not see. The policy analyst assumes he is just a bit
cleverer than the policy expert or politician and understands them better as they understand
themselves.
But we should consider phenomenology and Husserl‟s slogan: back to the things themselves. But there
is only one way to get back to something: perception. And nobody can perceive anything without
intention. Intentionality marks the start of perception. How we perceive depends on the type of
intention and on its presuppositions. Looking at human beings and society is somewhat more
complicated in that societal reality does not exist outside or without human consciousness. Se when we
want to understand human society or policies, we should not only be aware of our own intentions (the
intentions of the perceiver), but also be aware of the intentions that are part and parcel of the „object of
95
perception‟, namely human reality. In other words, regarding humans and human affairs, like policies,
the perceiver should take the intentions of the actors into account. In other words, listen to what the
actor has to say, rather than imposing our interpretation on them. Dialogue leads to understanding of
intentions of the actor
We may take another step and suggest that dialogue will not only reveal actor‟s intentions to the
perceiver, but also help actor to understand his own intentions better. For any type of communication
with another person works like a mirror.
Eduardo Galeano put it elegantly in a poem:
Mirrors are filled with people
The invisible see us
The forgotten recall us
When we see ourselves, we see them
When we turn away, do they?
Eduardo Galeano, Espejos, 2008 (Eng transl Mirrors, 2009); Susan Sontag, Against Interpretation, 1961
And before we draw conclusions we pay attention to another and related issue:
Second point of attention: against consistency
The Germans have a famous expression: consistency leads to disaster. Germans tend to be consistent
people and they know by experience what disasters come from rigid consistency. The 2 old
philosophers who I mention regularly in this syllabus, Aristotle and Confucius, were both fully aware
of the dangers of one-sided consistency. Both advocated the middle way. For all issues have at least 2
sides. We now need to pay some attention to this very common tendency of humans, namely to focus
on one side of an issue. Apparently simplifications help us to cut through complexity. They offer a clear
and consistent image of reality.
Let me jump to rational choice theories. Such theories assume there all behavior is the result of a
rational consideration of all pros and cons of an action, leading to a rational conclusion as to what
choice is in the interest of the actor. The reader may have wondered why I skipped the discussion with
rational choice. In reality I did not. An observant reader will have noticed that the idea of rationality as
suggested by patterns, is bounded or restricted by patterns as well. It is a way of saying: things are
relative. Rational choice theories not excluded. In a pattern theory, rationality is suggested by the
pattern. It is not really the outcome of individual consideration. Now it is time to pay specific attention
to such theories. Some of these are straight and simple, others are more refined, like the one developed
by Mancur Olson in his Logic of Collective Action, which got considerable attention from politicians
and political scientists.
96
Mancur Olson presented an interesting model to explain individual and collective action, based on a
refined model rational choice. It is consistent in that it „follows logically from the premise of rational
and self-interested behavior‟ of people. Often real life behavior can easily be understood that way.
Especially when pursuing an individual goal. But with pursuing common goals things get complicated.
Sometimes individuals behave differently, apparently irrational. That needs an explanation. From the
assumption of the rational and self-interested individual, he put forward that often individual
voluntary actions indeed are not directed to achieve a common goals at all. One of the main reasons is
that they calculate that there is a good chance that others will commit themselves to that action and
pay the costs and that in the end they will benefit from the results. So they choose „free riding‟. This is
especially the case when members of the interest groups are many. Often large groups do not manage
to organize themselves. He gives lots of interesting examples: pension schemes, wage negotiations,
social services and so on. In such cases individuals do benefit.
However, in general the interests of the majority of people do not count because the majority cannot
organize itself. “There are multitudes with an interest in peace, but they have no lobby to match those
of the "special interests" that may on occasion have an interest in war. There are vast numbers who
have a common interest in preventing inflation and depression, but they have no organization to
express that interest." (p165). Or is it that they are unable to fathom the complexity of reality and
hence get paralyzed?
When the group is relatively small, group dynamics are different. There might be some measure of
group pressure and social control. In such smaller groups collective action is often accompanied by
private incentives, which are meant to reward contributors and even to punish non-contributors. So
the group acts as a unity and will quickly achieve results. Unity is strength. This is all illustrated with
labor unions, and all sorts of pressure groups. The lesson is clear: collective action should be mixed
with selective incentives that involve costs and benefits to motivate individuals to participate. However
the model cannot explain the way people define priorities. What apparently is in the interest of a
certain group of people, might be of less importance than something else. Olson comes up with an
interesting argument. In small groups an individual „leader‟ or a „large person‟ is prominently present.
His or her influence is significant. For the large person the stakes are high and so will be the benefits,
but he or she needs followers. Individual followers will thus be mobilized. In small groups this is
relatively easy and benefits will be promised. This is very different in large groups. Even if there is a
strong individual leader who will push for the action, it requires a complicated organizational structure
to make sure the rank and file will follow. But the big question is: how does leadership relate to
rational choice? To put it more sharply: what do charisma and rational choice have in common? In
reality most people prefer to stick to what they have, rather than jumping into an adventure. Is that
rational? What role does fear play? Or ignorance? Or paralysis? Or religious expectations? Or moral
indignation? Or the joy of doing things together and the opportunity to meet others? Or, put more
generally, the hierarchy of values?
Olson‟s model is consistent in assuming rational choice behavior of people, directed to their interests,
whether individually, as members of small and as members of big abstract groups. But what are
interests? Are interests always of a financial nature? Or could they also be of a moral or even spiritual
97
nature? If we go that far in defining interests broadly, the result is that the definition of interests loses
its distinguishing quality and hence it‟s explanatory value. For we will then be tempted to say:
whatever an individual chooses to do is motivated by „interests‟. Logically speaking this is circular
reasoning or a petitio principii that takes us back to square one. To exaggerate and generalize the story
may be summed up like this: what motivates people to act? Interests. What are interests? Interests are
what motivate people to act.
What I argue here is that consistency is impossible. Reality is infinitely unfathomable and for the finite
human mind incomprehensible or, we may even say, inconsistent. Our activities and policies are by
definition motivated by a variety of factors from the past and goals for the future. There are models of
rational choice, class conflict, evolution, exchange or whatever which claim to „understand and
comprehend‟, as if that is all there is. Everything is viewed as „nothing but „This is what might be called
„theoretical imperialism‟. It affects our (policy) imagination as well, for it will determine the way we
imagine the course of events to unfold. It deprives us from viewing reality with its possible responses.
It is certainly possible to make use of such a one sided or one dimensional model in practice. It will
become the heart of a pattern. However, it is very unlikely be adequate to deal with the intricate
complexities of reality, let alone moral demands and challenges. Consistent communist or nationalistic
or liberal capitalistic or religious experiments based on ditto patterns are doomed to failure. And so we
note that on the one hand strong patterns appear to be consistent patterns at first sight, turning out as
weak patters at second sight, leading to disaster. The opposite is a multiform heterogeneous pattern.
At first sight such patterns are weak caboodles. At second sight they don‟t exist anymore for they will
quickly disintegrate. Again, we need to pay attention to patterns of the middle road, patterns that are
somewhat consistent, containing elements that are contradictory or unrelated. In practice such
patterns need continuous efforts to maintain. Such patterns require almost continuous interpretation,
adaptation, fencing off, arguing, reorientation, motivation, creativity and so on. The result is reflection
and bright awareness of the limitations of existence.
Such patterns are also likely to prevent us from nagging on, from going consistently all the way and
staying the course in spite of indications that something is wrong. That is why the Germans warned
themselves for being too consistent.
Think of practice. Often people decide to commit themselves to a particular course. They start and
quickly encounter unpleasant facts. Instead of facing these facts and thinking of creative solutions or
admitting the decision was wrong, they continue. When in the end they are proved wrong, they often
impudently twist the facts and state that there was no other choice. Better to turn halfway than to get
lost altogether. But we need courage to do so. That shows the person is clever and not ashamed to
admit a mistake. In fact it is a matter of integrity to be willing to admit mistakes, and such honesty
should be praised rather than punished. So I finally conclude that consistency on the one hand and
creativity and integrity on the other hand are not the greatest friends.
See Mancur Olson, Logic of Collective Action, Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, 1965
98
Q. B.2.2. What do we mean by an interpretive or constructivist method of (policy) analysis? Why is
this method at the basis of any policy analysis?
Now we need to point to an issue which seldom gets much attention and which nevertheless is
considerable importance. Even though it makes matters somewhat more complicated. Many people
assume social reality can be analyzed, understood and changed according to some basic categories that
apply to social reality in general, irrespective of the cultural and historical situation. What I have put
forward here is that social reality is strongly molded by patterns that people adhere to. In order to
understand social reality and its problems, we need to understand its underlying patterns. Problems
that emerge should also be viewed from the pattern perspective.
Ideally speaking analysis and interpretation should follow reality rather than the other way round. It
appears to be self-evident that analysis should be based on the reality it endeavors to analyze. If we
want to understand reality, whether physical, organical or social reality, observation precedes
interpretation. However this is easier said than done.
This is what phenomenology is about. It means we should try to put all our assumptions and
expectations in brackets, put them on hold so to speak. In the words of Husserl: „ zu den Sachen selbst‟,
literally „to the things themselves‟ or „back to the real matter‟. It was a reaction to all sorts of theories
based on the assumption that our understanding of reality is heavily dependent on the model we use,
or on the glasses we wear.
„Be open to the way any object is revealing itself to us, rather than imposing our interpretation on the
object‟. In the case of policies: what is the pattern that is shaping reality?; which problems is this
pattern causing? And concerning the nature of a policy: what is this policy intending to achieve‟.
Indeed, all too often it is the other way round. We work with an interpretation key and assume reality
will open its doors to us when we use this one key correctly. In the humanities quite a number of keys
circulate: everything is determined by (self)interest, or by libido, by class struggle, by power structures,
by economic interests, by gaming principles, or by values and so on. As you will always find a stick to
beat a dog, so you will always find data to feed your interpretation scheme. These may be called
colonizing methods of interpretation: all phenomena are treated similarly as if fitting the method of
interpretation. (see note above on consistency: against consistency)
There is this famous „Thomas theorem‟ in sociology (coined by the sociologists Thomas and
Znaniecki): „if men define situations as real they are real in their consequences‟. The objective world of
opportunities and obstacles (for the Polish immigrant) is also a subjective world of opportunities and
obstacles. Often the objective world changes (it always does), whereas the subjective world still drags
on for a while, until „reality‟ forces the subjective definitions to fade out and be replaced by more
realistic ones. But before that happens, the ways we define the world still have an impact. If the
„definer‟ is relatively powerful, the impact of his definitions will be powerful. Defining the world is a
matter of language, of talking and discussing. Talking to or talking with. Preaching and making
99
propaganda, or communicating and dialogue. Most talking is of course a way of reassuring ourselves of
our own right. Self-fulfilling prophecies and colonizing world views flow from it.
Interpretation and definition patterns do change the real environment we live in. Eugen Rosenstock
Huessy‟s language theory is based on the same observation: speech is a way to interpret and (re)create
the world. „Our social reality is that which has been made by others and which we make for others.
And thus speech gives us a plasticity which separates us from other animals and which enables us to
work with time and space like no other species familiar to us. Speech is the way that we reorganize the
universe‟. It is another way of saying that „words have power‟. The implication is that like
understanding words you need to understand the language (pattern), understanding social reality you
not only need to understand the meaning and intentions of the actors who constitute reality. By the
way, as far as I know the first to seriously consider language as a way of reality construction was
Miguel de Unamuno: by means of language we create reality. We create patterns to make sense of the
world, of existence, including „my own personal existence‟. Our self-created patterns will then serve as
points of orientation for action. So they have an impact and „realize‟ themselves.
(see last chapter of his Del Sentimiento Tragico de la vida en los hombres y en los pueblos, 1912)
Reality sensitive method of interpretation: method should be in accordance to the existing
interpretation of reality, including its assumptions, world view, set of values and specific „rationality‟ or
„logic, resulting in a particular policy pattern. To be a bit more concrete, if the ideological dimension of
a policy (any ideology) is dominant we can only understand that policy if we understand the
underlying ideological pattern; if the technical or instrumental dimension is dominant we can only
understand that policy if we take instrumentality fully into account etc. In other words, actors have
embraced a particular pattern to make sense of the world, wittingly or unwittingly. They start acting
according to that pattern, thus „making it true through their action‟. If we want to understand what is
happening, we should take the pattern into account that people wittingly or unwittingly adhere to.
Let us formulate it briefly: The interpretive and constructivist methods are more or less identical.
There is no „construction‟ of reality without interpretation and every interpretation is a construction.
Conclusion: I opt for a „reality sensitive approach‟, which is principally a mix. A reality sensitive
approach takes existing patterns seriously and is based on the assumption that neither presents
situations nor policies that are adopted to improve situations can be understood without taking the
pattern into account which the actors have embraced and which they put to work wittingly or
unwittingly.
see W.I.Thomas, The unadjusted girl. With cases and standpoint for behavior analysis. Boston, 1923; and E.Rosenstock Huessy,
Speech and Reality, Norwich, 1970, p19; see also Philip Davies, Reading and the Reader, 2013, p 22 ff.
100
Q. B.2.3. This exposition on policy approaches is rather theoretical and abstract. Can this be made
more concrete? And can it be illustrated?
Yes it is indeed theoretical. So let us move to an illustration in order to show how important a pattern
approach is in order to understand what is happening. Let us look at a problematic area which gets
much attention from policy analysts. By the way, you will see that we also focus on the method of
analysis!
The financial and banking crisis.
Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart published an interesting study: The Time is Different: Eight
Centuries of Financial Folly. One can read this study as an example of pattern resilience and also of an
example of analysts and policy makers who nicely assume that the existing pattern has to be taken for
granted and who refuse to question the appropriateness of a patterns of financial management that has
kept countries, economies, banks and individual borrowers and speculators in their grip for centuries.
We can sum up the argument of the authors as: the more we change the system, the more it remains
the same. Because the changes are changes within the pattern. The pattern itself is not put into
question. Even though everybody can see that crises come and go and get worse. Let us face it, so they
suggest, too much debt is too risky, in spite of continually improved risk-assessment instruments. It is
risky when governments borrow too much, whether from abroad or from their own citizens. It is also
risky if the private sector is borrowing too heavily. Why? Because banks have to borrow too. They
borrow from their clients and from each other and use the borrowed money to issue loans to individual
citizens to buy houses or the private sector to make investments. As a result financial stability depends
on the right behavior of all these actors. Citizens should continue to work hard and earn a lot, to
borrow a lot and to buy a lot. Companies should continue to invest a lot, to produce a lot and to sell a
lot. Banks should continue to……Governments should continue…..the story is well known: centuries of
experience with government defaults, banking panics, and inflationary spikes, with poverty as a
miserable side effect. The more borrowing, the more interdependence, the higher the risk. The
authors have studies the patterns of currency crashes, of hyperinflation, and government defaults on
their debts. They have also studies the almost predictable movements of housing prices, capital flows,
investment and unemployment. History is repeating itself continuously as memories of people fail and
as patterns do not change. What makes the book so interesting is that they have a good understanding
the pattern development. It is on the basis of that understanding that they manage to provide a sort of
road map of how things are likely to develop in the coming years, of consequences of real estate
bubbles, governmental borrowing, decreased tax revenue, bail outs and, not to forget, the
dysfunctional behavior of individuals, and so on. For in the end it always boils down to how individuals
behave, how they spend, borrow, and, last but not least demand. This pattern again and again proves
to be dysfunctional. And how do we respond? By means of policies that do not question the basics of
the pattern. We try to improve and manage to keep things under control again. And by turning a blind
101
eye to ominous signs. „The price of stability is vigilance‟. „This time is different‟ is meant to hit the nail
on its head by its sarcasm. Do they offer a solution? Hardly. But implicitly they do: more vigilance,
restriction and caution. Exactly here they are quite pessimistic, for they note that by the time people
get more vigilant and more cautious, they are old and get retired. What they do not do is to question
the basics of the pattern.
1. Limit borrowing: find the optimum between too little and too much
2.Increase vigilance: take trends and signs as early warnings seriously
3.Limit spending and try to find out what is enough, keeping in mind that enough is enough
4.Take values into account, discuss value hierarchies and find our which hierarchy is a healthy one (see
what the Dutch economist Klamer had to say on the matter)
See: Klamer,A. In hemelsnaam!, over de economie van overvloed en onbehagen, Kampen, 2005; and
C.M. Reinhart, K.S. Rogoff. This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly, 2009
In other words: in order to understand reality and to understand the ways by which we try to change
reality (for instance by means of policies) we have to understand its patterns. This is the way it reveals
itself to us. Against that background we understand that actors opt for policies that seem to be more
or less in harmony with the basic elements of the pattern, policies that are in harmony with „common
sense‟, with the pattern in their own mind. In order to understand and assess policies that are at work
(policies-in-practice), we should take the dominant pattern into account. Yes, there is ample
deliberation. Yes, the regulations have been improved substantially. Yes, technical and professional
capacity has been improved. Different policy approaches may perfectly fit into the pattern, support it
and keep the pattern going.
But now the crucial question comes: all these policies and policy approaches have an impact and spark
responses. This too is a way that „reality is revealing itself to us‟. What are we doing with these
response patterns? In this case: what do all these financial crises teach us? That is the crucial question
that Reinhart and Rogoff are asking. The answer to that question should be followed by another crucial
question: and what policy approaches are needed to spark more positive response policies? One thing
is certain. We need to question the basics of the present financial pattern, lest history will continue to
repeat itself.
Conclusion: This boils down to an excellent application of the interpretive method. It also shows the
authors have a good sense of policy imagination. On the basis of the existing pattern of financial
behavior they imagine how the pattern will continue to unfold itself and what will happen in the
future. If patterns do not function well, an ideological policy approach‟ is required. We must keep in
mind that consistently dysfunctional patterns, need to be replaced by a different pattern.
102
Q. B.2.4. The example from the previous paragraph tells us something about the interpretive method
of analysis. Now the question is what use to make of other methods of analysis?
To repeat again, the interpretive method is needed at the start. It helps us understand why, or from
which pattern point of view, people define a situation as problematic and feel something is needed to
improve that situation. Meanwhile we understand there is no interpretation and no understanding
without a pattern! Patterns are starting points of orientation, interpretation, action and reflection. A
pattern appears to be rational to a person who adheres to it. His consciousness is discriminatory, fixed
in habitual patterns of thought. But pattern rationality is bounded rationality. Other people may find
it weird. And the action that flow from it may cause unnecessary tension with the environment. So
much of our action is harmful, even to us. Some of our collective action is collectively suicidal. Like the
pollution of our environment. But we continue happily.
So the interpretive method includes attention to non-rational factors. Our human reality, including our
individual reality and the reality of our polis, is certainly not purely rational. An entirely rational
approach will not contribute to understanding. Our polis is part of the universe we live in, determined
by physical, biological, psychical and social patterns, as well as spiritual patterns which are profoundly
mysterious. As human beings we are trying to figure out how to orientate ourselves and how to
improve living conditions in a meaningful way. Rational choice theories narrow down reality into
economic reality, as if all human activities were geared to economic interest and profit. In my
viewpoint this is a very biased point of view which will not improve our insight in human behavior.
However, rational choice might be part of a pattern too. But that is another matter.
An interpretive method should include non-rational aspects (as elaborated in the non-rational
method). Though within the bounded rationality of a pattern it may seem to be rational. The method
takes into account many different factors that determine our preference for a particular policy, ranging
from ideological factors to collective emotional factors like fear, to factors related to serving the
interests of powerful elites in society. Deborah Stone assumes that all participants in the policy process
operate in a politicized environment in which policy ideas function as a medium of exchange and
„shared meanings motivate people to action‟. In practice the non-rational method is in practice close
to the interpretive method.
Finally the interpretive method might be complemented by the critical method of policy analysis that
assumes that society should be a platform of interrelated people who discuss matters of common
interest on the basis of equality. However all discussions are influenced by the use power, concealed or
openly, of gender, of industry of elites etc. The mission of critical policy analysis is not just analyzing
the process but also criticizing it in order to contribute to a more equal society. This implies a
discussion between patterns, or between the assumptions on which patterns are based.
The critical method originates in the Frankfurt School of sociology, was modernized and elaborated by
Habermas and has influenced a wide variety of policy analysts. You find it also in the tradition of
Norbert Elias, who focuses on systems of interdependency. Put differently, lots of policy preferences
103
can be related to power structures, interdependency, admiration and even intimidation and hypnosis.
Patterns ay exert hypnotic power. There is a wealth of literature on the hypnotic power of the German
ideological government in the 30‟ies of the previous century. The covert, almost hypnotic influence of
the daily discourse from the street, so to speak, often in connection with a radio speech of Hitler of
Goebbels, appeared to be of profound effect on the minds of even well-educated people. At a certain
moment one could not afford being critical. Nearly everybody was under the spell of the „Third Reich
ideology and policies‟. Germany is not an exception. All totalitarian regimes are characterized by
ideological „hypnosis‟. Other, more benign regimes, like the technological, are characterized by other
types of „spell‟. Discussing the power of modern technique and information society Jacques Ellul
states: “the mechanisms of modern information induce a sort of hypnosis in the individual, who
cannot get out of the field that has been laid out for him by the information”. The environment we are
living in, we take for granted and we do not realize what impact it has on our judgment. In other
words, we are dealing with the compelling power of common sense. That is the way we interpret
situations and that is the way we dream of a future.
See: J.C.Fest, Das Gesicht des Dritten Reiches. Profile einer totalitären Herrschaft. München, 1963, and Ich nicht. Erinnerungen
an eine Kindheit und Jugend. Reinbek, 2006; and for the hypnotic power of technology: Ellul, J. Le bluff technologique, Paris,
1988
When it comes to actually realizing the goals of our dreams, we should consider a more or less rational
course of action and a technical approach. Even if we get emotional or enthusiastic or angry or
authoritarian, or secretive, or evil or whatever, we choose means in order to get somewhere, the means
that appear appropriate to us, though all too often they are not. We deliver a great speech or we shout
at somebody in order to have him understand, we mislead somebody and behave as we want him to
behave, intending something totally different. Some people deliberately choose to beckon people with
great gestures, rather than great arguments, as they believe this is more effective..... And so on. Our
course of action can be stupid or clever, sneaky or wise. It may take others into account (and be
creatively inclusive) of ignore any other perspective and interests but its own (and be creatively
destructive)
The technical approach and its rational policy analysis focus on the steps or activities deliberately
chosen to realize the desired end. This is an extremely important method which helps to find the most
effective and efficient way to achieve a particular end. But it needs to be combined with other methods,
for it should take into account the different non-rational and ideological factors, as well as the
influence of relevant patterns. Also, it should be understood that there is no rationality apart from
practice and local knowledge. Above (Q.A.2.5.) we pointed to Oakeshott‟s approach to rationality as
flowing from practice. Later we will pay more attention to the dialogue between rationality and
practice.
Example: Social policies in Venezuela
The policies pursued by Hugo Chavez to eradicate poverty were neither rational nor wise. They were
predominantly ideological and understandable from that point of view. He managed to impose a
104
socialist pattern in which his actions appeared to be rational, natural and legitimate. Lots of poor
Venezuelans embraced his policies. He listened to them (or appeared to listen) , he handed out bolivar-
notes, he made sure they got some affordable food and lots of other niceties. On top of it he was
charming. He appeared to be concerned about their fate. As a result they put their trust in him and his
policies. They did so emotionally. In other words, some embraced the socialist pattern for ideological
reasons, lots however for emotional reasons. An interpretive method of analysis can help us
understand why his policy approach was embraced by so many people in Venezuela.
Looking at his policies from a purely rational/technical point of view, they appeared to be short
sighted. Forcing shopkeepers to reduce prices and sending soldiers to monitor them, are extremely
poor policy measures that are likely to spark very negative response policies. Which in actual fact they
did.
Looking at his policies from a deliberation point of view, there was very little or no deliberation
process with stakeholders. The president governed more or less by decree. As a result his policies
suffered from a one-sided, exclusive and therefore weak social support basis.
So we find here the poor living conditions of most Venezuelans and their understandable desire to
improve these conditions. The very fact that others live in better conditions, that they can see this and
become aware of their relatively unfortunate fate, means they cease to accept their own lot as their
natural lot. We find Chavez as the instigator of the new policy movement, aiming to improve living
conditions and perhaps also his own position of an irrelevant lieutenant into a powerful caudillo.
They are attracted to a socialist ideology that explains why so many are facing poor living conditions.
Next they choose ways, i.e. policies, to change their lot. The policies, lacking a wide social support base
and lacking a sound logic of intervention, turn out to be ineffective.
The Venezuelan government did little to anticipate obstructing response policies, except demanding
banks to block accounts and forbid to transfer large amounts of money to banks abroad, as well as
preparing the military to intervene if necessary.
See: Edwin Koopman, De Oliekoning, Hugo Chávez en de linkse revolutie in Latijns-Amerika, Amsterdam 2011
Q. B.2.5. What does this account on interpretation teach us about the use of different methods
mentioned above during the policy development phase and, most of all, about the nature of
facilitation?
Let us first summarize the basic difference once more:
On the one hand there are all the patterns, many different one emerging simultaneously, in
which we are rooted and which are never fully rational. All with their own bounded rationality
and discriminatory consciousness. All these patterns „cause‟ different people to behave in a
particular way. History is an infinitely complex network of patterns of causation, creating the
facts of history. We called this „facticity´. Their impact should be analyzed by means of the
causa materialis (Alfred Schutz called it the „because motive‟.). These are the „why‟ and
„whence‟ of our habits, preconceived ideas, assumptions etc. Let us be clear, there is no
105
facticity without patterns. These need to be understood and taken into account when
analyzing situations. This is the environment we live in and, what is more, we are part of.
On the other hand we are conscious and dreaming creatures, who are aware of what is, who
compare the here and now with the then and there, who set goals, dream about ideals and find
ways to achieve them. This is the realm of the causa finalis and of policies. These are the „how‟
and „whither‟ of a course of action. Or in Schutz‟ terminology „in-order-to-motives‟.
Imagination will do the rest: we imagine a desired situation ( goal) and we imagine a number
of activities which will yield the desirable results. This is the „novelty‟ we have in mind and that
we intend to realize.
See A. Schutz: ibid, p69 ff. And Thomas R. Dye, Understanding Public Policy, New York, 2002
All too often we are unable to realize our dreams. We were not sufficiently clever to find the right ways
or policies to get there, or were unaware of trends that would change the environment and render our
policies obsolete, or unaware of dangers looming, like awkward response patterns or outright
resistence and conflict. In other words, we have to take possible trends into account, we should
anticipate possible (negative) response patterns and otherwise we should suggest the right
„facilitators‟. Here the term facilitator is appropriate. Instrumentation sounds too technical, as if the
result will be (instrumentally) guaranteed. This is never the case in human society. We need catalysts
or facilitators to stimulate a process.
Once the partners agree on interpretation of situations and agree on goals to achieve, it is time to
discuss the facilitation (or instrumentation) and implementation plan of a policy. The policy
implementation plan is by nature a rational or methodical effort to get there as effectively as possible
(taking existing patterns into account, lest there is no effectiveness at all). So, for this phase of the
policy process a rational approach is very appropriate, as long as we keep in mind that
„instrumentation‟ should be „facilitation‟. This, by the way, is also the case with the practical business of
developing an implementation plan for a policy.
This type of approach is sometimes called the „technological model‟, but I prefer „methodical model‟ of
„facilitation model‟, based on methods, on ways of doing things that have proved to be useful in the
past, on professionalism, which involves more than just technological instruments.
Immigration policies
Take immigration policies in the early 70‟ies in The Netherlands. The policy approach was a very
technical one. It made ample use of rational methods. For instance to problem definition: we need
more people, especially for lowly paid jobs lest our industrial sector will perish. So let us invite some
uneducated Moroccans facing a grime social-economic environment at home, willing to work on a low
salary. They will help our expensive industry become more competitive. Some politicians were looking
ahead and foresaw problems in the future so they advised intense educational and training programs,
106
which were never carried out. As human beings we are not so eager to use and develop our capacity for
„sociological imagination‟ and anticipate future trends.
On to 2005. Some popular politicians felt that „Dutch culture‟ was in danger as the numbers of (2nd
generation) Moroccans was continuously growing and Moroccan cultural patterns were felt to be at
loggerheads with traditional Dutch culture. Clearly the fear for a Moroccan-Muslim take-over started
to work at the nerves of a growing number of Dutchmen. Asked what Dutch culture exactly is and why
it is at risk, was never made crystal clear. The objective to limit foreigners however was clear enough
and so were the proposed policy measures. A typical example of an ideological policy approach,
making use of „non rational‟ methods to a problem, with fear as the main advisor.
This is also an interesting case for an interpretive method. How do different stakeholders interpret the
situation? Dutch industry, Dutch citizens who live close to Moroccans, the Moroccans themselves,
people from elsewhere who plan to settle in rich Netherlands, political parties who uphold inclusive
values and other political parties who are more exclusive and express the fears of a growing number of
citizens. The policy analyst may analyze all their respective values, fears, actions, discussions, conflicts
and clashes, in other words the patterns, in order to get insight in the resulting expectations regarding
immigration effects.
And a critical method? The ideal is free communication between all stakeholders. Of course this is all
too often not the case. Where this is not the case it becomes clear who is powerful and who is less
powerful or not powerful at all and what the stakeholders are undertaking to get more powerful. A
critical method attempts to reveal the dynamics of power in getting situations understood in a
particular way as well as changed by introducing a particular policy.
And how to proceed practically? Indeed, we need facilitating instruments, catalysts to make the two
cultures with their respective patterns respond creatively to one another, rather than critically
negative. And here is my point: because we have the capacity to interpret the viewpoints, responses,
fears, dreams, misunderstandings etc from the different groups, we understand that facilitation is now
required.
And let is proceed further: all policy instrumentation, geared to realize specific results in essence is
facilitation.
The interpretive method fits of course the deliberational policy approach. If there is free dialogue it is
not difficult to discover what motivates or demotivates the partners in dialogue. They will consider to
be more open about their expectations, fears, interests and whatever. If dialogue and response to
questions is un-free, the interpretation of an actor‟s interest is more complicated and it should
probably include the critical method. For it should find out which hidden motives (and patterns!) play
a role and might eventually spark negative response patterns if a policy is adopted and implemented
which they disagree with.
107
Dialogue as kind of facilitation too.
Point of attention: the systems model.
An interesting model, akin to what has been argued here, is suggested by David Easton: the systems
model. It focuses on the way input and demands from inside and outside the government are
processed by the political system (parliament and public administration, policy departments and
dialogue with the public) and converted into objectives which are decided about. The systems model is
also used to analyze development, evaluation and redefinition of policies. So it also focuses on the way
feedback is received and processed and support is organized. Feed back and support come from the
public, from stakeholders, (public and stakeholders are seen as the „environment‟ of the government)
from the government itself and various institutions around the government (check and balance
institutions of which the judicial system is an important one). The model has been criticized for being
an instrument in maintaining the status quo, which is not without reason. For it is basically a model
that studies policy processing and is thus uncritical regarding the content of needs and demands. Also
it is not clear what is meant by „environment‟, or the boundaries of the environment. That is why these
2 models need the critical input from the critical and interpretive approaches. However it may offer
much insight in the political process and thus provide very useful support to other approaches.
But what exactly is processing? Processing of information is interpreting that information in the light
of an existing pattern, your pattern! It is, in the words of Peter Berger, like „bestowing meaning‟ in
information. In other words, processing is responding.
The systems model provides us with insight about processing, about the formation of response
patterns and may help us to anticipate more adequately.
(see P.Berger, and Th.Luckmann, The social Construction of Reality, Harmondsworth, 1976, and Peter L.Berger, HansFried
Kellner, The Act of Interpretation‟, in Sociology Reinterpreted, an Essay on Method and Vocation, 1981, p24ff. ; D.Stone, Policy
Paradox: The Art of political Decision making, New York,2002; R.P.Lejano, Frameworks for Policy Analysis: Merging text and
context, New York 2006); Portney, K, Approaching Public Policy Analysis, New York, 1986; Stewart J, Hedge, D.M., Lester, P.
Public Policy, An Evolutionary Approach, Boston, 2008; David Easton. A Framework for Political Analysis, Chicago 1979.
108
3. Basic policy models
Summary
The result of policy development will be a policy. There are 6 policy models, all with their advantages
and disadvantages. The types are: integral (an encompassing, consistent policy that covers all problem
areas), incremental (a policy that just deals with the most urgent problems, one after another),
clustered (with a large number of instruments, or sub-policies, that may overlap one another, geared to
a general goal), synergetic (finding the crucial instrument with a maximum effect, due to synergism),
contextual (adapting a policy to new circumstances), zero (deciding to abstain from action)
Finally we look at the different instruments to carry out policies. There are 4 categories of instruments:
rules and laws; financial incentives, negative and positive, to discourage or to stimulate; all sorts of
communication; and all sorts of institutional arrangements. Most policies consist of a mix of
instruments
TABLE OF CONTENTS Q.B.3
Question/
paragraph
issues Page
Q. B.3.1 Different types of policies 109
Q. B.3.2 About the nature of policy instruments as facilitating
instruments. Government is a catalyst
113
Q. B.3.3 Types of instrumentation or facilitation 115
Q. B.3.4 How do policies and laws relate? 117
Q. B.3.5 Phases in policy development 128
Q. B.3.6 Again the importance of response patterns and the need
for policy imagination
130
Q.B.3.1. If all policies have in common that they contain steps or activities deliberately chosen to
realize the desired end, can there be any distinction between types of policy? Can different kinds of
policies be discerned?
A policy deliberation process is of course geared to policy development. If all goes well the result is an
adequate policy. Now we will distinguish several policy types: According to methodology.
Though all policy methods and models are by definition geared to realizing the policy goals, there are
basic differences regarding general strategy. From a strategic point of view, we may discern between 6
different types of policy models with their typical rationality and methodology. Henry Mintzberg
famously characterized a strategy as "a pattern in a stream of decisions". We want to get somewhere
and we decide about activities, one after another, assessing their possible effects, anticipating possible
109
response policies, positive and negative, adapting activities, adding other activities, developing support
policies and so on and so forth. All these considerations crystallize into a pattern, which is the strategy
how to get there. Mintzberg distinguished strategy from planning. But I would argue that the policy
planning is a long process during which the actors of the process try to imagine how things will work
out in reality. As a result of this process of imagination, a strategy is emerging.
See: Mintzberg, H. and Quin, J.B. The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts and Cases, 1996.
In actual fact we should speak of policy models, as attempts to develop the desired type of policy. Often
the desired type of policy is never realized and instead another type of policy is the result of the
approach. For instance, the policy makers may attempt to design an integral policy to stimulate the
economy and they end up with an often not so coherent type of clustered approach.
Integral (or rational-comprehensive or synoptic): developing an encompassing,
consistent and coherent policy framework to restructure the environment, according to some
valued ideas, seeing the policy as a pattern; often a serious ambition of a serious government;
often the to be expected result of oversized policy departments, full of policy experts, policy
research analysts and text-writers. It assumed that the policy designer has all needed
information at his disposal. However: usually too ambitious to be successful, often expensive,
difficult to develop with stakeholder involvement and difficult to carry out in co-operation
with stakeholders and on top of it an integral approach is difficult to adjust during the
implementation phase
Incremental: adjusting existing policies to solve specific problems and to take away some
obstacles in order to increase effectiveness, characterized by a multitude of precautionary
micro-adjustments during the implementation process: often the result of the lobbying of a
particular stakeholder who is annoyed with some negative effects of an existing policy; but it
may also be a very wise decision to proceed incrementally, for while you are proceeding to
carry out a policy new situations and problems may pop up which need to be taken into
consideration and ask for adaptation. However: may result into a never ending „muddling
through‟. This apparently is common practice: a simple measure is taken to solve an urgent
problem, without really thinking through the possible consequences; so a next measure is
taken and so on.
Clustered (sometimes called „mixed scanning‟): approaching a problematic
environment with different and policies aimed to solve different parts of the problem, ideally
taking into account a general long term vision and urgent short term specific problems, trying
to gear immediate solutions to the ‟big picture‟; often the result of a complicated deliberation
process with various actors demanding solutions for pressing problems; often the result of a
„network approach‟ that encourages many stakeholders to contribute; though the chances that
one particular approach is effective might be high, the totality of the clustered activities may
110
lack coherence and demands ample financial means; the big picture the stakeholders are
supposed to agree on might be vague;
Synergetic: at a crucial moment adapting an existing policy in such a way that more desirable
changes in the same and related policy domains follow naturally or pattern-wise; or
introducing a crucial policy element that works as a „tipping point‟, resulting in an easy change
in the desired direction. The synergetic policy approach is sensitive to existing patterns and
will work creatively with such patterns. Often a matter of „nudging‟ people into the desired
direction. However: difficult to realize in deliberation with stakeholders who all have their own
points of view; difficult to determine and desirable changes may not occur at all.
Contextual: adjusting an existing policy framework and gear it to new requirements from a
changing environment, or to the demands or needs of specific stakeholders, or to prevent
problems to emerge: often uncritical and expedient. The „contextual orientation in policy
development gets much attention today. Changes in the policy environment are considered
key determinants of ….patterns existing in policy deigns‟ (May) It may also refer to policies
that take into account problems or trends that flow from particular (local) contexts.
Zero policy or doing nothing: a famous definition of public policy is the one suggested by
Thomas Dye: „a policy is what a government chooses to do or not to do‟. The decision not to do
anything and wait till the storm is over or wait till societal actors take initiative is also a
„policy‟, called „wu wei‟ in Chinese Taoist wisdom. Apparently Confucius said: „ruling through
non-action‟ is possible if the ruler is „strong and shining like a star, with a multitude of stars
turning towards him‟. Strangely enough it is somewhat akin to the famous dictum of Osborne
and Gaebler that government „should do more steering and less rowing‟. However: this
approach may cause much criticism as the government seems passive or paralyzed.
See A.Etzioni, Mixed Scanning, a „Third‟ approach to Decision-Making, in Public Administration Review, vol27, 1967, p 385-
392; and his The Active Society, A theory for Societal and Political Processes, New York 1968; P.J.May, Reconsidering Policy
Design, Policy Analysis 7, no 2: p 227-244, 1991; T.R.Dye, Understanding Public Policy, 1972; Osborne D. and Gaebler T.,
Reinventing Government : How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York, 1993; Ponsioen, J.A.,
National Development, a Sociological Contribution, The Hague, 1968
BASIC POLICY MODELS Minimal analysis and design Elaborated analysis and design
Maximum activity Clustered Integral (rational-
comprehensive)
Minimum activity Incremental /
contextual/zero policy
Synergetic/ contextual
111
This is both rudimentary and very general on methodology. We will elaborate later.
By the way, courses on policy development usually focus on the integral model. In practice most
integral policies fall apart in different „pieces‟ of activities that work, whereas other planned activities
are being dropped. The result is an incremental type of policy.
Educational reform policies tend to be integral. Some policies are attempts to reorganize the
entire educational system of the country, including its methods. Netherlands is notorious for its
integral educational policies. So is Curacao with it policy to introduce „foundational education‟ which is
comparable to the English comprehensive system. But soon after its introduction it appeared
unrealistic and different actors decided to just concentrate on a few activities that seemed feasible, or
solve emerging problems. So it degenerated into a more realistic incremental policy. After a while
some additional policy activities were suggested by different stakeholders, geared to the same goals.
Some stakeholders even took initiatives on their own. So it started to resemble a cluster approach.
Still few goals were realized. A vocational counselor advised to introduce one particular activity: non-
cognitive testing of talents. This might motivate the de-motivated students who had lost confidence in
the system that was just telling them what they were NOT good at, where they failed. Indeed, if there is
one thing a young student wants to know, it is: which talents do I have. Once I know, it will motivate
me to pursue my studies. This one activity would boost motivation and would lead to more effective
learning. Nobody listened, but the approach is typically „crucial‟ or synergetic‟.
Also there was a tendency to pay attention to new trends, especially in the IT-sector. Sometimes the
educational methods were making use of new IT-possibilities, anticipating future needs. This might
result in a so-called „contextual‟ model.
Many governments refrain from action, either because they do not have the resources to develop and
implement educational policies or because they deliberately choose to leave that in the hands of
schools, educators or demonstrators. These governments appear to have adopted a „zero policy‟.
Central Bank policies: during the Greenspan years as USA Fed-director a policy of financial
deregulation was pursued. Greenspan relied very much on the ‟crucial‟ policy instrument of interest
rates to adapt to market changes. He assumed that this crucial instrument would create much positive
synergy. But in retrospect it did not work out that way and his approach should rather be called
„contextual‟. His successor Bernanke continued along the same policy line as from 2006. By that time
the subprime housing „bubble‟ started to become manifest. It appeared that very few people were able
to imagine what might be in store for the coming years. Policy imagination was remarkably minimal as
during most „bubble times‟. Foresight of the severe crisis that was in the make was almost absent.
Interest rates were cut, but quick economic wins did not respond to the causes of the subprime crisis.
It may even have worsened the irresponsible lending practices of banks. Nothing was done to stimulate
banks to increase their capital and liquidity buffers and review their lending policies. Nobody foresaw
a massive failing of the banking system and no measures were taken to prepare for an eventual failing.
The falling of Lehman worked as a sort of wake-up call. Now the Fed started to make use of other tools
112
as well. First of all „forward guidance‟ was introduced, to indicate that low interest levels would be
continued for a long while. Thus creating stability. Next „quantitative easing‟ was introduced, the
buying of masses of dollar bonds. Their prices increased while their yield was minimized. This forced
investors into riskier investments, which, in other words, was a means of enlarging the financial
support basis of risky investment. Thirdly, a bank-stress-test was introduced in combination with
recapitalization of the weaker banks. Apparently this more „integral financial policy‟ had its positive
effects, although lots of ordinary citizens (like me) would have liked to subject banks to much stricter
regulations and reforms, including the abolition of bonuses.
Demonstrators in Amsterdam were provoking the government in the Netherlands (1967-1971),
led by Prime Minister Piet de Jong, a former submarine captain, who knew how to deal with over-
energetic adolescents. The government kept conspicuously distanced and quiet (in good Confucian
manner). He listened, took some minimal measures, made sure the demonstrations did not go out of
control and waited till the storm was over. On top of it Moluccan people high jacked a train and
demanded a free Moluccan Republic and in Curacao the awkward ‟69 revolt broke out. Both required
strong and determined intervention in combination with restraint and afterwards a revision of relevant
policies. His ability to anticipate possible responses rendered intervention and new policies acceptable
and effective. At the time he was criticized for being weak and colorless. An undeserved judgment. In
retrospect he is considered one of the best prime ministers of Dutch governments in the 20th century,
who steered the ship between the many risky cliffs in rough sea with remarkable agility and wisdom.
His manner and policy approach cannot be characterized as laissez-faire, rather as something of a mix
of zero –contextual – crucial: anticipate, take minimal though determined action, adapt policies to
new contexts and introduce some new crucial policy measures.
See for instance: J.Th.J.van den Berg, H.A.A.Molleman, Crisis in de Nederlandse Politiek, Alphen a/d Rijn 1974; and
C.van Baalen (ed) Polarisatie en hoogconjunctuur, Het kabinet De Jong 1969-1971, Meppel, 2013; Philip Coggan, The last
Vote,The Threats to Western Democracy, 2013
Conclusion: during the policy development process a strategy is emerging, which, by the end of the
process, results in a particular policy model. During the implementation of the policy, the strategy
might be changed and hence the policy model once adopted, might be replaced by another model
simply because of strategy change. It is useful to know which main strategies exist and understand
their strengths and weaknesses.
113
Q.B.3.2. Next we will be discussing policy instruments and the function they are fulfilling in policies.
But we associate instruments with mechanics. Above we argued that policies do not really fit a
mechanistic world view. How then should we consider instruments? Why is the term „facilitation‟ te be
preferred? And why is it to be recommended the government acts like a catalyst?
First of all we should take the term „instrumentation‟ with a grain of salt, do not take it in any literal
sense of the word, for that would imply a mechanistic world view which does not do any justice to the
complicated and reflexive world of humans. That is why I suggest using the term „facilitation‟. Policy
instruments are an expression of a particular relationship between the government and the people and
at the same time instruments shape a particular relationship. For instance, if a government makes
ample use of negative sanctions (fines, punishments, negative information) to control the behavior of
people, the relationship will start resembling a prison. Put differently, all instruments have side-effects
which are not without significance or meaning. We may say that „governing means regulation, taxing,
entering into contracts, communicating‟ (as Lascoumes and Gales are stressing). Emphasis on a
particular type of instrument will unfold a pattern that fits that instrument. The pattern will be
characteristic of a style of governance. This means that there is no such thing as neutral, technical
instruments. All instruments are part of or are expressions of a pattern and a style of governance.
Some governments (many) like procedures, regulations and lots of laws. Others like financial
incentives and believe that people and institutions are very sensitive to financial incentives. Once they
understand they lose or gain money, they will reorganize themselves. Other governments prefer to
talk, communicate, inform, convince and urge citizens to do this or to do that. And there are
governments that believe in the value of structures, institutions, organizations, infrastructure. Once
such entities are in place, the government feels something tangible has been achieved that will further
the quality of life.
Take another fresh look at it. Is, strictly speaking, not all governance functioning as a catalyst to ensure
the right „chemical reaction‟ between the individual and the public, between groups and categories of
people and the public? Some governments are so afraid of losing control that they excel in coercion.
Other governments take the viewpoint that people and groups of people should just mind their own
business and solve their own problems and conflicts: laissez-faire style of governing. Few governments
go to the extreme. Most governments are adopting a style of governance somewhere in the middle of
the continuum: facilitation
Next we should take into account the sphere in which the policy (and its instrumentation) is applied.
Very often this is forgotten. The government may work with policies to regulate the market, the oikos,
the middle field. Regulation does not mean the same in these different spheres, nor does
communication. The market often needs regulation (even in the Anglo Saxon world), lest it collapses
as we have seen during the financial crisis. The oikos prefers policies of communication. It often resists
attempts to regulate. The middle field tends to have a preference for institutional arrangements to
check what is happening and to provide support. Between the spheres are numerous bridges, which
are mostly institutional arrangements. For instance the bridge between the business world on the one
114
hand and the middle field on the other hand. Educational institutions, like vocational schools are
meant to teach students vocational skills that help them to get on the labor market. Several countries
have established institutions to make sure education and the needs of the labor market are aligned.
Such institutions are policy instruments as well.
We may define as follows: „a policy instrument, seen from the perspective of a particular pattern, is any
type of governing activity that is intended to cause a desired end‟. Or „to realize a specific result‟.
By the way Lascoumes and Gales go one step further. They define a policy instrument as
“a device that is both technical and social, that organizes specific social relations between the state and
those it is addressed to, according to the representations and meanings it carries. It is a particular type
of institution, a technical device with the generic purpose of carrying a concrete concept of the
politics/society relationship and sustained by a concept of regulation”.
Quite a mouthful, but if you study this definition closely, you will discover they are pointing here to
patterns which are characteristic for a particular style of governance. To which I add: the ideal style of
instrumentation is the catalyst style.
Conclusion: instruments are not just neutral technical activities. First, instruments are part of a
pattern that we call policy and derive their meaning from this pattern. Second they act on an
environment which is also patterned. If it fits it will do its work according to plan. If it doesn‟t, it will
have a totally different effect. Some governments will be tempted to force people into the desired
behavior, whereas others will let things go. The best use of instruments seems to be that of a catalyst,
i.e. instruments as facilitators.
Q.B.3.3. Let us move from a general to a more specific view on methodology. If methodology consists
of different types of instrumentation or facilitation, what types of instrumentation can be
distinguished?
Indeed, we may also group policies and their distinctive methodologies according to the type of
instrumentation or facilitation.
Policies make use of the following types of instrumentation or facilitation:
Regulations: intended to limit the discretion of individual institutions or agencies, and
compelling to the desired type of behavior. Both regulations, procedural arrangements and
laws fall into this category. Laws fulfill a particular function, as all policies need a legal basis.
Laws provide a sort of meta-framework for society to functional well. This instrument fits the
idea of a „guardian state‟, which in times of uncertainty has the tendency to over-regulate. (in
extreme cases a police state as in Orwell‟s 1984) They are relatively easy to develop and
introduce, but depending on the type of problem often not so effective. It is not difficult to see
115
that this instrumentation fits the regulatory rationality well. But it may also flow from a
particular ideological rationality.
Financial incentives, both positive and negative (taxes, penalties, rewards etc): intended to
reward desirable behavior and discourage or even punish behavior (like free riding) that is
considered to be bad. Financial incentives can also be used for distributive purposes. This
instrument may fit the idea of a „guardian state‟ as well, but may also fit the idea of
„redistributive state‟, a state meant to divide welfare more or less equally or unequally. It only
functions if agreements are made with social partners. (we may distinguish between
distributive and redistributive or „rectificatory‟ justice: rectificatory justice or redistributive
justice is concerned with rectifying transactions where someone had been treated unfairly, or
unjustly, by another. They are often more difficult to introduce than regulations, but are often
somewhat more effective. This is akin to technical and sometimes ideological rationality.
Communication and information. Both are indispensable for any policy. You cannot introduce
a new law without informing the public. But lots of policies are purely of a communicative
type. Public health policies may just use information campaigns. Educational programs fall
into this category as well. If communication is seen to be and is used as a main policy
instrument it is the expression of some kind of „participatory state‟ in which citizens and
government participate together in the policy process. But is may also degenerate into
supporting a police state. They are relatively easy to develop and introduce, and, depending
on the type of problem, often quite effective. The two types of rationality that are related are:
deliberative and ideological.
Institutional and technical arrangements, like councils, task forces, organizational structures,
educational development schemes, traffic fly-overs, airports and city development etc. This fits
the idea of the „institutional state that is responsible for public well-being and services‟. It is a
kind of architectural model, a building with floors, rooms, stairs, roof, foundation etc, each
with its own specific functions. Institutional arrangements have as a side effect that policies
they serve get institutionally embedded. A negative side effect is relative rigidity. Institutional
arrangements are difficult to develop and introduce, but often effective. An interesting aspect
of institutional arrangements is that they create space for particular people to act and, if
arranged wisely with good legislation, to stimulate responsible acting. Some institutional
arrangements are needed for „roomification‟ to create „space‟ needed for societal life to unfold
and develop, respecting responsibilities and protecting privacy. (see for elaboration of
roomification below)
Conclusion: Indeed, four basic types of instruments. Rarely can be made use of one instrument only.
In practice governments use mixed instrumentation. Later we will look in more detail which
conditions need to be fulfilled for a policy instrument in order to be effective.
116
See for an excellent overview of policy instruments and the way they may be used within a particular context and preferably as a
mix: Michael Howlett, Designing PublicPolicies, Principles and Instruments, 2011
117
Q.B.3.4. How do laws and policies relate?
People often ask how laws and public policies relate. So far we have put forward that public policies
always need a legal basis. Secondly we argued that laws and regulations are one of the instruments of
policies. Let us now reflect on the function of laws and policies in society. Both are needed in order to
combat misunderstanding, conflict, chaos and injustice. But we also stated that society consists of
spheres. Policies and laws belong to the sphere of the government, but are not just geared to this
sphere. They are geared to all spheres. We may put it this way: laws and policies together constitute a
meta-framework for society to function well, fairly and justly, including the sphere of the government.
For the government too should obey the law, including constitutional law.
More concretely, laws are meant to guarantee justice in society indiscriminately. Laws need to be
obeyed by all and are meant to be of general public benefit and are enforced by the judicial system. Vis-
à-vis the law all citizens are equal.
What then is the difference between laws and policies? As laws are meant to guarantee justice, policies
express what the government is intending to achieve. It takes the shape of an outline or pattern of
coherent activities to achieve a desired goal. One of the elements often is a law. Moreover, policies
should always comply with the law. However, though laws are necessary conditions for a just society,
they are seldom sufficient. A policy provides a number of additional elements to support a law, or vice
versa, a law is meant to provide a legal status to a policy.
Take the example of forced prostitution. In spite of laws regarding prostitution, human trafficking and
slavery, the reality rarely conforms to the law. Loopholes are manifold and maintenance of laws
extremely difficult. So something needs to be done to provide assistance to victims. Here policies come
in, as we saw in the example of Amsterdam.
In workshops people sometimes put forward that this example is an extreme one, because it points to
an extreme case. So let us turn to a more common issue: compulsory education. In most countries
children from the age of 6 are obliged to follow education. Will a good law suffice? Imagine a young
boy helping his father at the farm. His father needs him and decides to keep him home. He flatly
refuses to send his boy to school. But there is a law. The farmer is under the obligation to obey the law.
If he doesn‟t the result will be a court case. The prosecutors‟ office starts working and 8 months later
the judge will pass a sentence. What has happened to the boy meanwhile? Is it in his interest to stay
out of school for such a long time and await the judge‟s sentence? Surely not. So there is a policy to
support the law. There is communication to convince parents of the educational needs of their
children; schools are under the obligation to report when children do not turn up and agencies have
been installed to remind parents of their duty and make sure children do go to school.
Many policies require little legal support. Like most policies in the area of education, infrastructure,
economic development and so.
In general we can view the matter from three points of view
First the jurist point of view: many if not all laws need some support in the form of a policy, in order to
introduce, support and enforce the law, in order make sure it has the desired effect.
118
Second the policy point of view: the policy needs a legal basis anyway and many policies need laws as
one of more policy instruments
Thirdly, both jurists and policy experts need to take the perspective of society into account. For laws
and policies affect society and are meant to affect society. That means they should view matters from
the point of view of society, i.e. from the point of view of citizens and all different types of entities. That
is why sociology as the study of society is useful for both jurists and policy experts.
As a general conclusion we can say that policies and laws are twins, forming together the meta-
framework that is needed for societal spheres to flourish.
Conclusion: so we discern between 4 main types of instrumentation or facilitation: laws and
regulations, financial incentives, communication and information, institutional arrangements. Most
policies consist of a mix of instruments, though some might be dominant. Institutional arrangements
may offer a framework for roomification. All policies should have a legal basis and most policies will
need laws as one of the needed instruments
Q.B.3.5. Some discussion has taken place about the preference of specific governments or types of
governance for a specific instrumentation or facilitation. This seems also related to the type of
legitimation which is needed. Some governments prefer a specific type of legitimation. But is also
related to the relative ease to implement a policy with a particular instrumentation. That in turn seems
related to the societal sphere to which the policy is geared. Can we get some clarity about this
interrelatedness?
political system perspective
Several policy experts and scientists have attempted to discover which instrumentation is particularly
suited for which sphere and which type of governance. Also some general classifications of policy tools
have been developed with their strong and weak effects. As will be clear by now we should always take
into account different spheres and existing patterns. Plus I want to point to conditions which need to
be fulfilled for a particular tool to „do its work‟, so to speak. (I will come back to that later).And, let us
not forget that in the realm of society there cannot be any such thing as an instrument in the technical
sense of the word. When we speak of instruments we mean facilitating instruments. For facilitation is
all that they may affect.
On to governmental styles. There are surely different types of governance or governance cultures as
well as styles of governance. A style of governance is dependent on the type of executive person. But of
course a particular type of governance tends to select a type of executive who fits the culture. Above we
distinguished 2 extreme styles: a controlling type and a laissez-faire type. In between we have the
facilitating type.
119
The rather authoritative style of ex-communist governments in Eastern Europe with its emphasis on
control still today tend to select ministers and prime ministers who fit that style perfectly well. Those
who are not control freaks find it dreadfully difficult to keep things under control. The laissez-faire
model we do not find anymore, although some politicians in the USA, still find that style attractive. In-
between models abound. In Democratic Sweden the emphasis is on participation and facilitation of
participation. A typical authoritarian executive will not get very far. It works like a zipper. There is also
the „Rheinland model‟ which is geared to reasonable (re)distribution of wealth and power. The Dutch
social-democrat leader Den Uyl added: knowledge distribution is essential. Knowledge may work as a
catalyst! So the state should see to it there is basic equality between knowledge, power and wealth.
Finally there are governments who focus on institution building. Italy, Spain and Latin America have a
tendency in this direction. It goes together with corporatism. The problem is that institutions as
instruments quickly start developing their own dynamics and they become an end in themselves. S a
result such governmental styles move towards a laissez-faire practice. This of course is not conducive
to facilitation.
Summing thinks up, we get a table like the following one:
Table (somewhat based on Lascoumes and Gales, in combination with Peter John):
Dominant type of
facilitating
instrument
Type of state and/or
pattern of
governance
Type of legitimation Ease of
introduction
and facilitating
effectiveness
conditions
Regulations, laws Guardian, procedural
(regulative and/or
ideological
rationality dominant)
Elected members of
parliament form the
legislative and have a
mandate to regulate
(classical
representative
democracy model)
High for
market
Medium for
middle field
Low for oikos
Independent
judicial
process;
And sufficient
capacity for
the entire
judiciary
Financial
incentives
Redistributive,
manipulative
(technical rationality
dominant)
State‟s responsibility:
Agreement between
social partners
(polder model or
Rheinland model)
Medium for all
spheres
Sufficient
fiscal
capacity;
Sufficient
capacity for
prosecution
Communication,
information
Participatory,
argumentative
(ideological and/or
deliberational
rationality dominant)
Agreement between
government and
citizens
(participatory
democracy model)
High for oikos
Medium for
middle field
Low for market
Relatively
clean media;
Minimum of
trust
Institutional and Institutional, The idea of the Low for oikos Sufficient HR
120
technical
arrangements
architectural
(technical and
sometimes
deliberational and/or
ideological
rationality dominant)
„institutional state‟
responsible for the
public well-being
and market
Medium for
middle field
capacity‟
Adequate
organizational
culture
See: Lascoumes, P., Le Gales, P., Introduction: Understanding Public Policy through its Instruments, From the Nature of its
Instruments to the Sociology of Public Policy Instrumentation; in Governance, An International Journal of Policy,
Administration and Institutions, , Vol 20, nr1, 2007; and P.John, Making Policies Work, 2011, p154ff.
Most if not all policies are „moxies‟. I.e. they make use of different instruments. We mention again the
4 major categories based on types of instrumentation or facilitation and a 5th one that is entirely
mixed:
121
“Regulatory policies” make ample use of regulations. Regulations dominate this type of policy.
Such policies are intended to limit the discretion of individuals, (which is why the oikos does not like
them) institutions or agencies, and compelling to behave according to the desired type of behavior.
Regulatory policies are suitable if the desired behavior can be clearly defined, controlled and punished
by means of fines or other sanctions. Example: traffic regulations.
The market sphere sometime welcomes (legal) regulations because the actors (companies) are unable
to impose desirable regulation, for instance to channel competition and prevent competition to be a
killer mechanism.
However, without financial incentives few regulations can be expected to be effective. And of course
information is essential as well. Rules may also be used to facilitate those activities by stakeholders
that are seen to be useful. In this case the desired behavior is not imposed or forced upon, just
facilitated. Such preferred activities might be stimulated by financial rewards.
In the case of regulatory policies goals tend to be broad, formal and diffuse.
Many governments tend to regulate too quickly as if society (notably middle field) itself is unable to
regulate its own processes. All too often society gets „lazy‟ expecting the government to take regulative
measures to solve any problem that occurs.
In cases of dysfunctional collective imitation (in the market, but also in the oikos), regulation is often
the only way to break through the vicious circle of imitation. During the energy crisis in the early 70‟ies
of the last century many governments decided to force limited energy use. Most individuals were
aware of the need to limit petrol consumption by using smaller cars with more efficient engines, but if
the neighbors don‟t......So governments intervened with regulations and most people were quite happy
with regulations that were imposed on them. Use of alcohol by minors is another example. Generally
speaking governments should be more active in designing policies to stop dysfunctional collective
imitation and to protect people „against themselves‟. At the same time it must be clear that the social
support base is sufficiently strong, lest the regulations will be infringed collectively as in the case
forbidding alcohol altogether and create a dry country.
A note on the so-called juridification of policies is needed here. Increasingly politicians turn to courts
for the type of policy implementation they want. Sometimes to sidestep the bureaucracy or the
parliament, often to manipulate stakeholders. And the other way round, citizens, CSO‟s and companies
increasingly turn to courts to protect their rights. The juridical dimension of policies tends to get
stronger. At court discussions the juridical dimension appears to be a goal in itself, whereas in actual
fact it is meant to be a foundation and/or instrumentation of a policy. Before we discussed the
relationship between laws and policies and argued that laws need policies for support and the other
way round. Juridification of policies can be limited by making a better use of communication and
information instruments as well as by making ample use of policy deliberation. For the phenomenon of
juridification points to a lack of „ownership‟. Policy deliberation may stimulate ownership and
ownership is a conditio sine qua non for assuming responsibility.
One more note. Apparently to make it a bit more complicated. Some authors distinguish between
substantive policies and procedural policies (Anderson). Substantive policies are directed to achieving
a concrete goal, like crime reduction, infrastructural improvement etc, whereas procedural policies
122
regulate processes. Procedural policies are internal governmental policies or governmental processes
how to deal with stakeholders, how to develop policies etc. On close examination all of them somehow
are internal governmental policies, whereas substantive policies are external governmental policies,
dealing with issues the government is supposed to take care of. The conclusion is that internal
governmental policies all belong to the category of regulatory policies.
Conditions: laws and regulations need to be enforced. So the executive should ask itself the question:
can we? This is first a matter of HR-capacity and secondly a matter of culture. Common policies of
toleration can spark very awkward response patterns that will render the new law completely
ineffective. In other words, its (soft) facilating power is weak. If social support basis is strong and
negative response patterns are unlikely, the facilitating power of the law is strong. And another point
regarding enforcement. At least as important is an independent judiciary. Nothing is more frustrating
than acquittal of an actor that obviously ignored the law and did what served his personal interest.
“(re)Distributive policies” are meant to distribute or, more often, redistribute goods, services,
contributions (tax, fines etc) and financial disbursements among the population or members of an
organization (to distribute the cookies of welfare), or vice versa, to distribute duties and contributions
fairly. For instance to make sure that the rich who drive in heavy SUV‟s pay more tax to maintain roads
than the pensioner who can just afford a small mini car. Though distributive policies are dominated by
distributive measures, they are always a mix of financial incentives, regulations, information and
institutional arrangements to organize the distribution, like the social assistance department of a
municipality.
Goals might be specific but often are diffuse. In the case of negative financial incentives, goals should
be very specific. They are meant to „forced riding‟ and to avoid „free riding‟. Those who benefit should
also contribute. Specificity gives clarity as to expected behavior. For instance, driving through a red
traffic light will be fined. The goal is extremely specific: all cars should come to a stand-still in front of
a red traffic light. It surely is controversial to put such a policy or policy instrument, in the category of
distributive policies. The regulatory category fits better. However, negative financial incentives are
very often deliberatively used to redistribute financial means. Some countries in fact use money earned
because of traffic-rule violations for general budget support.
By far most of the financial means are used for rather diffuse goals and indirect effects. Here they
should function as a facilitating catalyst. Financial means are used for almost all policies, like
education policies, or combating unemployment. The effects of some increase of financial means is
difficult to estimate The effect of allocation of public funds depends on the quality of policies and the
capacity of the administration to implement policies well in cooperation with stakeholders. There is
much evidence that optimizing rather than minimizing or maximizing is crucial. Social assistance
programs are often studied. Minimal social assistance obviously does not promote well-being.
Maximum social assistance does not either, for it may lead to dependency and laziness.
Economic policies are often based on decisions taken by the central bank. Interest rates are a good
example of a relatively simple, though crucial measure to stimulate or slow down the economy, or
stimulate jobs by increasing investment.
123
Generally speaking financial tools are indispensable for any policy. But the risks of bad management,
bad application, corruption, abuse and waste are significant. Any use of financial tools should be
mapped out and adequate measures should be taken to reduce risk.
Conditions: first of all fiscal capacity should be sufficient. In the course of the years I have seen great
intentions to introduce fiscal instruments failing because of limited or even lacking capacity. Often
IMF and World Bank have insufficiently realized how much capacity matters. They just took capacity
for granted. Likewise prosecution capacity should be sufficient. Apart from HR-capacity that might be
needed to implement the often complicated policies fairly. In general a strong social support base will
ease the comparatively soft facilitating effects of financial instruments.
“Information policies” are based on the assumption that people are open to listen, learn and
change their behavior according to the information received. In essence, information policies are
based on the idea of an effective facilitating catalyst. The idea is that desirable behavior might be
effectuated by means of information campaigns. Like warning against smoking or teenage pregnancy
etc. Or gender equality at home, on the shop floor, in the office and elsewhere. Or food habits to
combat obesitas. Information and communication are often the only way to get into the sphere of the
oikos by the government. Still, at best they are attempts to convince people. When information and
awareness campaigns fail, it is time to introduce regulatory policies. Goals tend to be specific, but may
also be broad and diffuse. Some governments make ample use of propaganda to lure citizens into the
desired behavior pattern.
In actual fact all policies are kind of information. Implicit information: laws, arrangements, schemes
etc. Explicit information: 1. conveying information about laws, arrangements, schemes etc; 2.
Information as communication, two-way communication, giving information and receiving
information by listening with reflection as a result (policy dialogue) and 3. Using explicit information
as a means to change attitudes, like trainings, awareness campaigns etc.io
Top-down information is risky. Often it sparks negative response policies. People may feel disturbed,
misunderstood or worse: bullied or manipulated. It is like teaching, people learn at the right moment
when they are aware there is indeed a problem that is theirs. At such moments they are open to listen
and learn. Effective communication should always take into account fear, preconceived ideas,
attitudes, world views, moods and intentions. This is difficult when communicating with a small
groups of people, it is almost impossible when communicating something to a large audience or entire
people. Good communicators however know how to include all these dimensions in the message. They
make use of „nudging‟, rather than revolutionizing or colonizing the minds of people. And what is more
communication is anticipation. A good communicator is able to anticipate a possible response. By
saying that it becomes clear that communication is by definition a two-way flow of thinking. The more
this 2-way flow can function, the more effective communication is. However, if there is no trust neither
a government nor an individual politician or minister will be able to convince people. Trust is the basis
of real communication. That is why it often is useful to communicate first to particular local leaders or
change agents who are trusted by people more than the central government. They might be able to get
124
a message across. Even more important is to create trust by means of listen-time (it takes time to listen
to people and hear what they have to say), honesty (to convince people that there is no cheating) and
professionalism (expertise rather than sweeteners)
Communication as a policy tool has been studied in depth and there is much useful literature. Here we
will focus much on 2-way communication during the policy deliberation process.
Conditions: in a number of countries nothing that is said by the government is taken seriously. In
order to communicate effectively trust is needed. Media should not just be independent and critical,
but also fair. In many countries good policy initiatives are disqualified by some media in anticipation.
In fact this means the media are not independent. In many countries discussions and debates tend to
be personal, arguing ad hominem. In this type of media culture the policy discourse cannot be an open
discourse and public communication will be received with distrust.
“Institutional policies” are basically institutional arrangements. Such policies are sometimes called
„ constituent policies‟ . They put executive power into the hands of particular agencies or institutions.
Or entrust the legal function into the hands of the entities which together from the chain of institutions
responsible for maintenance of justice. Or they establish the rules for control of education, health, air
traffic and so on, the so-called inspectorates.
Sometimes long-term collective interest is at loggerheads with short-term individual interest, like in
the case of „ common pool resources‟. Everybody is free to use the common pool of meadows, ski-
slopes, fishing water, fresh water reserves, parking places etc. Lack of private ownership implies a lack
of incentives to exploit the common pool wisely. Sometimes regulatory policies might work (as in the
case of dysfunctional collective imitation), but quite often a stronger institutional policy is needed to
officially manage the resources as well as the fair use of them by individuals. Ostrom did a comparative
study and concluded that often individual stakeholders quickly agree with some useful institutional
arrangement. Contracts play a crucial role here.
Institutional policies also deal with the organization of the fiscal function, with pensions or with media
control. All such institutional arrangements need regulations, information and often financial
incentives on top of it. Goals are broad, diffuse and usually instrumental to other goals. Many such
arrangements are very suitable within the sphere of the middle field. Often civic society institutions
decide to set up institutions themselves to regulate cooperation between them. Sometimes, at a later
stage, such institutions get acknowledges by the government and receive a legal status. As in the case
of many professional organizations for medical doctors, accountants, lawyers and so on. Robert
Putnam presents some Italian regions as good examples of community organization, like Emilia-
Romagna and Tuscany. There are lots of well-organized community organizations. Citizens in these
regions „are engaged by public issues, not by patronage‟ (like in Sicily and Calabria), so he contends.
And these community organizations become partners in dialogue with the local governments.
Politicians have a queer preference for institutional policies, for they serve as effective means to
impress people, as well as a means to „leave something behind‟ and make themselves immortal.
125
Institutional arrangements always require substantial investments. Characteristic of such policies is
„path dependency‟ or „inflexibility‟: once a particular course of action has been decided upon, there is
no way back. The point of no return is passed easily. Often feedback mechanisms are put on hold. It is
too painful and too costly to be confronted with critical feedback. Pierson calls it the „lock-in-effect‟ of
institutional policies. He points to the reverse policy as well: the cancelling of particular institutions
has exactly the same „lock-in-effect‟, for it is very difficult to reinstall institutions that once played an
important role and were cancelled later.
See R.D.Putnam, Bowling Alone, The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York, 2000, p 345
In other words institutional policies need very careful and critical preparations, ideally based on
comparative research, using a model that proved to be useful elsewhere and learning from mistakes
that were made. Here the insight of Jan Romein, expressed in his " law of the curbed head start
(usually translated as: “Law of the handicap of a head start“; in Dutch: "Wet van de remmende
voorsprong") is applicable here. In fact it is the same story. Once institutions get rigid, they don‟t
function well anymore. The more flexible they are, the more they will function as a catalyst.
Conditions: regarding institutional arrangements a major condition is what I would call a „clean
organizational culture‟. Later we shall pay more attention to problems of organizational culture. For
now let me point to 3 issues. First a general characteristic of almost all organizations: to become an
end in itself. An agency is meant to improve integrity of public governance, but after one year it
becomes abundantly visible that the entire staff is more interested in internal dynamics and
institutionalizing the agency more firmly than in combating corruption and improving integrity.
Secondly, a variety of internal cultural problems, like protection, competition and bureaucratization
may emerge that may all thwart its main mission. Thirdly the danger of becoming an instrument in the
hands of a political actor.
Process policies”, or policy projects. This is by far the biggest category and what is more they demand
almost continuous attention. Characteristic of such policies are the very specific and concrete goals
that the policy is attempting to realize step by step. As a rule they are of a „one-off‟ type, i.e. once the
goal(s) is realized the policy is terminated. Process policies need to be carefully monitored, adapted to
new situations, evaluated and revised, more than others. Process policies include processes in the
areas of economics, education, health, HR, research and development, social assistance and so on. By
nature they are a mix of institutional arrangements, communication, financial incentives and
regulations. Note that the above listed methodological types (integral, cluster, incremental, synergetic
and contextual) especially apply to process policies.
There are 3 main types of process policies.
Instrumental policies: Process policies are directed towards very specific goals and can be considered
themselves as complicated „instruments‟. In this category we find all sorts of technical and
infrastructural arrangements, like airports, call-centers, etc. Example: building an Airport City to
boost the economy, to attract business, airlines, tourists etc. The difference with institutional
126
arrangements (see above) as that they are clearly of a one-off type. They have to be realized and, once
finished, maintained and that‟s‟ it. They are like instruments that may serve different goals.
Introductory policies: many policies need extensive introduction and preparation, usually by means of
communication and an introductory implementation plan. For example: the introduction of a new tax,
like the „value added tax‟ (VAT), a type of consumption tax. In the eyes of the buyer, it is a tax on the
purchase price. In the eyes of the seller, it is a tax only on the value added to a product or a service.
Many countries have introduced the VAT. Successful implementation of the policy needed extensive
introductory policies to inform people about the ins and outs of the VAT.
Programs: are financial frameworks in which numerous activities fit, to be carried out during a limited
period of time, all directed to specific objectives. The idea is to carry out a number of projects which
together should realize (part of ) the objectives. The activities or projects often are not specifically
defined or elaborated. It is up to the potential actors to elaborate and carry out the activities. Example:
The EU has issues a large number of programs on „human rights‟, „ democracy‟, „cross border
cooperation‟ etc
Example of policies with mixed instrumentation
Pensions. Individual people all understand that once they get too old to work it is convenient to have
a pension. But will they save when they are young and vital? Unlikely. Much more likely is that they
use their money to gain some immediate benefits. This is not a type of one-off decision. It just
continually happens that way. No country will be able to deal with a large category of 65+ people living
in sheer poverty. So there is a need for a pension policy. And all such policies are mixtures of
regulations (pension schemes and pension articles in labor contracts etc), financial incentives (to pay
monthly into a pension scheme), communication ( to convince people that caring for a pension is
meaningful and the money contributed monthly will be used meaningfully) and institutions that care
for pensioners. And there is some redistribution as well. For some people will save too little to live
decently after retirement. So governments set up collective funds to which all citizens have to
contribute.
Integrity
In many countries public administration is struggling with desintegrity and corruption. Integrity
policies almost always include different instruments: regulations (like codes of conduct and articles in
contracts with employees regarding confidentiality), financial incentives (like fines), communication
(like trainings) and institutional arrangements (like an integrity office or the office of the
ombudsman). Integrity policies need elaborated introductory policies, lest all these instruments fail to
achieve anything. Introductory policies may consists of special training for the top-management,
responsible for carrying out the policy, an information campaign with brochures, posters etc and lots
of introductory meetings at the work floor.
Let us generalize somewhat brutally, keeping in mind that the countries mentioned here, all
acknowledge the need for other policy instruments. There are countries that boast for having excellent
laws and codes of conduct (like Bulgaria). There are countries that are proud of their protective
127
institutions (like France). There are countries that stress the need for effective sanctions (like
Singapore) and there are countries that emphasize discussion and communication on integrity (like
Netherlands)
Let us also look at patterns of behavior. In some cases a patterns that functions well just needs to be
strengthened by mild policy measures. People can be nudged into the right behavior. Sometimes
patterns are in need for correction. How to achieve this? How to effectuate „change‟ in an
organization? During the past 10 years we see that establishing a more or less independent agency to
investigate situations of desintegrity and corruption, to register cases, to analyze and evaluate
governmental organizations and/or to provide training and advice is becoming a popular solution.
Such agencies often ignore cultural causes of desintegrity. For instance:
A very competitive organizational culture (like you find in England) will benefit from regulations and
sanctions. Regulations might be warmly welcomed in order to mitigate the negative aspects of a
competitive culture. Whereas attempts to get to an agreement might not work at all.
Organizational culture characterized by consultation and participation will dislike sanctions and
institutions. Such instruments might not be very effective, while training, communication and
agreements will have good results.
There are also organizational cultures where hardly any integrity policy will work. Notorious is the
protective culture that favors nepotism. Here a workable integrity policy should be geared to
(organizational) cultural change.
The agency is either ignoring or underestimating the effects of poor organizational cultures. Main
reason, so I suggest, is that such agencies themselves suffer from the same organizational diseases.
Conclusion: apart from the fact that different styles of governance might have a preference for a
specific type of instrumentation, there is also the societal sphere that favors a specific type of
instrumentation. There is also the aspect of relative easiness of introduction and implementation of a
policy and of course the question effectiveness. At this stage much more research is needed to explore
these connections. Last but not least existing patterns should be taken into account as well. Policies
that fit a pattern are more likely to be successful within that pattern.
For an elaboration of these policy instruments, see Peter John, Making Policy Work, 2011; For a thorough discussion on all the
„plagues of the state in the area of policies and politics, see: Frank Ankersmit and Leo Klinkers, L. (ed) De tien plagen van de
staat; de bedrijfsmatige overhead gewogen, Amsterdam 2008; for the policies of communication see: Noelle Aarts and Cees van
Woerkum, Strategische Communicatie, principes en toepassingen, Assen 2008; O‟Keefe D.J. Persuasion. Theory and Research,
Newbury Park, 1990; Stiff, J.B. Persuasive Communication, New York, 1994; for an introductory policy to introduce integrity
policies and the connection between policy and organizational culture, see B.Kristensen, Een Kwestie van Grenzen, over
integriteit in openbaar bestuur, Amsterdam, 2008. For the use of institutional arrangements E.Ostrom, Governing the
Commons: the Evolution of the Institutions for Collectgive Action, Cambridge, 1990. For the inflexibility of institutional policies
see P. Pierson, Dismantling the Welfare State. Reagan, Thatcher and the Politics of Retrenchment, Cambridge 1994; and see
J.M.Romein The dialectics of progress (De dialectiek van de vooruitgang )inHet onvoltooid verleden, 2nd ed 1948.
128
Q.B.3.5. On to a different issue. Which phases in policy development can we discern and why is it
useful to keep these phases in mind?
To start with the second part of the question, often a confusing misunderstanding occurs when policies
are being discussed, namely the misunderstanding about the distinction between the phases in the
policy process. Sometimes people think that once a policy idea is accepted during the deliberation
process, the job is completed. This is not at all the case. The policy idea needs to be elaborated and it
might appear that the policy idea is not practical. So the deliberation process starts all over again. Once
the policy idea is elaborated, the policy needs to be approved by government and parliament and if it is
approved it still needs to be introduced and implemented and, after some time, evaluated and adapted.
So let us go through the stages of phases: deliberation, elaboration, implementation and evaluation. Or
between the genesis of policies; policies-in intention, policy-in-implementation or policies-in-practice,
and finally response policies and policies in revision.
During the deliberation phase we are witnesses of the genesis of policies: we refer to the
complicated process of interpreting situations (or understanding and interpreting the policy
environment). It is a continuous process in which many different actors, not just politicians and
political parties but also stakeholders, media and citizens, are seeking to understand situations from
the point of view of their ideological background and interests. We may call it the „policy discourse‟. If
the policy discourse gets organized and structured, we may speak of the „policy deliberation process‟.
The process may or should take place in all societal spheres. This is followed by getting some issues on
the political agenda and prevent issues from being put on the agenda that will consume time and
energy. Next the process of problem definition and identification of desirable objectives comes. This
may result in a „policy idea‟, a rudimentary policy plan, and maybe a policy note or green paper will be
issued to further the discussion. Once that process has come to an end, policy development starts. The
genesis of policies can be fruitfully studied by „why approaches‟ of policy analysis. (see Q.B.2.5.).
During the elaboration phase: Policies-in-intention resulting in policy designs are the result of
working out a policy idea into a policy design during the elaboration phase. The result of the policy
deliberation process may also be called the policy elaboration. The result is a policy white paper, which
neatly describes the elaborated policy in terms of goals to be realized, strategies to be adopted and
activities to be carried out. Maybe the policy will be implemented. Maybe not. The executive needs to
approve and give the go-ahead. By that time a fully fledged policy paper or policy document is needed.
During this phase specific professional expertise on how to design policies is required.
During the decision phase: the focus is now on both the political acceptability of the policy idea in
the governing body and the parliament as well as on the legitimacy of the policy. The legitimacy is
determined by 2 factors: the green light given by the legitimate authority and the question whether the
policy is based on a sound legal foundation. We make speak of „policy legitimation‟: the acceptance of a
129
policy, as elaborated in a policy document, by the legitimate authority (government, backed by
parliament and based on a legal foundation).
During the implementation phase: Policies-in practice (sometimes called: Intended policies, or
Policies-in-implementation) are policies that have been approved by the executive and are now being
implemented by civil servants and, possibly, partners in society. So they have been granted the status
of „intended policies‟. During the implementation process lots of things can go wrong, often the policy
is being revised during the implementation process, often the ambitions become more realistic and
often all sorts of deliberate and spontaneous adaptations are introduced.
Of course policies-in-practice, especially their outcome, i.e. the policy results, need to be evaluated and
after evaluation adapted (again).
Policies-in-practice also include common practices or common polices that were never deliberately
intended to be sophisticated policies. We may also call such practices „implicit policies‟. „This is how we
have always been doing this‟, „our common practice to proceed‟ and so on. We are referring to policy
practices that were never planned and never discussed. Some have argued that 80% of the policies of a
government are implicit policies. Much policy analysis is carried out to discover and describe such
implicit policy practices and find out how (in)effective they are and what costs are involved. For all too
often a government is not aware of the costs. Once an implicit policy has been described in terms of
goals and activities meant to realize these goals, discussions can take place as how to improve its
effectiveness or whether the policy practice should be continued. Please note that „zero policies‟ are
almost by definition implicit policies! I.e. governments that decide not to adopt any policy, but just let
society deal with its problems and see what is the outcome of it.
Each policy-in-practice will spark the development of response-policies or response patterns. Human
beings differ from Pavlov rats in that conditioning is a precarious process. Maybe they allow
themselves be conditioned. Maybe not. Maybe they allow conditioning for a certain period of time. But
a moment will come that they become aware of the way they respond and decide not to respond that
way anymore.
Policies are interventions in existing patterns as well as expression of patterns. Policies might also
disturb some existing patterns. The first thing a policy designer or politicians should ask: how will
people respond if they get disturbed in their daily and comfortable patterns of behavior?
Everybody exposed to a policy will respond to the policy, either as is supposed or in order to evade or
avoid the effects of the policy. We see a lot of „avoidance behavior‟ or „provocative behavior‟. Or a step
further, it may spark opposition or obstruction. It is quite remarkable how many politicians close their
eyes for adverse effects of policies and for negative response patterns such as obstruction behavior.
Mapping out different kinds of response-policies is part of job of the policy designer. Once you realize
that negative response-policies may be the undesirable effect of a desired policy, it is clear that
negotiation with some stakeholders is badly needed. Policy dialogue with stakeholders is essential in
130
developing effective and feasible policies and, this is often forgotten, is also needed during policy
implementation. For all stakeholders will carry out their own silent evaluation of the policy-in-
implementation and decide whether they can still approve and support the policy or respond with a
common policy that is not in harmony, maybe even in conflict with the official policy. Sometimes
policy mediation is needed. Sometimes the policy actor has to accept that the policy is going to realize
goals that are not exactly as was agreed upon first (we call that goal shift, see below)
During the evaluation phase: Policies in revision are existing policies (in practice) that are being
evaluated. Evaluation will study the different positive and negative effects of policies, their impact on
the environment, the various response policies and so on. As a result of the evaluation, the policy may
have to be continued, adapted or terminated. In all these cases we speak of policies in revision.
Conclusion: it is useful to distinguish between different phases of policy development. The policy
expert or executive may keep in mind that effective policies do not fall from heaven, but go through
different phases.
Q.B.3.6. Now it is time to raise the question again, trying to formulate the answer a bit more sharply:
why should we pay so much attention to possible response policies that might not occur at all. Is this
not a waste of time? And why is policy imagination needed?
society perspective.
For a sound understanding of the entire policy process a good insight in response policies or response
patterns is of crucial importance. Response policies are always responses public policies. Some of these
responses are very creative and, for that reason, unpredictable. Moran pointed to excessive regulatory
policies in Britain that almost inevitably spark creative response patterns by those who are subject to
regulation: „strategic behavior by the regulated people and entities get sparked by overregulation‟. And
he adds: the sheer lack of policy deliberation intensifies the development of strategic response
behavior. Often the executive or policy coordinators will regard response patterns as inconvenient
disturbances that should be nipped in the bud. The result is an even more regulation-eager or even
repressive policy regime. It is clear that I plead for an open policy regime with open communication
with all relevant stakeholders.
Problematic environment
Genesis of a new or adapted Policy (idea)
Policy design And legitimation
Policy in practice
Respon se Policies
Final Results New policy environement
Policy in revision (evaluation)
131
Example of a problematic response pattern
Poll tax in Britain: A poll tax (or „head tax‟, for the word „poll‟ originally meant „head‟ in English) is
a fixed amount to be paid by all individual citizens in accordance with the census. The tax is not related
to income. Head taxes were important sources of revenue for many governments from ancient times. It
was reintroduced in Britain by the Thatcher government as „community charge‟ in 1989. The tax was
extremely unpopular as it was seen to be shifting the tax burden from rich to poor. The system was
based on the number of people living in a house, irrespective of its value. Mass protests were called by
the All-Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation. People were openly encouraged not to pay. In some areas up
to 30% of citizens defaulted. The cost of collecting the tax rose steeply while the returns fell to a
miserable low. “Enforcement measures became increasingly draconian, and unrest grew and
culminated in a number of Poll Tax Riots. The most serious was in a protest at Trafalgar Square,
London, on 31 March 1990, of more than 200,000 protesters. A Labor MP, Terry Fields, was jailed for
60 days for refusing to pay his poll tax”. The protests finally led to the fall of Margaret Thatcher.
See: Butler, D., Adonis, A. and Travers, T. Failure in British Government: The Politics of the Poll Tax, Oxford, 1994; for The
Netherlands see J.van Putten, Haagse Machten 1980; and Peter John, Making Policy work, 2011 for a discussion of Moran‟s
hypothesis p32.
Without anticipation there cannot be any communication. If 2 people communicate, both of them
anticipate particular responses from the other. On the basis of what they anticipate they communicate.
Often we anticipate wrongly. If friction happens frequently between 2 persons we say there is no
„chemistry‟ between them. The response from the other will tell us whether we communicated on the
basis of correct or unwarranted assumptions. With policies this is exactly the same. Good policies are
based on correct anticipation. Unfortunately all too often the policy designs are based on wrong
assumptions and total ignorance about existing „common policies‟ that are practiced in order to
maintain existing patterns. This means there is ignorance as well regarding the possibility of negative
responses from the target group.
The sociologist Wright Mills stressed the importance of the „sociological imagination‟. Sociological
imagination is the ability to put personal problems in a societal perspective, as expressions of a societal
problem. Put differently, a personal problem is considered as the manifestation of a problematic
pattern. Either an internal pattern problem, or a problem cause by the collision of various patterns
that co-exist in society. Like the problem a homosexual person is facing in a society that is hostile
towards homosexuality. But sociological imagination is more. It includes the insight that certain
trends, or pattern unfoldments, will lead to a certain outcome. We are who we are by the way we
shaped by the situation we are in, the values we have, the norms we apply and don‟t apply, by our
networks and the way people around us act. Sociological imagination is the capacity to see the
dynamics of a social situation, leading to pattern unfoldment or enfoldment. Mills also believed in “the
power of the sociological imagination to connect personal troubles to public issues, as well as policies
to deal with these issues and ease our troubles”. When it comes to policy development, I suggest we
call it the „policy imagination‟, the creative process to identify crucial personal or social troubles, to
132
translate these into pattern problems and to develop policies to adapt of change patterns‟. Let me
define as follows: the ability to translate personal problems into pattern problems, to develop policies
to adaptor change patterns and to foresee the emergence of response policies as well as the concrete
ramifications for the policy. Any type of policy development is based on anticipation, correct or
incorrect. When the Central Bank decides to decrease interest rates, it anticipates a particular response
from entrepreneurs with a particular impact on the economic and labor situation of the country.
Likewise this is the case with all policy measures.
A good example (there are lots of others) is provided by Russell Foote‟s study on youth aggression. He
studied possible predictors, from family and educational culture. His reasoning is an excellent example
of sociological imagination which may spark creative policy imagination. Personal problems are seen
as symptoms of a non-functioning but persisting pattern. Such patterns need to be changed in order to
reverse the sad consequences of these patterns.
See: Foote, R. Predictors of Youth Aggression, Port of Spain, 2010
Youth care.
Lots of research projects were carried out. Like the study by Foote in Trinidad, revealing some of the
causes of youth misery. His study focuses on family culture and educational culture and concludes
with helpful suggestions to parents and teachers how to change a destructive pattern.
Several countries have introduced a system of youth care to limit the number of youngsters who drop
out of school prematurely. Was there no youth policy in cities and schools before the official policy was
introduced? Of course there was one. There was always a way to deal with unruly youngsters. Schools
were watching them and if it was getting too difficult the teacher would visit the parents or ask the
pastor to have a discussion with the parents. All sorts of forces were mobilized to make sure the
difficult one would stay on track. These were implicit policies.
Professionalization changed things. Research was carried out and alarming figures of drop out were
published. Political parties started to brainstorm about solutions. Together with teachers, social
workers and psychologists policy designers started to develop a system of youth care, consisting of a
monitoring instrument to be introduced at school level, followed by a series of possible interventions,
for which school would get paid. Of course teachers had to be trained and an information campaign
would inform parents. Street corner work was introduced to take care of neglected youth. In other
words an explicit policy was developed and finally implemented in many countries.
But not all schools were able to act exactly according to the policy. Often teachers dislike the time they
had to invest in monitoring pupils according to the monitoring instrument. So it hardly worked.
Collaboration between teachers on the one hand and social workers, psychologists and inspectors
became difficult. However, often they found their own way of collaboration. Sometimes the local
133
church discouraged parishioners to entrust their children to professional youth workers and started
their own youth programs. In short, almost everywhere response patterns and policies emerged. After
some time policies were adapted so as to fit the local situation better.
Travel fee control. In Amsterdam it was discovered many people using trams did not pay their fee.
The public transport department decided to regularly check travelers and reduce the number of so-
called black travelers. Unexpectedly some controllers would enter the tram and check all passengers.
All black travelers were fined. The idea was that these irregular checks would discourage people from
traveling black. However, apparently the result was quite minimal. It was estimated the percentage of
black travelers hardly go diminished. Why? It was discovered that many citizens of Amsterdam had
joined the „black travel club‟. To join the club you pay an annual fee. As a member of the club you just
travel black and in case you got checked, you send your fine to the club and the club will reimburse
you. This creative response policy caused the Amsterdam a big juridical headache indeed. Nobody had
expected it. Finally it was decided to put a regular ticket officer on each tram permanently. The result
is amazing: the average tram-traveler respects the ticket officer, pays and realizes it is the only way to
maintain local public tram-transport.
See: D.K.Guba, Analyzing public policy: Concepts, tools and techniques, Washington 2001; and M.K.O‟Connor and F.E.Netting,
Analyzing social policy, Hoboken 2010; J.van Putten, Haagse Machten, Verslag van een onderzoek naar de totstandkoming van
8 regeringsmaatregelen, Den Haag 1980; Connor Wright Mills, 1959, The Sociological Imagination, Oxford University Press,
London.
Thinking of a negative response, people usually think of a policy that apparently is at loggerheads with
important interests of the target group. So far we have focused on such types of responses. However
policies may also be in conflict with the „moral order‟ or with what is seen to be the moral order. There
might be conflict of values: environmental values, family values, religious values, democratic values.
There always is a hierarchy of values. A policy that is perfectly in harmony with a lower value, might
conflict with a value that is higher on the hierarchy. To make it more complicated, value hierarchies
are dynamic, not static. Half a century ago privacy was a very important value. With the need to
combat terrorism many citizens have now resigned themselves to the fact that information services
penetrate into the personal and private sphere. On top of that lots of people expose themselves on
social media. It seems that privacy as a value is evaporating. We often see that such a trend will
continue until it leads to a situation which is clearly unacceptable, miserable or absurd. Tapping
telephones and mail addresses of prime ministers of friendly nations to check them is close to
absurdity. Companies using mailing lists of private people to advertise are increasingly seen to be
annoying. Such excesses may spark discussions about privacy as a value.
There seem to be 5 different kinds of response to new policies:
Commitment: a strong positive response
Capitulation: a weak positive response that may potentially turn into a negative response
134
Disengagement: a weak negative response that may turn into a more positive response, but
may also lead to persistent disengagement.
Resistance: a strong negative response, either because the policy is at loggerheads with
interests of the target group, or the policy doesn‟t fit the moral order.
Game playing: a negative response in the form of a strategy to outplay the government
Nightmarish quagmire as a result of total ignorance
Let me finally give you an example of the worst and saddest. The George W.Bush administration
decided to invade and occupy Iraq. Apart from the fact that their Iraq foreign policy as such was based
on the ridiculous assumption that the Iraqi people would receive American soldiers with open arms,
which proved to be totally unwarranted, the following occupation turned out to be a disaster. Policies,
devised by Paul Bremer to restore order in the country showed a continuous and total lack of
awareness of existing „common policies‟ in Iraq. Hence the Americans in Iraq were unable to anticipate
any negative response policy. This shortsightedness resulted in a devastating quagmire with hundreds
of thousands of victims. Readers who are still unaware of the Bush-failure in Iraq may read Baghdad
Burning I and II, by journalist Riverbend, 2005.
Disengagement is perhaps the most frequent of all. Many politicians would consider this a silent sign
of support. A sign of tacit consent. All too often this assumption is unwarranted. Thomas Hardy wrote
these lines:
“And there was no sound but the fall of a leaf
As a sad response”
Conclusion: The less the government is aware of existing common policies and patterns and the less
it has endeavored to consult with the target group, the more likely that policies will evoke a negative
response. The more seriously a government is consulting with the target group the more likely
commitment is and the more effective the policy will be.
See for a discussion: Peter John, Making Policy Work, Oxford, 2011, p33 ff
135
4. Different spheres, different policies
Fernando Savater: “there should be room for diversity of spheres, but not for tribal spirits”.
Summary
Society is not a monolithic whole. It consists of various spheres with their on cultural characteristics
and patterns. For the subject matter if policy development it is useful to distinguish between: the
sphere of public governance, the sphere of production, the sphere of civic society or the „middle field‟,
and the sphere of private life or „oikos‟. 1. Policies mean different things to different spheres. And, 2.
Different spheres need different types of policies with different types of instrumentation.
All spheres are characterized by a typical framework pattern. The term framework pattern is used to
indicate that spheres function as frameworks in which different patterns may express themselves. The
framework patterns of the spheres are also characterized by a limited number of „pattern variables‟.
Spheres have boundaries and so people and institutions have. Special attention will be given to the
meaning of boundaries and how to take them into account. In one word: roomification.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Q.B.4
Question/
paragraph
issues page
Q. B.4.1 Four main spheres in society 135
Q. B.4.2 About spheres and framework patterns 138
Q. B.4.3 Patterns and sphere characteristics 141
Q. B.4.4 How to take sphere boundaries into account? 144
Q. B.4.5 What do we mean by roomification? 147
Q. B.4.1. Which are the main spheres to be distinguished and why should we take into account
different spheres of society?
society perspective.
Society is not a monolithic whole. It is an aggregated whole, consisting of 4 main spheres, each with its
own domain of activity and central institutions. Each of these is characterized by a typical framework
pattern, which allows specific patterns to unfold and which resists the unfolding of patterns which are
a-typical to its framework. A framework pattern consists of a minimal number of functions to be
fulfilled which are essential to the sphere. The framework pattern is a simple and rather inflexible
framework that says WHAT needs to be done. It allows numerous patterns to suggest HOW these
functions will be fulfilled. Frameworks can be adjusted though (see next paragraph)
136
Let us see which spheres are basic. I follow here the classification of spheres as presented by Albert
and Hahnel, but name them differently:
First comes the sphere private life, or „oikos‟. The oikos is about family, nuclear family,
parenthood, educating children, privacy, home, the sphere of the home, where we feel at
home. It is the sphere of the family: nuclear to start with, but often also the extended family,
the circle of friends, the neighborhood, and sometime including the tribe. The oikos is crucial,
as it provides the basis of our social life. It is here that hopefully we experience trust and
develop basic trust and environmental trust (or distrust). It is here that we learn to orientate
ourselves in life. It provides a fall-back position. A well-functioning oikos is an oikos that fits
the environment, by supporting and complementing it. Relationships (and networks of
friendship) are characterized by loyalty, solidarity, commitment, care etc. The value of
members is taken for granted, simply because they belong to „us‟. Our oikos-experience will
define our experiences in other spheres, more than the other way round. If we are used to
strong solidarity, the policy will be expected to express that value also. If the oikos is
prescribing strict equality, so we expect the policy to promote equality. Etc.
Second comes the sphere of working life, or „private sector ‟or market‟, the sphere of
production and exchange, of entrepreneurship, technology, craftsmanship, banking,
transportation, employment etc. Market or exchange principles apply here. The value of
people is determined by each person‟s contribution to producing and selling a product, as well
by his financial value on the market. Here we practice craftsmanship, professionalism,
management, salesmanship. We expect to get paid in exchange for our service, in some cases
we attempt to maximize payment. The individual is an entrepreneur, a craftsman, an employee
or a slave. At present this sphere has strong imperialist tendencies. It penetrates into the oikos
by means of advertising. It also penetrates into the political by means of lobbying and, all too
often, bribing. But mental or cultural imperialism is the most forceful, for it alters the way we
look at things and orientate ourselves morally. Sandel observed: market reasoning empties
public life of moral argument‟.
Third comes the sphere of public life, sometimes called„ third sphere‟, or „middle field‟ , the
„civic society‟, with its multifold institutions, like religious organizations, trade unions, schools,
pressure groups, social and medical care institutions, CSO‟s, sport clubs and not to forget the
street gangs and criminal organizations. It is the sphere where we are challenged to participate
in meaningful activities, varying from developing a more civic environment, sports and games,
creativity, action and care. In some sense it is an extension of the oikos in that it organizes
activities that were formerly part of the oikos. But it also acts as a go-between the oikos and
the market (trade unions) or the oikos and the political (political parties, pressure groups).
When we develop policies we should keep in mind its many sub-spheres, like:
o Sports
o Arts
137
o Services (medical and social care)
o Religious
o Media: information and communication
o Advocacy (environmental, human rights etc)
o Education and science
o Gangs and other criminal organizations
Fourthly, the governmental sphere or political sphere. This is the sphere of the „trias politica‟,
plus public administration, with its laws and policies, the inseparable twins. It is the sphere
where public policies are being developed, implemented and, sometimes, evaluated. Most
policies will be implemented in one or more of the other spheres, but there will also be policies
geared to this sphere, like policies to improve integrity of public governance. Such policies we
may call „internal policies‟. There is something different in this sphere. It presents itself is a
kind of –meta-framework towards the other spheres in that is assumes its responsibility to
keep things under control, to prevent chaos from taking over. So it offers a meta-framework of
laws to which all members and entities of society should submit. But laws in themselves are
too formal. They need to be completed and supported by financial incentives, communication
and institutional arrangements. In one word: policies. The idea is that we can live together
within the different spheres, without causing chaos. There should be room or space for all. Life
as it may unfold itself within a limited space, should not invade and colonize other spheres.
That is why society needs a governmental sphere.
Albert and Hahnel emphasize the interconnectedness of the spheres and rightly so. That is why they
use the term „complementary holism‟ .
It is not just interconnectedness, but also overlapping. Spheres overlap in 2 ways. First, more or less
literally they overlap in that they sometimes fulfill functions which belong to another sphere. There are
families (oikos) who as families run a business (market). There are CSO‟s (civic society) that fulfill a
governmental function in that they receive subsidy to carry out some social services for which the
government is responsible. And there are numerous civil servants who work as volunteers in CSO‟s.
Likewise there are public-private partnerships where market and political sphere overlap. There are
entrepreneurs who also are politicians. And so on.
Secondly, there is no sphere where the influence from other spheres is not felt. The governmental is
everywhere, in the oikos, the market and the middle field. Vice versa, the governmental sphere should
take into account trends in other spheres. We will come back to that later.
Spheres can be viewed as framework patterns in which numerous specific patterns may unfold and
enfold. The framework pattern consists of some elementary functions which need to be fulfilled in
society, related to oikos, market, public sphere and government. Each of these spheres harbors
numerous patterns that „color‟ these spheres. Authoritarian versus egalitarian home culture; free
138
competition versus a centrally planned economies and lots of polder-type patterns in between;
dictatorships versus direct democracies like in Switzerland and again so many in-between patterns.
The meta-framework with its overall laws and policies serves as a big building construction that may
lodge the other three spheres. It fulfills a protective and regulative function. The regulative is clear.
That is indeed what laws and policies do. The protective function is less clear. But if citizens cannot
trust the law and the indiscriminate enforcement of the law, individual citizens will feel insecure,
potential investors will stay away, CSO‟s will think twice before starting a controversial advocacy
campaign, journalists will practice self-censorship. Society will soon be in the grip of uncertainty,
distrust and despair. The importance of indiscriminate law enforcement is difficult to underestimate.
The realm of policies takes us to the issue of trust in what the government says. Policies are about what
a government intends to do. If a promise remains unfulfilled, if yes can mean or become no and no can
mean or become yes, people will start feeling insecure as well. In such countries the meta-framework
does not function properly. Eventually this may lead to a failed state.
Conclusion: We define societal spheres as „ domains with activities and institutions geared to a
distinctive set of valued goals or functions in society‟. Spheres are also characterized by a distinctive
framework pattern in which numerous patterns unfold themselves. The meta-framework of laws and
policies provided and maintained by the sphere of the government is crucial to a healthy society.
See : Michael Albert, M., Cagan, L. ,Chomsky, N, Hahnel, R. , King, M. Sargent L., Sklar, H. Liberating Theory, 1986. Interesting
is Sandels observation. For he is a strong proponent of communitarianism and is a major critic of John Rawls (see below). As
such it is understandable that is sensitive to the special character of different spheres, something that seems to escape Rawls‟
viewpoint. However, I still believe Rawls has much to contribute within the sphere of the market; See his: M.J.Sandel,What
Money Can't buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. New York, 2012
Q. B.4.2. Which are the general characteristics of framework patterns and which are the distinctive
characteristics for the different framework patterns of spheres?
society perspective.
Let us recapitulate first.
Public policies are attempts to realize shared goals by means of a number of activities that will
stimulate the unfolding of patterns on which a majority of stakeholders agree. Some public policies will
imply a pattern shift or deliberately initiate pattern shift. Whether such policies will be responded to
friendly depends on the nature of existing „common policies‟, i.e. common policies which are geared to
maintenance of present patterns. Whereas policies that are less friendly to a particular sphere and its
characteristic framework pattern will likely be responded to negatively.
Let is now elaborate on patterns.
139
Long ago Talcott Parsons suggested a limited number of „pattern variables‟. They are useful to
characterize the various „spheres‟ and their respective framework patterns in a generalized way.
Different spheres tend to be characterized by a set of specific pattern variables. We may view spheres
as rather inflexible „framework patterns‟. They are the home of a large number of more specific
patterns and lots of policies are issued in order to realize some change or improvements in the sphere.
So, they form a framework in which common policies (policies to maintain patterns) and public
policies do their work. The point is that spheres as „framework patterns‟ help us to better understand
why some policies will not easily work in a particular sphere. If a policy is more or less in harmony
with the framework pattern of the sphere, when it improves its functioning, the policy is likely to be
acceptable. People will be nudged easily into the new pattern if they see some functions will be fulfilled
better. If it is not, negative response policies can be expected to emerge. In other words, spheres with
their framework patterns are very helpful to imagine responses to new policies. Policy imagination
should make ample use of them. But do note that spheres are extremely general. They are all
characterized by a continuous coming and going of specific patterns, unfolding and enfolding patterns.
Let us now have a look at these pattern variables. I list a first five which are directly taken from
Parsons (see his Social System, 1951), slightly modified though (especially the second). The next 2
variables I have added.
First: character of relationships: there is either an emphasis on affectivity (direct personal
relationships) or on affective neutrality (relationships tend to be more functional)
Second: character of responsibility: emphasis on individual or private interests (exclusiveness) or
collective interest (inclusiveness). This corresponds to the contrast between competition and
cooperation.
Third: value orientation : an emphasis on universal values (and related „ deontological‟
responsibilities) or an emphasis on the particulars of a particular situation.
Fourth: personal worth: an emphasis on what the person has achieved or what has been ascribed to
him or her (by family or group membership)
Fifth: type of interest or loyalty: mainly diffuse with a wide range of responsibilities or mainly specific
with just a few well-defined responsibilities
Sixth: value realization: an emphasis on expression of values or an emphasis on realizing valued goals
(instrumental approach)
Seventh: relation with environment (external and internal): an emphasis on control or on dialogue,
related to the internal emphasis on authoritarian control or democratic dialogue
Spheres/pattern
variables
Oikos Market Middle field Political/government
140
Affectivity + + +
Affective neutrality + + +
Self-orientation
(exclusiveness)
+ (+)
Collective
orientation
(inclusiveness)
+ + +
Universalism + + +
Particularism (+) + (+) (+)
Achievement + + +
Ascription + (+)
Diffuse + (+)
Specific + + +
Expressive + + +
Instrumental + + +
Control + + +
Dialogue + (+) + (+)
Each of these spheres is the home of a number of specific patterns, which are in the process of
unfolding or enfolding. For instance, families may traditionally be characterized by control and
authority and slowly moving into a pattern of dialogue and democratic decision making. Other
patterns my favor gender equality in the family, or the opposite.
Or take loyalty programs of hotels or airlines, within the market sphere. Originally the idea was that
regular clients should receive special treatment because of their loyalty. Of course the client and the
hotel/airline were well aware of the mutual benefit, but nevertheless there was this idea of „diffuse
loyalty‟ with preference over „calculated loyalty‟. Recently airlines have shifted their loyalty programs
towards total calculation. Passenger/clients will respond likewise. So in actual fact the loyalty program
has nothing to do with (diffuse) loyalty anymore. It is all a matter of „cold‟ calculation. The loyalty
program has become a discount program.
Conclusion: The idea is to take into account the characteristics of spheres when developing policies.
A particular positive or negative response towards a policy can be imagined more easily, if not
predicted.
141
Q. B.4.3. How do patterns relate to a sphere characteristics or framework patterns?
society perspective.
Spheres all have their peculiar functions. Various patterns are ways to fulfill these sphere functions.
They always claim to do so, for they emerge from the results of a discourse. Parents discuss the
upbringing of children and decide together how to go about. A pattern of upbringing will unfold itself,
with positive or negative results. Negative results can be ignored for a long time, but not for ever. So a
new discourse will be sparked and a pattern change is likely. Meanwhile the government may become
aware of some negative results of upbringing and take some public policy measures to mitigate the
negative effects of the pattern. The government may even take the initiative to change the pattern and
convince parents that upbringing should be done differently.
Oikos, market and government have pretty clear functions, that together make up for the sphere
frameworks. These frameworks are simple and stable. The middle field is a totally different matter. It
is the field of citizens‟ initiative. The initiative may concern art expression, journalism, welfare,
advocacy, or whatever. That is why we need to think of sub-spheres with their own rather flexible
framework. What is art? What is journalism? What is welfare? There can be all sorts of art-patterns:
forms or trends or styles, but they have one thing in common: they are art. There can be all sorts of
patterns, i.e. trends and styles in journalism, but if they fulfill some basic professional conditions they
all fall in the category of journalism. And so on.
Let us be a bit more specific and focus on welfare patterns within the framework of the „open‟ middle
field and entrepreneurship patterns with the much more restricted market framework.
Patterns of welfare and of entrepreneurship
Welfare patterns
Within institutions of welfare and social assistance (some of which are in the sphere of the
government, whereas in most countries many or some others are in the sphere of the middle field) we
may discern between 5 patterns. In my Patterns of Welfare, (1992) I analyzed these different patterns.
Here follows a very short summary:
Market pattern: welfare is considered as a tool of exchange, some citizens are in need of help and some
institutions of welfare may offer something for which the citizens pays directly or for which the
government provides financial means. The welfare workers consider themselves as a type of
142
entrepreneur, with a preference for methods and literature that fits the exchange model and vice versa
the client is seeking to survive as best as possible.
Value pattern: welfare is considered to be a way of passing on of values. Methods are seen to be the
expressions of values. Mental health is closely connected to meaning and meaning is the result of the
right value orientation. Welfare workers who feel connected to this pattern have a mission and they
have a preference to methods and literature that is based on such values
Social control pattern. Here welfare is considered to be a means of social control. Without welfare
anomy might strike and cause disruption and chaos, both in the minds of citizens who show deviant
behavior and in neighborhoods. It is crucial for our well-being there is order and social control. The
welfare worker is a social control agent.
Technical pattern. Instrumental thinking dominates. Welfare policies and social assistance methods
are considered to be tools that need to be assessed according to their effectiveness. Social workers are
professionals who need to be equipped with methodical knowledge. Much emphasis on research to
find out which policies and methods are yielding results. As in the other patterns there is a wealth of
literature and trainings which exactly fit the basics of this pattern
Encounter pattern. Again a completely different kind of approach. Welfare is the outcome of an open
society where people can meet without being exploited (market pattern), persuaded (value pattern)
stigmatized (social control patterns) or manipulated (technical pattern), to put things very sharply.
Social assistance is effective if people or groups of people meet others in a non-threatening climate and
feel they are accepted. The welfare worker is mostly a facilitator.
Within welfare institutions elements of different patterns go around until they get combined with
other elements to form a pattern, which then starts unfolding itself. If it appears that the pattern does
not quite fit, it will enfold again and be replaced by another pattern. Different patterns may co-exist
and the government may issue policies based on one or another pattern. A governmental policy based
on a pattern which is enfolded is unlikely to be effective. It is felt to be going against the grain.
Likewise we see patterns emerge and disappear in the health sector, in education, in justice and so on.
Entrepreneurship patterns
Much more important than patterns in welfare, are economic systems as patterns and, related to these,
entrepreneurship patterns. De Vries has analyzed the development and decline of economic systems,
in actual fact patterns. Arriving in 2010 he notices that the shock of the credit crisis is causing a crisis
in the fiduciary system of modern capitalism. He quotes a BBC report that concludes that just 11 % of
the population in Britain still trusts free market capitalism. So we witness a phase of pattern shift in
economic patterns. The Chinese, the German, the Swedish patterns are getting serious attention and
may finally result in a new more appropriate pattern for today. At the same time we see discussions
143
about, entrepreneurship, corporate social responsibility and ownership. There still is a dominant
pattern of the company entirely geared to profit the owners or shareholders. But alternative patterns
emerge. Indeed patterns do not just alternate one after another, but also exist simultaneously.
In the so-called Western culture with its free market economy you find a sociocratic model of
enterprise (as developed in The Netherlands by Kees Boeke and Gerard Endenburg), you find the
movement initiated by Fritz Schumacher to gear technology to the „human scale‟ and care for the
environment (see his Small is Beautiful, 1973) which is about economics „as if people mattered‟, which
got considerable attention. His approach reminds us of Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, who strongly
stressed the importance of team work and cooperation in the company. Man, so he asserts, is much
more than an individual. He is a team member and the foundation of the value of any company. Vice
versa, the company should regard its workforce, without which the company is just nothing, highly.
(see his Multiformity of Man, 1973)
Nowadays we find more and more corporations who make serious attempts to practice „corporate
social responsibility‟ as well as the movement of worker participation in the company as suggested and
put into practice by Goyder in Britain. This Goyder model was introduced in several British and
Western European countries (starting with the Newsprint Supply Company in 1940) and has resulted
in considerably more say in the company‟s affairs by employees. Goyders model is extremely
interesting for it is based on a different view of ownership, akin to the ideas of Rosenstock Huessy. He
points to the origin of the verb „to own‟, which comes from „to owe‟, meaning there is an obligation.
Like: he owes his success to the company he inherited. „Owership means stewardship‟ according to
Goyder. Originally it comes from the common agricultural ground that was available to all. Ownership
of a particular piece of that common land meant that the „owner‟ was owing something to the others.
Obviously, this shows we are thinking according to a pattern in which ownership has an entirely
different meaning than ownership in a pattern that serves free liberal enterprise. From this principle
he builds his new vision of entrepreneurship, in which employees have to be shareholders as well as
workers. Shareholders also need to understand the implications of the idea of ownership. It means that
a company cannot be a „tool for investment‟. Being co-owner you need to act responsibly. This also
means a different view of labor. Less as a cost factor, more as contributing to the value of the
enterprise in combination to personal fulfillment. His ideas are practiced in a number of British
companies. The result is a different pattern of entrepreneurship that requires different public policies
to support it.
More recently, without referring to Goyder, John Stiglitz suggested a similar way of thinking in his
Making Globalization Work. He puts forward that industries that pollute the environment owe
something to the planet and to all creatures who depend on the planet for their living, like human
beings. In other words: every creature. We all use air, catch fish, drink water or whatever from a
common source. The affluent nations use most of the world‟s resources, at the expense of other
nations. That means that somehow we should assume responsibility, or force users, nations and
companies to assume responsibility. Stiglitz argues that liberal capitalism clearly has its limitations.
That is exactly what happens to patterns. They unfold until limitations and tensions appear. The
144
limitations will eventually undermine the fiduciary system of the pattern, of liberal capitalism in this
case.
Whether one of these alternative patterns is going to be dominant in the market sphere remains to be
seen. Within spheres patterns have a chance if they offer solutions for problems caused by other
patterns. Everything depends however on the outcome of the policy discourse within the sphere. The
outcome of the policy discourse is a joint (re)interpretation or (new) definition of the situation. It is on
the basis of this definition that people will act.
Conclusion: All spheres have frameworks. The frameworks of oikos, market and government are
pretty fixed. Within these frameworks patterns emerge to fulfill framework functions, more or less
successfully. If less successful, the pattern will eventually fade out. But before that happens much
discussion will have taken place and lots of policies may have been launched to support the failing
pattern.
For an elaboration see: B. Kristensen, Patterns of Welfare, Amsterdam, 1992. And regarding patters in economy and
entrepreneurship J.de Vries, Ontstaan en Groei van de Economische Systemen, Amsterdam 2011, p 207 ff.; G.A. Goyder, The
Responsible Company, 1961; and his up-date in The Just Enterprise, 1987; and Joseph E. Stiglitz, Making Globalization Work,
New York, 2006
Q. B.4.4. Spheres have of course boundaries. We would be unable to distinguish spheres if there were
no boundaries at all. However, societal boundaries are always somewhat nebulous and, on top of that
the spheres may influence one another. How to take sphere boundaries into account?
society perspective.
Indeed sphere boundaries are somewhat nebulous and vague and can easily be crossed. Sometimes we
hardly notice it and we need to take some distance in order to see the boundary. Crossing may cause
friction. Let us have a look at some examples.
At present the market sphere is dominated by a free-market pattern of free competition (apart from
monopolies). But in the public sphere, with its emphasis on inclusiveness, free competition is
questionable. Take public utilities, like power. First, some countries privatized electric utilities,
expecting competition to increase quality of service and decrease prices. But what if there is no
competitor? Or if there are 2 companies providing electricity, there is a good chance that they tariff
agreements which might not beneficial for the client. And what if in mid-winter some citizens are too
poor to pay their bills? Should the government allow the private companies to cut off the non-paying
clients in freezing temperatures? Does public government have no responsibility?
145
And how about education, which belongs to the public sphere? Does the government not have
responsibilities to regulate schools and make sure a minimum level of quality as well as participation is
guaranteed? If not, children from families which are well-off will be sent to good schools and children
from the poorer families will receive substandard education.
Often public policies impinge on the oikos. Equal rights of women is one of the many examples. In The
Netherlands which is known for its liberalism, still lots of men don‟t like this idea of equality and still
tell a very old and worn out joke: „ het enige recht van de vrouw is het aanrecht‟. Which is a playing
with words, meaning literally that the only right women have is the kitchen sink‟. The Dutch word for
kitchen „sink‟ happens to be literally similar to „right‟. So the meaning of the saying is: the only right
women have is to work in the kitchen. This does not really sound like a progressive liberalist viewpoint
on human rights. It shows there still is a lot of traditionalism in the Dutch oikos. Policies that demand
equal rights for men and women are likely to cause tension in a traditional oikos sphere.
Interesting is the story of women rights in China. The Empress-Dowager Cixi decided in 1902 that
women should be liberated, starting with the breaking of the feet of young girls as was the weird habit
among the Han-Chinese. She gave instructions to local leaders to inform families of this decision by
the Empress. They were expected to give information and to convince parents of the importance to
change this habit. However, they should not coerce them. The Empress realized a millennium old
habit, ingrained in the oikos, could not be changed overnight. The urge to change may come from
outside, but the actual change should come from within. What is remarkable is that this habit was
widely dropped within a period of 10 years and, what is more, women‟s rights („nü-quan‟) quickly
became a fashionable topic to pay attention to. Indeed the approach of the Empress to interfere in the
matters of the oikos shows she had acquired an impressive amount of „phronesis‟. No brutal
interference. Her policy consisted of a mixture of information and deliberation aimed at replacing the
traditional Han-pattern with a modern pattern with equal rights for women. Her approach proved to
be remarkably successful.
See: Jung Chang, The Empress Dowager Cixi: The Concubine who Launched Modern China, London, 2013, p 300 ff
Vice versa the oikos with its particular values and traditions may influence politics, public authority
and public administration. The French sociologist Emmanuel Todd is of the opinion that different
types of oikos (different patterns) determine the pattern of politics. If there is no equality in the family,
it is very unlikely a government will be able to impose equality on society. Communist, fascist,
democratic egalitarian, democratic populist and several other types of regime spring from oikos
patterns, because it is in the oikos that is why we get acquainted with „ the way things are and should
be‟.
Like this:
“papa is in charge, papa should care and if papa can‟t, the government should: let us embrace policies
to take care of the needy” ; solidarity, loyalty, trust and the feeling of belonging spring from this sphere
146
and demand from the government that it develops a strong social security policy. A „papa-type‟ of
politician will do well in election time. A patriarch. Or, in countries where mothers have something to
say outside the sphere of the oikos, a „mama‟ might do as well.
And compare it with this:
“I have always learned to care for myself; what in the world is this government doing? De we really
need spoon feeding?”; all citizens should be responsible for their own well-being, freedom and self-
responsibility are sign of maturity, the government should refrain from interference and limit itself to
minimum social securities.
This also means that there is a continuous discussion within the sphere as to what patterns are
essential to maintain. Parents discuss the bringing up of their children. What values are important to
transmit to the young ones? The pattern variables immediately become visible: equal rights and duties
of children, loyalty to the family, understanding and acceptance of duties to do the dishes, taboo on
instrumental thinking, how to check the impact of television programs on the minds of children, or a
discussion on democratic decision making within the nuclear family, and so on.
In the market sphere such discussions go on as well. A manager who is concerned about the well-being
of one of his employees and takes measures to make life a bit easier for him, will hear from a colleague:
this is not a social care institute, this is a company that must compete with other companies.
Big companies have lobbies in parliament to influence policy decisions and some politicians detest
such undemocratic behavior. It regularly sparks discussions about the influence of companies on
politics and the boundaries of the market sphere.
Back in 1944 Karl Polanyi (the brother of Michael Polanyi) warned against sphere confusion. In actual
fact he was warning against pattern elements which are useful in the market, might be disastrous if
they are introduced in the government or oikos. In his time various ideologies were attempting to
impose themselves on the oikos, like fascism and communism. Such ideologies were seeking total
control over cultural institutions (of the sphere of civic society). He also warned against a financial
system which is supposed to be a service system, to be determined by market competition. Market
values have started to impose itself on all spheres, even to the extent that the „value of a human being
is dependent on its value on the market. „Robbed of the protective covering of cultural institutions,
human beings would perish……‟. They have little power to resist the market imperatives. Polanyi was
of the opinion that of all economic systems modern capitalism is the worst in that it brutally colonizes
other spheres, including the government. Political leaders should be much more sensitive to the
distinctive values of the different spheres, lest the entire society degenerates into monotone desert.
And civic society is a much needed sphere. In other words, we should prevent „sphere confusion‟ (as we
may call it).
147
Conclusion: policy designs should take into account not just various relevant patterns, but also the
distinctive features of spheres in which they are going to be carried out. Policies need to be geared to
the pattern framework of the sphere to which it is directed, in order to avoid ineffectiveness or adverse
response patterns. Sphere confusion should be prevented.
See for an interesting discussion: Arjo Klamer, In hemelsnaam!, over de economie van overvloed en onbehagen, Kampen, 2005,
p120. For the link between oikos and politics: E.Todd, Explanation of Ideology: Family Structure & Social System, 1985 (original
La Troisième planète, 1983). Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of our Time, New
York, 1944 (2001), p 77
Q.B.4.5. What do we mean by „roomification‟? and why is roomification important to policy
development and policy design?
Society perspective
Some years ago an acquaintance of mine in Curacao moved into a nice little house with a small garden.
The walled back garden was not much bigger than 150 square meters. His desire was a small lush
garden and he planted many different plants, with right in the centre his favorite tree, the Flamboyant.
Ten years later none of the plants existed anymore. The flamboyant dominated the back garden
entirely. It needed all space, all attention, all water with its huge roots. Meanwhile the roots had
started to undermine and unsettle the foundation of the house. He observed it all with mixed feelings.
This is an example of someone who did not have the slightest feeling for roomification, nor did his
capacity for imagination work well. Roomification is about securing „space‟ for different actors
(individual actors and entities in society) to live, today and tomorrow, without hampering others. As
others too have a right to live today and tomorrow.
Biologist Garrett Hardin called it the „tragedy of the commons‟. Commons were fields or meadows that
could be used by all farmers to let their cattle graze. This works well as long as all farmers know to
restrict themselves and as long as the number of users does not get too large. If one farmer would
decide to increase his cattle so as to get more income and others would follow his example, the grass
will perish and sooner or later the meadow will become a pool of mud. The community of farmers will
turn into a „battle field‟ of people accusing one another of foul play. That is why so many farming
communities decided to make fences. The fence indicates what is my piece of land and what is yours.
Fences will see to it there is peace and room for all. By the way, etymologically the old gothic meaning
of the word frithu means peace (in German Frieden) and is related to the verbs: to care, to protect and
to love, as well as related to some old Germanic words for „fence‟. For it is the fence that cares for
peace. The Middle Dutch word „vrede‟ could mean both peace and fence.
See: J.Verdam, Middelnederlandsch Handwoordenboek, ‟s Gravenhage, 1911, p 668.
148
Roomification is central to policy development. We may even say that public policies are about
roomification, to create space to allow life to unfold itself. Physical space is all too often perceived as
„just space‟, without any mental or spiritual meaning. This is questionable. Can there be any activity of
the mind without space? Looking at the space in a painting of Mondriaan some people are of the
opinion that the space between the lines is empty. Is it? The well-observing mind gets absorbed by the
poetry that is evoked by the spaces offered by Mondriaan. Indeed like poetry. William James noted
the three-dimensional force-field that is evoked in whatever space and especially in spaces created in
literature, with words and relations between words creating tension, movement of thinking,
development of ideas. The human brain gets inspired by it. Spaces create a type of electro-magnetic
fields, he said. „Space is an image of literature‟s holding-ground: it holds inner meaning‟ is Davies‟
conclusion. Without space all waves of meaning evaporate into infinity. In other words, patterns need
space to unfold. Life needs patterns to get inspired and unfold. Patterns need space to resonate, rather
than evaporate.
See for an exposition of William James‟ pattern idea Philip Davies, Reading and the Reader, 2013. Rupert Sheldrake presented
his theory of morphic resonance, without mentioning William James on electro-magnetic fields, but his theory is kindred. See
his The presence of the Past, Rochester, 1988
Limitation of space is needed though, in order to prevent that human activities become unwieldy and
chaotic and eventually to evaporate. Richard Sennett makes a case for what he calls "lost spaces of
freedom", i.e. spaces in which “craftsmen can experiment with ideas and techniques, risk mistakes and
hold-ups, lose themselves to find themselves". For sure we should realize the space in which we work is
part of a larger space. Perpetuated isolation narrows the mind. But perpetuated living in open fields
will disperse the mind and make freedom meaningless. In order to concentrate and create we need a
relatively fenced space, with open windows to the outside world. We need to be protected against
insolent intruders, who like to disturb or colonize, or to control. Such intruders kill creative
craftsmanship and dialogue, kill freedom of conscience and religion and kill privacy and intimacy.
Human beings need space for development.
Most public policies are meant to create conditions for a good life. Think of integrity of civil servants in
the governmental sphere. A government cannot „create‟ civil servants who are characterized by
integrity. „Integrity has no need of rules‟ so Albert Camus stated bluntly. The only thing a government
may do is to adopt an integrity policy that creates conditions to stimulate the mind to consider the
importance and meaning of integrity. This is the case with most policies. Creation of effective
conditions for the good life is roomification. Space should then be used properly, creatively and
functionally. That is why Georg Simmel, more than a century ago, thinking of the need for space and
protecting „borders‟, points out that space and morality need to go together, Without morality the users
of that space forfeit the right to use it. But morality cannot be imposed. Much rather it is presupposed.
Before we elaborate, let us look at 2 examples in more detail
GreenTown Curaçao
149
Above we already discussed the old oil refinery in Curacao, which is occupying most of the huge harbor
area of the island. It is heavily polluting and located in the centre of the living area with 100.000
citizens living in close proximity to the refinery. The refinery is operated by the Venezuelan PDVSA
and offers about 900 people employment. Apart from an estimated number of 28 casualties per year,
due to severe illness caused by pollution and hundreds of chronically ill people, the pollution is
noticeable in a large part of the island. As a result of the refinery touristic development is hampered
and so is the economic development of the harbor area. In other words, the PDVS is not a model of
good CSR practice. Corporate morality is almost completely evaporated.
The environmentally friendly initiative of „Greentown‟ wants to replace the oil refinery „with a lively,
green and vibrant city district around the harbor, generating more than 16,000 new jobs, a significant
increase in government revenues and be powered solely with sustainable energy‟.
During the past century the refinery played an important role in the island‟s economy. But now it is
blocking economic and human development.
Roomification means a discussion about „space‟ in the broad sense of the word. In the small island
territory space has to be used as effectively as possible. It cannot be that a large area is being used for
just one economic activity that has become almost obsolete, while blocking the development of other
activities. Nor can it be that one economic activity has continuous negative ramifications for the
population, with the exception of those who find work in the refinery. Roomification is about creating
space to provide opportunities of all citizens and economic entities, today and in the future. Green
Town has presented a plan that stimulates diverse economic development in an environmentally
friendly way.
Romanian Pensions
An old and erudite lady of 90 used to be a professor of French language. She spends most of the day
walking around in Bucharest with a plastic bag searching for affordable food in one of the markets. She
worked during the Ceausescu regime and built up her pension. Nowadays her pension is worth next to
nothing.
Back in late 20th century several economists gave warnings that pensions from communist days were
going to be problematic, due to inflation and devaluation. Governments did not take action. No
attempt was made to roomificate and see to it that retired people could have a reasonable pension to
live on. The more they (conveniently) postponed the decision, the more costly a solution got.
The idea of roomification emerged in a discussion with a former colleague of mine, Chris Boon, long
ago. As a psychologist he was interested in organizing and developing somebody‟s remaining years in
life by reserving time for different types of activities, taking into account the finiteness of it. At some
point he was discussing ramifications of policies. Ramifications can be positive and negative. How to
limit negative ramifications? Or how to keep ramifications under control? Chris Boon suddenly coined
the word „roomification‟. A non-existing word, close to ramification, which conveys a meaning that is
extremely useful. In fact he gave it a double meaning. First „providing space of a particular type for
activity‟, now and in the future, in personal life and in public life. Space to enable individual people
and collective actors to live and to develop. In other words: „space‟ in the legal, cultural and possibly
150
physical and financial meaning of the word. Plus time-wise! Policies in the realm of sports, economic
development, education, welfare, music and so on, are most of all about providing space: legal space in
the very first place. Sometimes physical space is needed, financial means are needed, as well as
institutional arrangements. And maybe communication is needed to convince people for instance that
sport or artistic activities are useful and healthy. Within a particular space a particular pattern may
resonate and start unfolding itself.
Secondly it means that such activities should be carried out within that room or space, without
interfering the space of others and unsettling other spaces. So a particular space is reserved for that
particular activity. Communication, negative financial incentives and legal sanctions are all means to
make sure the activity will limit itself to that particular „room‟ and not colonizing other rooms. And
when it does have ramifications with an undesirable impact on other spaces, mitigating measure have
to be taken.
Most ramifications will appear in the future. Not immediately. Today‟s advantages often limit
tomorrow‟s possibilities. That is the reason why policy imagination is so important. To anticipate and
take measures timely.
Of course roomification includes environmental planning and dividing physical space. If the world of
organisms, plants and animals gets pinched and is denied more and more space by human, it will
eventually strike back. Parasitic behavior always gets punished. But there is much more. It is about
understanding the different spheres of society in which people live. It is about creating conditions that
spheres will not colonize one another and that within spheres different functions can be fulfilled by
actors who my adhere to different patterns. To develop inclusive policies, one needs to roomificate
properly.
Seen from the point of view of the governmental sphere, public policies are about roomification and
making sure that negative ramifications of human activities will not cause chaos.
I like the term roomification because it helps visualizing the idea of public policies and focusing on its
major aim. Rosenstock-Huessy‟s made an interesting comment on the nature of names: „to think
means to introduce better names‟. With roomification we also have a link between policies and
governance.
Conclusion: In other words, roomification is first of all needed to adjust and strengthen frameworks
of spheres in changing environments and to see to it that common policies of numerous patterns will
not have unsettling effects. Secondly roomification is useful to keep in mind as a general principle of
good policy design: to make sure there is space for everybody and to avert colonization.
See for an early discussion Georg Simmel, Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. 1908 (5th ed;
1968), p 470ff; and for the problem of (un)forseen ramifications: T.Jackson, Prosperity and Growth, Economics for a finite
Planet , London 2009, p 160.
151
C. Policies and governance
1. Public policy and good governance
“Kopjonkin smiled at the sparrow who managed to find such a great promise in his idle mini-life. It
was clear that he was not keeping himself warm just by means of grain, but because of a dream…...
Kopjonkin too did not live on bread and welfare, but on intuitive hope…..”.
Those who are acquainted with this great Russian 20th century novel, know that Platonov‟s message is
not only that great hope, great dreams and great expectations keep us warm, optimistic and self-
assured, but also lead to great disaster if you are convinced you are right and decide to impose your
ideas on others. And what is more, Platonov is telling us that people who „feel they know what is right,
usually know nothing‟. Feelings free us from the duty to reflect…. „this feels good‟ really is an ominous
sign…. Better just keep dreaming and do nothing.
So, unfortunately our courses of action seem to be dictated by wonderful expectations, rather than
experience. Our policy imagination tends to be defective, if it is just a matter of putting great ideas into
practice. Little shortsighted imagination is needed. Such policy approach is dependent on methodical,
technical and political power. Once we attempt to be inclusive, we enter into the sphere of
conscientious policy development.
(Andrei Platonov, Tsjevengoer, Amsterdam 1988, p159)
Summary
Good and proper public governance is characterized by legitimacy (realized by democratic
procedures), integrity (the right and proper use of position in public administration), legality (all
activities of government should have a legal basis) and effectiveness and inclusiveness of service. This
last issue takes us to policies. In all cases public governance should be to the benefit of the public, it is
in the service of the public (its good) and what is more, it is owned by the public (democracy). That
means that policies should also serve the public good. This means it should also take sphere
characteristics into account and roomificate properly
An indicator for good governance is the willingness and capacity to design policies in deliberation with
stakeholders to realize policy goals that are considered to be of central importance to the government.
That includes open and free discussion, or an open policy discourse. That is why clear policy papers are
so useful. For clarity sparks a meaningful and open discussion. Unclear papers either obstruct
discussion or even spark distrust.
152
Good governance is (among others) a matter of finding a balance between governmental responsibility
and citizens‟ responsibility, between policy interference and societal action, between governmental
initiative and societal initiative.
Good governance is inclusive governance and inclusive policies will contribute substantially to good
governance in the service of the public good. If not, „policy mediation‟ is needed to render policies
more inclusive as yet.
TABLE OF CONTENTS C.1.
Question/
paragraph
issues Page
Q. C.1.1 Is there any agreement on basic elements of good
governance?
152
Q. C.1.2 Good governance and policy development capacity 154
Q. C.1.3 Why do we use the term governance? 155
Q. C.1.4 Why is governance linked with stakeholder involvement? 156
Q. C.1.5 Why do stakeholder involvement and democracy need each
other?
157
Q. C.1.6 Why does good governance need strong institutions? What is
a strong institution?
158
Q. C.1.7 What is a strong policy? 160
Q. C.1.8 Policies and the limitation of freedom 161
Q. C.1.9 Centralized states and representative democracy 163
Q. C.1.10 The need for policy support institutions 167
Q. C.1.11 The risk of focusing on the present 168
Q. C.1.12 The problem of maximization of policies. 169
Q. C.1.13 Policy mediation 170
Q. C.1.14 The practice of policy mediation 172
Q. C.1.15 Policy mediation by means of negotiation and of dialogue 176
Q. C.1.1. Is there any agreement on basic elements of good and democratic governance?
Political system perspective
There surely is no clear and firm agreement. Several elements pop up again and again. Based on my
own experience I would point to 4 major elements that are mentioned frequently:
Well-functioning „trias politica‟ and various other institutional checks and balances,which
includes an independent judicial process
153
Integrity and quality of public administration and executive, geared to the public good
Policy development capacity as a result of deliberation processes with either the market
sphere, the civic society sphere or the oikos; as well as capacity to apply facilitating
instruments effectively (mainly a matter of HR-capacity and weak organizational culture
Critical environment (independent media, active civil society, citizens educated in civic
matters)
And to another, often neglected factor:
For this we have to look at a famous remark made by the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
which is both sobering and challenging: “we may say that nature irresistibly wills that right should
eventually gain the upper hand”. The context in which he is writing this famous sentence is important.
He is putting the question whether a good political constitution will be produced by the moral attitudes
of people. No, it will not. Nor will a good political constitution produce people with high moral values.
They are fundamentally separate and this is both a great relief and a sharp warning to all ideologies
that assert our moral state is dependent on the political order or vice versa......or on the quality of
policies........
Indeed all people somehow believe that justice should be done. Whether it can be done or whether I
can contribute to it, is quite another matter. But what Kant is pointing at is that sooner or later any
immoral or evil situation will be exposed and eventually collapse. Either because immorality, once it
gets hold of people or organizations or cultures, has the strong tendency to unfold brutally, getting to a
point that too many suffer. It then starts dawning on us that something is wrong. Or because time is
just doing its work, sobering the minds and visions of people so that they start seeing the lack of
fairness or brutality of a regime. In retrospect we always ask the question: could we have foreseen and
anticipated? My answer to this question is: yes, we can. It is a matter of imagination and, in
combination, a matter of the critical mind.
Every attempt to keep something to ourselves (whatever it is, information or material goods or
network contacts), rather than sharing and making available, is an indication of parasitism, rather
than symbiosis. And by now we should all be acquainted with the vision of Lynn Margulis, the biologist
who tried to convince us that the law of the planet is symbiosis, whereas the only real threat is
parasitism, which in her vision is the height of shortsightedness. Which is in fact is the absence of
(policy) imagination.
In order to imagine how patterns may unfold, it is crucial to orientate ourselves broadly. What we see
is a narrowing of imagination to just the technical aspect, or the personal interest, or the power
dynamics between people. Our perspective gets narrowed down. We forget that there are so many
other important aspects. Justice, fairness, empathy, inclusiveness, service, righteousness and so on.
And what all these aspects mean for different spheres in society. So it depends on the way we interpret
situations, narrowly or broadly, set priorities and make value judgments. This is a moral challenge,
the challenge we were talking about before. The way we respond to this challenge will determine the
way we develop our public policies together or permit others to develop them.
154
See I.Kant, Political Writings, transl. H.B.Nisbet, Cambridge 1970; Lynn Margulis, The Symbiotic Planet, A new Look at
Evolution, Amherst, 1998: I will come back later to her viewpoint.
The conclusion is that good governance, apart from the 4 obvious points mentioned above, is also a
matter of inclusive orientation and anticipating dangers of narrow interest or narrow perspective.
Q. C.1.2.Why is good governance ( partly) dependant on good policy development?
Political system perspective
Summing up the characteristics of good and proper public governance, we find: legitimacy (realized by
democratic procedures), integrity (the right or proper use of position in public administration), legality
(all activities of government should have a legal basis) and effectiveness and inclusiveness of service
(which is partly a matter of proper organizational capacity and culture). This last issue, inclusiveness
of service, takes us to policies. In all cases public governance should be to the benefit of the public, it
should put itself into the service of the public and make sure there is room for useful public initiative.
And what is more, properly developed policies are owned by the public (democracy). The public „hired‟
the government to carry out the services which the public agreed on. That means that policies should
also serve the public good. The public does not hire the government and give them a carte blanche to
do whatever it considers right. No, it hires a government to carry out the policies that the public wants
to be carried out. And the government should do it well and professionally. This implies it should also
take sphere characteristics into account.
An indicator for good governance is the willingness and capacity to design policies in deliberation with
stakeholders to realize policy goals that are considered to be of central importance to the government.
That includes open and free discussion, or an open policy discourse. That is also why clearly written
policy papers are so useful. For clarity sparks a meaningful and open discussion. Unclear policy papers
either obstruct discussion or even spark distrust.
After years of discussion the World Bank has decided that good policies, or the capacity to develop and
implement good policies should be considered as indicators of good governance. (Daniel Kaufmann)
Why? Originally the reasoning was purely economic. The World Bank is of course committed to
stimulate economic development. Without a trustworthy government and an independent judicial
system, economic development is difficult to realize. Later its reasoning got extended. Economic
development is difficult without public development and public development is stimulated by a
government in the service of public development. Here policies play a crucial role.
At first sight politicians and policy makers do not like one another. Politicians want to act quickly and
score quickly. Policy makers want to analyze, discuss and develop a coherent set of activities before
actually doing something, preferably with a number of stakeholders. That takes time.
155
However, at second thought politicians realize good policies are effective instruments to achieve what
they have promised. So politicians and policy makers may or are potentially close friends.
Bad governance sometimes is considered a matter of evil intentions, but not necessarily so. Bad
governance can also be characterized by great intentions and incoherent ad hoc interventions, with
ramifications that contribute to chaos in the environment. Too often politicians get inspired by the
type of inspiration that was so characteristic for Kopjonkin. Again and again they strongly feel this is
the way to go......without any empirical check and without checking whether people really want it, or
need it, or whether the policy fits the sphere to which it is geared. Kahneman would call this the faulty
dependency on the quick system 1 thinking, without allowing the lazy system 2 thinking to have a
critical check. It is a common phenomenon. Politics are „quick‟ and often need to be „quick‟ and are
therefore difficult to combine with good governance which is „slow‟ and needs to be „slow‟ . Think twice
before you act. As a government you must act responsibly and assess the impact of your actions before
you act.
Bad governance may also come from poor policy implementation. Maybe it was developed well as a
result of good deliberation with stakeholders and professional policy design and yet the outcome is
disappointing. The reason might be the capacity for implementation is poor. The conditions to apply
policy instruments turned out to be insufficient (see above ) So policy development should include a
realistic implementation plan. This we will elaborate in part III.
See: D.Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, 2011
Conclusion: Good governance is characterized by cooperation and deliberation processes, modest
intentions and coherent interventions, checked by experience, contributing to reduction of chaos in the
environment, rendering the environment more governable. Sure good governance should be geared to
the realization of valued ideas or ideals, but the way to get there should be paved by experience and
insight, rather than good intentions. Plus sufficient capacity to a apply policy instruments.
Q. C.1.3. Why do we use the word „governance‟ rather than government when it comes to policies?
Political system perspective
We use the word „governance‟, rather than ‟government‟. Why? Just using the term „government‟
reveals a rather static, legal and institutional way of thinking. As if the ‟government‟ is indeed an
institution apart or even detached from society. Due to growing sociological insight, we now realize no
institution can function independent from its social environment. This applies to the government as
well. Social environmental trends have an impact on the government just like the outside temperature
has an impact on the temperature inside a building.
Even dictatorships interact with society. For instance, without a secret service a dictatorship would
collapse in a minute.
156
Indeed, there is the government as an institution, with a public administration as an organizational
structure in which civil servants provide support to the (political) executive to carry out their
governmental job. In other words: the governing body, subject to the Trias Politica, with all its legal
powers and responsibilities is laid down in most constitutions. Surely, government is necessary to the
existence of civil and civilized society. Each government will minimally have to take into account
positions and interests of stakeholders and networks of stakeholders and individual citizens. And if a
government is clever it will deliberately seek co-operation with stakeholders and networks and focus
on „steering‟ rather than „rowing‟ or even better: „network coordination‟. That means that the process of
governing a country is much more than just all internal and external processes of the governing body
together.
The word governance points to the entire process of governing a country or a city, of dealing with
stakeholders and ever changing networks. That is also the reason why „representative democracy,
should be complemented with „participatory or deliberative democracy arrangements‟.
Nowadays it is often used to describe a particular mode of governance, namely the mode of
cooperation with non-governmental actors (like CSO‟s, companies, trade unions, etc) and coordination
exercised by governmental agencies. Governance is indeed about wise co-operation and coordination
of policy networks (or about deliberate non-cooperation), which requires specific skills.
„Government‟ means the officially established public administration organization. We may define
governance with UNDP: „the exercise of economic, political, and administrative authority to manage a
country‟s affairs at all levels. It comprises mechanisms, processes, and institutions – coordinated by
the government - through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal
rights, meet their obligations, and mediate their differences‟. (see M.Bevir)
Conclusion: apart from the institution of the government, there are the ways and processes of
governing a country. Such ways are at least as important as the governmental institution. That is why
we stress the need for good governance and thus for governing by policies.
See: Klijn, EH and Koppejan J, Interactive Decision Makin and Representative Democracy, in Governance and Modern Society,
van Heffen O, Kickert W and Thomassen J, Dordrecht 2000, p109-134; and see M.Bevir, Democratic governance, Oxford, 2010;
Bevir, M. Governance: A very short introduction. Oxford, 2013; Kaufmann, D, Myths and realities of governance and
corruption, World Bank Report, 2005
Q. C.1.4. Why should the term governance be linked with stakeholder involvement?
Political system perspective
“The idea of policy design is inextricably linked with the idea of improving government actions through
conscious consideration at the stage of policy formulation of the likely outcomes of policy
implementation activities” according to Bevir. „Conscious consideration. I would put is even sharper
„conscientious consideration‟. There is an important implication here. Politicians in positions of power
who just deal with parliaments as the legitimate (representative) body of the public, easily lose sight of
157
the public and the issues that are important to public and specific stakeholders. If they enter into
(policy) dialogue with people, they regain the „common touch‟ and either become better politicians or
lose their mask that covers emptiness. This is why a „policy house‟ is an important institution to get
established (see later)
(see Howlett, M. Designing Public policies, ibid, p21)
Consider this. Power manifests itself in numerous ways. One of these is the power to define situations,
to define a situation as problematic or as OK, to diagnose a situation and to imagine a future
development (like policy imagination). Defining situations as an expression of power, means there is
no feedback, no contradiction, no discussion, no dialogue. Definitions as „power words‟. That is why
good policies are the result of policy dialogue or discussion and include stakeholders in each phase of
development: deliberation regarding the initial definition of the situation in particular. This applies to
later phases as well. As in elaboration, implementation and evaluation. Policy deliberation is the only
way to check, and during the implementation process re-check, whether a policy is in harmony with
rights and interests of citizens, whether it does not violate the legitimate rights of individual citizens.
Montesquieu remarked: the legislative should comply with the spirit of the nation, lest it will provoke
an unnecessary negative response. Policy deliberation is also an excellent way to make sure the
interests of citizens, CSO‟s and companies are optimally served and in harmony with one another as
much as possible. Also, good policies are based on a social support base, which is likely to be the effect
of a well-conducted deliberation process. They contribute to cohesion, as well as transparent
discussion and decision making in society.
Needless to add that stakeholders from different spheres should be taken into account? I am afraid
not. All too often it is taken for granted that everybody will nicely agree and even more often it is
assumed that other sphere will not be affected and therefore all will be OK. An unwarranted
assumption in most cases.
Conclusion: without checking and rechecking whether a policy will meet the needs of stakeholders
and is not at loggerheads with the needs of other stakeholders, communication with stakeholders is of
crucial importance.
Q.C.1.5. What does the need for stakeholder involvement mean for the democracy discussion? Or why
do stakeholder involvement and democracy need one another?
Political system perspective
Unfortunately there is not one clear definition of democracy which is universally accepted. There are
many types of democracy: people‟s democracy (Castro, Ceausescu), guided democracy (Sukarno,
Chavez), organic democracy (Franco, Salazar), neo-democracy (Trujillo, Lukashenko). Some stress the
popular vote, others democratic institutions and again others democratic culture and behavior. There
is much to say for a „constitutional democracy, as a system that puts a number of constitutional (legal
158
and organizational) restraints upon freely elected executives (the government). It means that
democracy has its particular „rules of the game‟ without which it does not function properly. One of the
rules of the democratic game should then be the principle of governing by policies with a legal basis
and approved by parliament (some countries have installed an additional check, like a supreme council
to advice the government or a constitutional court). In the discussion on democracy it has been stated
again and again that a state is so much stronger if the government is trusted by the people, if it
regularly involves the people in major decision making and when it has emerged itself from the people.
Although it is widely accepted that Aristotle was the first to propagate this insight, there are
indications that Confucius held the same opinion. Later I will argue that the original type of
government in human tribes was based on the assumption that there cannot be any other „government‟
than an „ad hoc‟ government with an „ad hoc‟ mandate to carry out some duties, entirely dependent on
popular support and subject to popular control. Of course that type of ad hoc government is impossible
in modern large scale societies. But it is wise to develop the original democratic principles into an
adequate democratic framework that fits our time. Policy deliberation in which the public (at least the
stakeholders) are involved would be an essential characteristic of such a framework. Conditions are 3-
fold:
Governments and executives with a democratic mentality who know that government is a
matter of doing thing with the people, for the people
Active citizenship (based on citizens who get well-instructed about democratic institutions,
culture, policy development etc; and who consider citizenship mostly a matter of duty, rather
than opportunity
An institutional framework for policy development, like policy chambers and a policy house
(see below)
The thrust of this syllabus and most of the international discussions on democracy point to the
importance of both a well-established institutionalized representative democracy and institutionalized
ways of getting stakeholders involved: participatory democracy. Combining these 2 I suggest we need a
„dual democracy‟. What I like to put forward in such discussions is that we better walk on 2 legs than
just one.
Conclusion: in order to secure stakeholder involvement in governance, we may conclude the „dual
democracy‟ is needed, meaning a combination of representative and participatory democracy.
Q. C.1.6. And why does good governance need strong institutions? What are the characteristics of
strong institutions?
society perspective. and Political system perspective
Having said that, it still needs to be stressed that good governance needs stable and strong institutions
with sufficient self-corrective capacity (for that is what makes them strong) and legal status.
159
Institutions favor stability. But they also tend towards rigidity. Rigidity should be minimized. In other
words, institutions capable of being „learning organizations‟, of capable to receive and digest (critical)
feedback, as a way of learning from experience and testing new knowledge. Institutions like the
ombudsman, the auditor‟s office, the public administration accountant‟s office, the central bank and so
on are all institutions which may fulfill a useful critical watch dog function towards policies. In many
countries councils have been established which should legally be consulted regarding policies. Such as
a „social-economic council‟, or a „health council‟ or „ education council‟ etc. In some countries must
consult with a national participation council on policies in any area and discuss with that council
which specific council to involve. (see later)
Strong institutions are institutions that have the ability for self-correction, based on feedback
mechanisms and culture. In fact these are learning organizations. A general characteristic of
institutions is an opposite tendency. A century ago Robert Michels studied the development of political
parties into rigid oligarchic institutions. The same can be said of institutions in general. Bureaucratic
rules and traditions can become obstacles to receive and digest feedback. The result is an institution
that is less sensitive to what is happening in the environment, less able to think „out of the box‟,
analyze with different concepts, use different instruments and so on, in other words thinking „laterally,
as The Bono suggested. This however is indispensable to develop new policies.
Another problem emerges in institutions that are weak in self-correction. They are open for corruption
of all sorts. Lots of deals with internal and external clients get hidden from view. Different networks, as
Michels observed, become closed networks, based on some silent mutual understanding. If something
funny happens it is for them to know and for others to find out.
Weak institutions tend to have a weak organizational culture. What does that mean? It means they are
unable to be self-critical and learn, because they are unable to break through the vicious circles of:
protection : friendly appointments by the executive of employees who lack the capacity to do
the work properly, but nobody may say anything because they enjoy powerful protection, and
vice versa protected people prevent criticism of the executive‟s decisions.
competition: individual ambitions prevail over organizational priorities and undermine
cooperation between people. Instead of supporting one another they often prefer to make him
founder
bureaucracy: rules and regulations can be very useful to make sure people get equal
opportunities and a fair treatment, but they may also become ends in themselves, obstructing
adaptation to new or special circumstances
personal convenience: the organization starts serving individual people for their personal
convenience: work, income, reputation. Often the turning point comes unnoticed and the
effects are hardly visible. But in times of crisis it appears that personal goals prevail over
organizational goals.
Well-established and experienced institutions are supposed to be strong. All too often this is only the
appearance. Whether they are strong depends on the capacity to be self-corrective.
160
Surely, strong institutions are also institutions that are sufficiently (legally) established so as to have
the ability to have an external corrective influence. They should have the authority to enact sanctions.
In other words citizens should expect those institutions to be strong and authoritative and demand
proper functioning. It should be noted that the two (internal and external corrective poweras well as
internal and external institutional self-esteem) are interrelated.
Next there is the problem of complexity. Modern public administration consists of a large number of
ministries and departments that are intertwined in complicated ways. Very few people have a clear
view of what is going on and how all primary and secondary processes work. That means there is
ample opportunity for abuse and a good chance that nobody will notice it. Policy implementation
processes are no exception. The more a government is governing by means of policies the more
complicated it gets. Parliament does not have the manpower to monitor and check what is going on.
Organizations have a strong tendency to become self-sufficient and to avoid external checking. Public
administration is no exception. This means they are vulnerable to desintegrity and corruption. That is
why institutionalized external checks and balances are crucial.
With strong institutional checks and balances the governmental tendency to become self-sufficient can
be limited. John Keany coined the term „monitory democracy‟, meaning that a number of external
institutions and agencies keep a critical eye on the decision making process. External criticism may
also come from journalism and social media. In fact the policy discourse as such may be called an
expression of monitory democracy.
See John Keane, The Life and Death of Democray, London, 2009
Conclusion: the more a government makes use of policies the more people and institutions get
involved in policy development. Some of these institutions will develop into self-affirmative
institutions, which renders them less suitable for policy development. For policy development a very
open attitude towards the environment and the ability of lateral thinking is indispensable. In order to
function well as policy development entities, institutions need to be learning organizations, i.e. strong
organizations.
Q. C.1.7. Should policy designs take the need for self correction into account, in order to be „strong
policies‟? In other words: what is a strong policy?
One of the implications of the previous paragraph is that policies need to be designed in such a way
that adaptation during the implementation process is possible. Policies-in-practice should be assessed
regularly and, if need be, adapted. This comes close to the practice of incremental implementation,
rather than an integral approach based on rigorous planning. Ponsioen characterized rigorous
planning as „anticipated decision making‟. This is ok as long as it is combined with „anticipated
adaptation-readiness‟. Adaptation-readiness, so Ponsioen pointed out already half a century ago, is a
sign of development, i.e. a sign of self-sustaining development. Nowadays we call it „sustainable
development‟. Sustainable development will only be possible when all stakeholders fully support and
161
embrace it. Adaptation is needed when it becomes clear that a number of stakeholders feel their
interests and/or values are in jeopardy.
Whether this will be achieved in practice, depends much on the measure of cohesion in society.
Without cohesion inclusive policies, supported by major stakeholders, are quite rare. In such societies,
even effective policies might sooner or later create a backlash. Amenta and Skocpol have argued that
policy implementation often is characterized by an erratic zigzag movement of stimulus and negative
response or backlash. The question is of course whether this zigzag movement is the result of poor
policy design, poor policy imagination and poor policy deliberation that ignores possible response
patterns, or that it is inherent to the policy practice. Amenta and Skocpol argue that it is an inherent
characteristic of policies in not so cohesive societies, and they probably have a point here. However, so
I argue here, even the more desirable is a proper practice of policy deliberation and designing policies
inclusively. And, what is more, make sure policies can be adapted in changing circumstances and will
be adapted timely, by means of strong institutions willing to make use of feedback. So an effective
system of monitoring is needed and the results of monitoring should be taken seriously and used to
assess the effectiveness of a policy. Right from the start a policy review should be planned. If need be
the review can be used for policy mediation. (see below)
Later we shall focus on the question why so often the implementing team will continue and „stay the
course‟ while there are plenty of indications the policy is insufficiently effective or not effective at all.
Conclusion: Once the executive decides to govern by means of policies, rather than by taking ad hoc
measures, government not only becomes more transparent, but it is also more difficult for the
executive to use executive powers for its own benefit. So in fact, governance by policies reduces
arbitrariness. But good policy practice also involves regular monitoring and effectively using the
feedback from monitoring to adapt policies to new circumstances.
See: See J.A.Ponsioen, National Development, a Sociological Contribution, The Hague, 1968, p164, 179; and Amenta, E. and
Skocpol, T. Taking Exception‟, in Castles, F.G. (ed) „The Comparative History of Public Policy, Oxford, 1989;
Klijn cs, ibid.; Charles de Montesquieu, De l‟ Esprit des Lois, 1748, Book XIX-5; McLaughlin, M.W, Learning from Experience:
Lessons from Policy Implementation‟. In: Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1987, 9, p171 ff.
Q. C.1.8. If policies have to limit freedom of people and institutions, under what conditions may
freedom be limited? Is limitation of freedom not a risky act of power? And does limitation of freedom
not easily result in arbitrariness of power?
Let us start with the second question. Power is always related to limitation of freedom. Power can be
defined as the ability to limit the number of behavioral options of people. Practiced by individual
people, power is almost always related to arbitrariness, which is another way of saying that it is related
to personal interest, rather than collective interest. Power needs arbitrariness as our bodies need
water. Arbitrariness is in actual fact a manifestation of the practice of power. According to the famous
162
definition of power formulated by Crozier: the ability of the more powerful actor in a relationship of
interdependence to know the intentions of the other, while keeping his own intentions hidden.
Participatory policy practice involves an open policy dialogue with discussion about intentions, goals
and ways to realize goals. That is why transparent policy practice a superb way to limit arbitrariness
and curb power play. Generally speaking, policies can be considered as legitimate means to limit
behavioral options of people without arbitrariness.
This is what we have been discussing so far. But there is an important issue tha should not be
overlooked. Almost all policies do limit individual freedom, at least to some extent. This is unavoidable
and it involves risk. Therefore it requires careful consideration and a legal framework to protect
individual citizens and institutions. This is why roomification is so important. Roomification is geared
to granting space for developing all sorts of (benign) activities of all sorts of stakeholders and
individual citizens (assuming they are „bona fide‟) and make sure a particular policy is not going to
colonize spaces where it does not have responsibilities. But space is by definition limited. Good policy
development is an expression of inclusiveness: making sure there is space for all, which involves
compromise.
It is one of the most important characteristics of a democratic state that there are several safeguards
against arbitrary restriction of the freedom of its citizens. Among these safeguards are:
Definition of human rights to protect human dignity, to grant equal rights without
discrimination, to guarantee freedom of expression and conscience etc . No policy should
violate these human rights; and all policies should have a legal basis;
Every citizen has the right to express a complaint to the office of the ombudsman or in the
court of justice against a governmental (policy) decision that affects him.
Most important: It is both the duty and the task of the elected representatives of the
population (i.e. parliament, local council etc.) that restrictions of freedom, if necessary, have a
legal basis and appear to be fair, reasonable and functional. That means, they should be part of
a policy.
Always keep priorities in mind: rights are more important than interests and interests are
more important than desires. For example: Most citizens will have the right to obtain a
passport; it is in the interest of some citizens to obtain a new passport quickly (within 1 day or
so) and maybe they desire a have a passport in a color they prefer. The color desire should not
be a priority of the government.
Generally speaking, several arguments or reasons can be used to restrict individual freedom, also in a
free and democratic society. The two essential ones are:
Contradictions between private interests (mostly from within the sphere of oikos and middle
field) and the public or general interest. If the pursuit of private interest seriously harms the
public or general interest, it is legitimate to restrict the pursuit of the private interests
involved. This is an act of roomification. The question of course remains what is to be
considered „serious‟ harm to the public interest.
163
Contradictions between liberty and equality. A completely liberal society (in which only the
market is accepted as a steering mechanism even in other spheres than the market sphere)
tends to be, or to become very unequal. On the other hand, a completely egalitarian society
tends to be or to become very un-free. The question is therefore is how much restriction
freedom is acceptable in order to have a minimal amount of equality. This question is in fact
the main question in the debate among political theorists. In other words it is a matter of
finding the right balance. (Aristotle again: any virtue is situated between two vices)
See J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge Mass, 1971, p365 ff; Crozier, M, Le phenomena bureaucratique, Paris, 1963, p 196.
So far the discussion is quite formalistic. These are rules that the policy expert and actor should keep
in mind. Still people will feel some policies will disturb their lives and be in contradiction with their
values and interests. A couple of remarks.
First, very often a policy is needed to mitigate or even stop the negative effects of policies on a
particular category of people. Policies may cause harm and impinge on basic human rights of freedom.
Later, when discussing the need for policy mediation we come back to this. (see below: Q.C.1.9)
Second, the whole idea of policy deliberation is to prevent conflicts of value and interest, to make sure
stakeholders consider seriously the position of other stakeholders and to practice policy imagination so
as to become aware of possible negative side effects that undermine the freedom of some stakeholders.
Conclusion: as a general conclusion we may say the public policies, though limiting freedom, are
non-arbitrary ways to limit freedom and stimulate desirable behavior within a well-defined space.
Again we can see that policy development is the art of roomification, geared to inclusiveness.
Q.C.1.9. If governance by policies is the ideal and if good policies respect the principles of
roomification, why is representative democracy needed? Can this not be achieved by a centralized
state?
Political system perspective
The second question is a question that people acquainted with liberal democracies would quickly and
without much hesitation answer with a clear „no, that is not possible‟. Is it? Well, I confess that I do
have some hesitations. The thing is that the universe we live in is more complicated than we wish it to
be. We believe in the value of democracy (I do for sure), but that does not mean that is good and
workable under all conditions or that it is a panacea, a remedy for every trouble, disease or evil. There
might be situations that other systems work better.
Later I will elaborate about the basics of democracy as the basic system of human governance that
originates from the earliest times of human existence, of the homo sapiens at least. However,
democracy assumes the embrace of all or most citizens of a number of basic democratic values, like
164
respect for human rights and freedom and absence of colonization. The implication is that if a majority
would choose to violate particular human rights (in the name of a superior power or being or ideology)
and colonize certain areas of existence, democracy ceases to exist. So without the embrace of basics by
a large majority, democracy does not have an easy existence.
Put differently, we should not underestimate the tendency of many people to abuse freedom and
colonize the space of others, even the existence of others, in the sense that some will try to color the
existence of fellow human beings, by washing their brains and dictating their behavior.
Democracy is a safeguard against abuse of power by people in powerful positions. It is a means to
prevent corruption by power. But democracy rarely is a safeguard against abuse of freedom. Simply
because democracy assumes freedom.
In political cultures where people have very different ideas of freedom, democracy is unlikely to
function. Unfortunately the same is true for human rights and for aversion of colonizing practices.
Let me start with the latter. In many democratic countries aversion of colonization is selective. The
governing bodies should not unduly interfere in the private lives of human beings, indoctrinate them,
bully them, or use propaganda to get support for policies, manufacturing consent (to use the phrase of
Chomsky). However, there are lots of people, institutions and companies who use propaganda to
influence the deepest personal desires of citizens. Some are extremely clever. That is they make ample
use of some sleeping or pre-existent opinion. Somehow a particular need, preference, desire or
whatever is hanging in the air. The propagandist makes clever use of it. As we read in the interesting
collection of observations on propaganda and persuasion in the modern world of David Welch who
quotes Huxley: “The propagandist is a man who canalizes an already existing stream”. Propaganda is
akin to „nudging‟. (Q.A.2.14). Propaganda is of course also a means of pattern maintenance. The
question is inevitable: is there a difference between positive and negative pattern maintenance? Indeed
Welch provides insight in negative propaganda or pattern maintenance, which is „full of confrontations
between good and evil, beauty and “the beast,” order and chaos; in each case the contrast serves to
force the individual into a desired, established commitment to a particular view.‟ And surely
propaganda‟s chief weapon is to use half-truths or to keep silent about something that in actual fact is
crucial. Negative propaganda is based on fear and exclusiveness. Positive propaganda however, exists
as well: as the act of just propagating something. So quite a neutral concept. It will naturally make use
of some rhetoric, which is acceptable as long as it does not obstruct transparency. Even better is if it
addresses the human mind and stimulates thinking and reflection about an issue. This may also lead to
pattern maintenance, indirectly though, rather than directly. I mean with the reflecting human mind in
between.
The result is free capitalism without personal freedom. This combination does not combine with
democracy. In fact it is a type of capitalist dictatorship which goes together with the disappearance of
democratic culture and „the transformation of politics into….mass culture and show business,…. and
real power and governance falling into the hands not of a publicly elected representative but of
someone chosen by the most powerful segment of society, lying outside public control‟. To quote
Bauman and Donskis.
165
In other words, our Western styled liberal democracies are not without spot or wrinkle. On the
contrary, they are full of spots and wrinkles. This is the reason why a relatively strong state is needed
in combination of substantial equality. Like in Sweden. Equality is crucial. Already Aristotle was aware
that too much inequality will inevitable mean inequality of influence.
This leads us to the conclusion that representative democracy does not function well and easily in
many so-called Western democracies. A solution is a stronger, well-organized state, like in Sweden, as
guardian of an open, democratic public discourse and more direct influence of stakeholders in the
policy development process. Rather than via the long way of parliament. Below I have suggested the
idea of a „policy house‟.
On to centralized democracies. In the eyes of liberals and especially liberal capitalists such
„democracies „are abhorrent and repugnant. But as always reality is a bit more complicated. It is true
that almost always human rights are trampled on in centralized democracies. This is abhorrent
indeed. But we should not forget that capitalist countries have their vicious practices too, sometimes
outsourced to other countries in Chinese sweatshops. Centralized democracies are not paradises, but
they do not need to be hell either. Take the case of Cuba. The structure of public governance is in itself
an interesting example of participatory democracy. It does not function impeccably, because of the
excessive control by the central government and the one political party. Propaganda and intimidation
are continually hanging in the air. But at least a participatory arrangement is installed and it is worth
studying. There is first the executive power which consists of Council of ministers and the Central
Committee in which some 150 representatives of important social groups sit. Then you have the
provincial party organs that govern that provinces and provide the Central Committee and
PolitBureau, which presides over the one communist party, with feedback and new ideas. Next the
legislative authority resides in the „National Assembly of People's Power „with 699 members. The
national Assembly together with the Central Committee is proposing laws and policies to be
implemented by the council of ministers. Many Cubans still consider their system to be a real „people‟s
democracy‟ in which ordinary people have the right to actually influence governmental policies. Seen
from the Cuban pattern point of view, this is understandable. But the Cuban arrangement has its flaws
as well. However, the organizational structure is such that it may evolve into an interesting social-
democratic pattern with a strong emphasis in democratic policy deliberation. This could be realized if
the PolitBureau would stop dictating the outcome of discussions and non-party citizens would be free
to participate in discussions. Of course the political leadership will consider this to be a risky move.
But if the leadership would move step by step, starting on one particular policy domain, discovering
that people will highly appreciate the move, the centralized democracy could slowly evolve into a full-
fledged participatory democracy. This is sometimes suggested for Russia and China as well. The
Chinese Zhang WeiWei argued that the Chinese way of making basic policy decisions („neo-democratic
centralism‟) is more democratic than the European and American way. In principle major decisions in
China are taken on the basis of the results of thousands of policy discussions that took place at all
levels in all corners of society. This way, according to Zhang, a high degree of legitimacy is reached, so
that there is no longer a need to „sell‟ the state‟s decision to the public as in the USA and EU. Whether
such democratic discussions are open discussions which are not precooked by the central government
166
remains to be seen. But Zhang has a point. Nationwide discussions on major policy issues are an
indication that (participatory) democracy is alive. Just as Western styled elections are a sign that
(representative) democracy is alive, even when the lack of trust in the government is worrisome. In
both cases the big question is whether the public really has a say.
Let us return to Cuba. In the case of Cuba the Central Committee as a participatory arrangement might
function as a „policy house‟ as I suggested and elaborated below. The final step would be to eventually
introduce some type of representative democracy with more than just one political party.Why? The
answer is: to introduce a second democratic check. In my view a combination of well-organized
participatory democracy and free representative democracy in the absence of negative propaganda and
indoctrination are needed to prevent elite political or capitalist economic powers to take over.
In other words, in my viewpoint there are good chances for Cuba to develop gradually into a true
democracy as long as the present structures are not abandoned and replaced by liberal democratic
structures that are unlikely to function well in Cuba. For without experience with such structures, it
will take many years of practice to start functioning, as we can see in Eastern Europe. And, what is
more, the country will be an easy prey for international and capitalist powers. Better to maintain the
present structures and use them wisely.
See Nelson Amaro, Decentralisation, local government and citizen participation in Cuba, In Cuba in Transition, Washington
ASCE, 1996., Zymunt Bauman and Leonidas Donskis, Moral Blindness, The Loss of Sensitivity in Liquid Modernity, 2013, p128. Jacqus Ellul, Propagandes. Paris, 1962; David Welch, Power and Persuasion, 2013;and for a centralized democracy see Evenson Debra, Revolution in the balance: Law and society in contemporary Cuba., 1994 and Andrei Tsygankov The Strong
State in Russia, Development and Crisis, Oxford, 2014; Zhang WeiWei, The China Wave,: the Rise of a civilisational State, New
York, 2012.
Conclusion: to formulate the conclusion in different terms, we may now say that both liberal
representative democracies and centralized democracies with a strong state, risk derailment. Both are
in need of participatory arrangements to avert the danger of economic or political powers to become
too dominant. A strong state is needed to „roomificate‟ fairly and representative democracy is needed
to balance the power of the strong state.
167
Q.C.1.10. How does the existence of different policy support institutions, like watch-dog and advocacy
institutions, think-tanks and trade unions, contribute to better policy development?
Political system perspective
We should distinguish between direct stakeholders who have an immediate interest in a policy and
watch-dog and advocacy institutions (usually CSO‟s) and policy councils who rightly or wrongly claim
to defend a particular group or category of stakeholders. Sometimes they take useful initiatives and
provide useful support to stakeholder requests. Sometimes the interference of such indirect
stakeholders can make matters complicated. Indirect stakeholders must prove themselves. This
immediately inserts an issue in the discussion that is unrelated to the policy issue at stake. And what is
more such issue will not be transparent. The result is often a spooky focus on (power) positions here
and now. There is an issue and one of the stakeholders enlists the help of a relevant CSO. Almost
immediately everybody realizes some partners in the discussion are not really interested in a workable
compromise. Also the discussion gets focused on the case in the here and now. Who will win and who
will lose?
What needs to be avoided in the policy discourse and in policy deliberation processes is that the entire
discussion degenerates into a tug-of-war.
Stakeholders have an immediate interest in the policy, which is why they should be heard and which is
also why they have an interest in negotiating a compromise they can live with. Indirect stakeholders
can afford fighting harder, for if they lose the fight, they will not suffer themselves. This will divert the
attention from the real issue at stake. The stakeholders they (claim to ) represent will suffer. This
happens often when the real stakeholders are in a weak position. Like the disabled, or immigrant
workers. They might find it difficult to speak up for themselves, so they need to find spokespersons,
CSO‟s who defend their rights.
However such policy-interested and active CSO‟s as long as they remain independent of the „powers
that be‟ or strong lobby-networks (who like to finance them….), or of their own income needs, they can
play a very useful role in the policy discourse. The combination of academic expertise and an
independent position, is badly needed. However they forfeit their role by becoming dependant.
This matter will be taken up later, when we discuss the policy deliberation process in more detail. But
is it a matter of concern.
Conclusion: policy support institutions like watch-dog institutions may play a useful role, but they
run the risk of becoming an end in itself. Especially when the institution gets big. Hence will not be so
helpful anymore. In some cases they even hamper the policy deliberation process. They need to watch
themselves a bit more brutally so to speak.
168
Q.C.1.11. Why is the focus on the here and now tricky from a policy development point of view? What
is meant by „historic provincialism?
society perspective.
It is often said that we live now. Stakeholders are interested in what is happening at present, less in
what is going to happen in 20 years time. Discussing freedom or equality in an abstract manner will
not spark much discussion. But when my actual freedom to do business is at stake, it is an entirely
different matter. The present always matters most.
Getting too much out of the present will naturally limit living conditions for future generations. Insight
in the dynamics of „unfreedom‟ and arbitrariness is badly needed. That is why we need the lesson of
history. Alberto Melluci stressed this point discussing the „fragility of presentness‟ which makes us
insecure, fearful and ready to embrace cheap „quick wins‟, solutions that will not last and might cause
substantial misery in the long run. The more people, institutions and parties come up with
interpretations and solutions, competing with one another rather than discussing the policy issue, the
more the present seems to resemble a dangerous jungle. In such situations people are inclined to flee
forward, to take refuge in action without examining how present patterns may be the cause of the
troubles of the present. In other words: we become hyperactive. It is also the cause for anesthesia or
forgetfulness in combination with an incapacity to imagine a future development. The Dutch futurist
Polak was also concerned about the „moment-ridden man trapped in a momentbound
Culture‟, in danger of losing sight of the big movements that harbor possibilities of change, indeed of
„kairos‟. As a result we are bound to repeat the errors of history. And there are people who take
advantage of the situation, they behave as politicians who live off politics, rather than for politics, to
use this famous distinction made by Max Weber. The result is total arbitrariness.
Freedom, rights and quality of life are not just matters of the present moment. They are part of existing
patterns which are rooted in the past and, unless we change them, will be conditional for future
development. This needs to be taken into account in the deliberation process.
The „fragility of presentness‟ can also be considered an expression of „historic provincialism‟. Like
physical provincialism it means that the here and now of this cultural pattern I am part of, is more or
less all that „life or reality has to offer‟. All the rest is to be distrusted, or, in the words of the founder of
the Ford Company: bunk. A good policy paper includes an analysis of the history of similar situations
and the results of policy intervention, taking different spheres into account. For policies that are just
focused on the here and now, are narrow policies. Narrow policies do have ramifications as well,
including future ramifications. This show indeed how fragile presentness is! So the recommendation
is to practice policy imagination by all means and find out which future ramifications might be
expected. Policy imagination and historic provincialism are enemies, rather than friends.
169
Conclusion: each present problem emerges from a pattern which is rooted in the past. It is no good
to focus entirely on the present. Starting with the present we should examine the past. Ant developing
a new policy we should realize all policies have future ramifications. This is what we call policy
imagination. Historic provincialism blocks policy imagination and should be combated.
See: Alberto Melucci, The Playing Self: Person and Meaning in the Planetary Society, Cambridge 1996, p 43ff; and Fred Polak,
The Image of the Future, (transl. E.Boulding), 1973
Q.C.1.12. If good governance is dependent on the capacity for policy development, does that mean
that policy making should be maximized? Does policy maximization have negative side effects?
Political system perspective
Maximization is always questionable. More policies, even if they are well-designed, do not
automatically contribute to greater well-being and a more manageable society. An overload of policies
may have an adverse effect. This ubiquity of policies manifests itself in 2 ways:
First of all society consists of individual citizens and groups and associations of citizens with the
capacity to find solutions to lots of problems that may occur. Policies by the governing body are needed
when solutions are dependent on a coordinated effort by different stakeholders. The governing body
may feel over-responsible and develop policies when it is better to wait and see how citizens and
various entities manage on their own. Overly active governments yield adverse effects. A very active
government may result into a lazy society and citizens who behave irresponsibly.
Secondly, too many policies may require too much human capacity in terms of discussion, research,
attention, control and, most of all, energy and financial means to implement. Moreover, the
government may try to develop policies to combat complicated problems, with poor results and
disappointed citizens.
Looking at it more closely, we observe that active and demanding societies usually opt for a
government that is equally active and also ambitious to fulfill the demands of the citizens. The result is
a hyper active government and, eventually, a lazy society that is expecting too much of its
governments. The present phenomenon of decreasing trust in governments and politicians is related to
it. Moran warned against overregulation and he called it ‟hyper modernism‟. There is something very
paradoxical here. On the one hand the citizens demand action from the government and often
deliberated action (policies) and on the other hand they complain about overregulation and lack of
freedom. The best way to escape from this paradox is to develop „crucial policies‟ , which, as we have
seen, attempt to yield much output by means of minimal input. As we saw before, the more we are
aware of patterns that shape our environment, the easier it is to identify crucial policy measures that
may mutate a pattern positively.
It sounds so obvious, but good governance is (among others) a matter of finding a balance between
governmental responsibility and citizens‟ responsibility, between policy interference and societal
170
action, between governmental initiative and societal initiative. Overregulation should be avoided. In
other words, policy intentions and public response patterns should be in relative harmony. However
this much needed healthy balance is extremely difficult to find. Especially election campaigns lure
politicians into making the unrealistic promises of policy intentions and actions. Citizens generally like
politicians who do not hesitate, but go around with an aura of certainty. The zipper works perfectly
well. Once the jacket is on and fastened, it turns out to be a straightjacket that is quite difficult to open
again.
There is another risk involved as well. The more policies the more policy conflicts may pop up. Policies
might be at loggerheads with one another, or might be at loggerheads with common policies which
were not taken into account when the policy was developed. In actual fact policy conflicts do occur
frequently in modern societies. With more and more policies being designed, policy coordination
becomes necessary in order to avoid conflict between policies. (see paragraph on policy coordination)
And policy mediation also is a useful tool (see next paragraph)
Conclusion: maximization of policies needs to be avoided. It is expensive, it requires huge
investments in terms of money and people and as the results often leave much to wish, it leads to
irritation. Too many policies may also interfere with one another negatively. Crucial policies with
maximum output by means of minimal input are ideal, that we should work on. Without keeping
patterns in mind, it is not easy to find out which policies may have a crucial effect.
The increase of policy conflicts necessitates policy coordination and mediation.
see J.A.A. van Doorn, Overvraging van Beleid, in „Nederlandse Democratie, Amsterdam 2009; and also Ankersmit F, Klinkers,
L. (ed) De tien plagen van de staat; de bedrijfsmatige overhead gewogen, Amsterdam 2008; M.Moran, The Regulatory State in
Britain: High Modernism and Hyper-innovation, Oxford, 2003. See also: Joseph H. Spear, The Actively Drifting Society, in
Wilson C. McWilliam (ed), The Active Society Revisited, 2006.
Q.C.1.13. What do we mean by policy mediation? Is policy mediation an effective way to combat the
negative consequences of policy maximization? Which conditions need to be fulfilled for successful
policy mediation?
The more policies are being developed and implemented, the higher the risk that some stakeholders
feel threatened by its effects or are evidently harmed. It keeps the ombudsman busy, and the number
of court cases growing.
Recently policy mediation is considered to be a promising way to solve problems caused by policies
that negatively affect some stakeholders and spark destructive and harmful response patterns instead
of constructive ones. Policy mediation will try to define where something goes wrong, where the causes
of discontent are to be located. Often it is not the policy as such, but one of its instruments that is
harmful to some. Policy mediation is considered to be an excellent alternative to expensive legal
action, which may take years, or political lobbying, which may require the use of power.
171
Policy mediation is meant to get stakeholders, including the government, with conflicting interests
together and help them understand the implications of the policy regarding rights and interests of all
parties involved. It assumes all stakeholders are able and willing to face the fact that some implications
might be very negative and awkward for some stakeholders. That will challenge them to look for
mitigating measures or even change the policy structurally.
Infrastructural nuisance.
Infrastructural projects often cause much temporary inconvenience.
Renewing the drainage system in a shopping area might mean less accessible, fewer parking spaces,
fewer pedestrians, and a lot of additional nuisance. And what is worse, turnover of shops and
restaurants in the area may fall to a critical low. Nobody will question the need for a better quality of
the drainage system, but the way to get there is problematic for the major stakeholders. They may even
apply for an injunction and demand summary proceedings. In such cases policy mediation will try to
revise the instrumentation ( and suggest ways to give convert instrumentation into facilitation!) and
find ad hoc repair solutions, or doing the dusty and smelly work during evening and night hours or in
the low season. But of course it would have been so much better to consult the major stakeholders
from the beginning.
Needless to say that it is conditional that parties become aware of the implications of a policy measure.
More complicated are policies that are structurally harmful to particular stakeholders. With such
policies all too often a point of no return is passed and policy mediation becomes futile. If financial
procedures get revised in order to comply to new international standards, some stakeholders within
the financial service sector might find that they can no longer serve their clientele and are left with no
other choice than terminate their business and fire their employees. Or they just go bankrupt. In such
cases policy mediation should be directed to some reconciliation between the policy actor and its
victims. This may also lead to redefine the original problem and a better policy for the future. Policy
mediation may help to find alternative solutions for the victims and suggest to the government to
facilitate such solutions and adapt the policy so that the situation will not go from bad to worse.
Usually several stakeholders are informed. So public policy mediation tends to be multi-party
mediation. In situations where many policies are at work the chance that some or a combination of
some may have adverse effects on several stakeholders are high. In such cases multi-issue mediation is
needed as well.
Paul Lederach published an interesting study on this subject, based on wide international expertise in
conflict areas. His approach to managing conflicts moves beyond the narrowly focused and formalized
mediation process. He stresses the importance of „constructive pessimism‟, which requires a good
measure of distrust as a “reality check to assure that change is not superficial‟. But on top of that comes
the importance of moral imagination: "... the moral imagination requires the capacity to imagine
ourselves in a web of relationships that includes our enemies; the ability to sustain a paradoxical
172
curiosity that embraces complexity without reliance on dualistic polarity; the fundamental belief in
and pursuit of the creative act; and the acceptance of the inherent risk of stepping into the mystery of
the unknown that lies beyond the far too familiar landscape of violence." Meanwhile it is needless to
say that moral imagination should take spheres and their framework patterns into account. Also, many
policy conflicts emerge as the result of not taking spheres into account.
The capacity of moral imagination is not the exclusive responsibility of the mediator. It is his
responsibility to encourage all actors to practice moral imagination as well. Art, poetry, music and
meditation may help to shift the focus of attention to the immediate issue of conflict to the wider
environment of human experience and need to build a viable future, so he suggests. In other words,
what matters first is the right attitude. Mediation starts with taking attitudes into account or changing
attitudes. We will come back to this later.
Policy mediation can be defined as: an attempt to enter into dialogue on a controversial policy issue
that is causing harm to one or more stakeholders, with the aim to increase mutual understanding of
each of the actor‟s position, stimulate policy imagination so as to become aware of the impact of a
policy for particular stakeholders and to develop a compromise in which the interests of the different
actors (stakeholders) are taken into account.
If dialogue appears to be impossible negotiation might be an option. Negotiation is considered to be an
appropriate instrument of mediation. And it is. But dialogue is to be preferred because it is more
transparent and geared to cooperation.
If dialogue and negotiation fail, going to court is an option. Sometimes the judge suggests trying
mediation as yet.
Conclusion: policy mediation is needed when a particular policy appears to be harmful to one or
more stakeholders. Usually several stakeholders are informed. So public policy mediation tends to be
multi-party mediation. In situations where many policies are at work the chance that some or a
combination of some may have adverse effects on several stakeholders are high. In such cases multi-
issue mediation is needed as well. Rather than starting a legal case, policy mediation, as a way to get
stakeholders round the table to discuss the issue and find a compromise together, may work out well.
See: J.P.Lederach, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace, Oxford, 2005., p 51, 175
Q.C.1.14. How should we envisage the practice of effective policy mediation?
In line with our approach so far we can formulate some principles on public policy mediation.
As a general principle: Public policy development should attempt to be inclusive. If one
stakeholder is of the opinion that his interests are not sufficiently taken into account, this
stakeholder should be heard.
173
Problem definition is crucial: why it is a problematic issue for particular stakeholders? This
leads to the question of ramifications of a policy; possibly also to ramifications in other
spheres. If these appear to be substantial, policy mediation is needed.
All policies have ramifications for many patterns in one or more spheres. Policy imagination is
important to get an understanding of the ramification. All parties have to agree to practice
policy imagination so as to get an understanding of the ramifications of a policy for different
stakeholders
Discussion of ramifications is a conditio sine qua non for good policy development and is
needed to avoid negative ramifications as much as possible.
Policy mediation can be considered as a „policy re-view‟, carried out by all stakeholders involved. The
mediation process is kind of re-enacting the policy deliberation process with a clearer insight in both
the ramifications of the policy and the underlying interests and value orientations of stakeholders.
Main phases in the policy process that should be reviewed are: problem definition, facilitation or
instrumentation to be used and implementation process with its inevitable side-effects, some of which
might not have been foreseen. These are most likely to have caused a policy conflict. Reviewing the
process may lead to a partial revision of the policy or to suggest a support policy to mitigate the
negative effects.
Point of attention: beware of unforeseen negative side effects
During the policy deliberation process to develop a new policy, stakeholders should agree to monitor
the policy implementation and have a regular review. If an unexpected negative side effect occurs, it
speaks for itself that a review is needed and that the review should be used to tackle the problem of the
side effect. It is so much easier to start a mediation process if regular reviews were in the planning and
if from the start stakeholders were aware of the possibility of unforeseen side-effects that might be
harmful for some stakeholders. Timely reviews may work as an early warning system, warning for
negative side effects that might emerge. In some cases mediation will be needed.
In fact policy mediation by means of dialogue is an effort to render policies more inclusive. Of course it
is much better to discuss the possible implications of a policy from the start with all stakeholders and
design the policy as inclusively as possible. This will prevent much conflict. „Planning is the
organization of hope‟ says Forester. But it really depends on the type of planning. So it is better to say:
„Inclusive planning is the organization of hope….as well as the prevention of conflict‟. Therefore it is of
the utmost importance to develop the capacity for „sociological imagination‟ in order to foresee trends,
possible response patterns and anticipate by taking adequate measures. Sociological imagination is the
basis of policy imagination
The practice of policy mediation goes roughly (very roughly) as follows:
The parties agree to sit together and agree on an impartial chairperson to structure the dispute:
Get all relevant stakeholders together
174
The first step is to make sure they agree on the issue at stake and that they agree the policy
needs a review
The second step is to clarify the different interests regarding the issue: in actual fact it is about
clarifying positions. Here it is helpful to point to sphere differences and pattern differences
each with different value orientations.
Next, all parties will clarify the position and answer questions from other parties, just
questions. The idea is that all parties should get an understanding of the interests of other
parties, and be sensitive to different patterns they adhere to.
Next, all parties should get aware of the implications of the policy for different stakeholders.
Note that the lack of understanding of the implications of a policy for a particular party often
is a major source of conflict. Here it is useful to ask the other party to give a presentations of
the implications of the point of view of the „enemy‟.
During the mediation process regular „time outs‟ are very useful so that new insights can „sink
down‟ and do their work. This will spark some moral awareness, i.e. understanding and
acceptance of the point of view of others.
Next, one or more compromises will be presented and discussed. By far the most effective is
to invite parties to sit together in small teams to consider a compromise that takes into
account the negative implications of the policy for each party
Next, the proposed compromises are being discussed and arguments for and against each
compromise will be set out
Finally a mixed team, representing the different parties will come up with a final compromise
to present to the (political executive) And here disappointments may emerge, for:
In dispute about public policies, the end-result of a multi-party dialogue is almost always a non-
binding agreement. The power to actually decide rests in the hands of governmental entity. It
sometimes happen they agree with a mediation effort and they agree to participate in it, but in the end
they take their own decision. For they obviously have retained the right to make the final decisions.
Therefore clear agreements have to be made between the facilitator(s) the governmental entity
beforehand and preferably put on paper, lest parties get very disappointed. In some political cultures
(pattern!) such agreements can easily be made, whereas in other cultures politician ready to hire a
mediator might be reproached of evading responsibility…..
A personal experience
My personal mediation experience with policy conflicts or disagreements is that 2 matters are
essential.
First the facilitator should endeavor to create and maintain an atmosphere in which different parties
do not view each other just as enemies, but much rather as normal human beings with normal
differences of insight and interest. The facilitator should be able to show he or she is not partial and
will take all parties seriously. Taking people seriously however is not something like adopting a pose,
using diplomatic words or, doing as if. If the facilitator is not seriously taking people serious, he or she
will sooner or later will reveal his or her true face. Just one little remark or look may speak volumes.
175
The process will start failing. If the facilitator is authentically serious he or she may achieve a lot.
Moments of silence and reflection are absolutely essential to create an enabling atmosphere. In any
case the facilitator will be tested on sincerity, reliability and neutrality.
My second point refers to method. After analyzing different positions, put representatives from
different parties together in small mixed workshops and ask them to use their moral imagination in
order to find solutions together. After the workshop session the workshops will present their results
plenary and of course they will want to show they did a good job and found a creative solution
together. Almost always one or more workshops will come up with a workable solution which is
acceptable by all. In actual fact I myself as a facilitator has never been disappointed with the outcome
of such workshops. Satisfaction is the very enjoyable side-effect of working together with an „adversary
or enemy‟. Many times I noticed people saying: „this was a surprise experience‟, or „for me this was a
relief to see we can talk‟.
Plus a third issue as a suggestion and a warning: it is about the so-called framing. Usually framing
has to do with behavioral styles. For instance someone is making fun of an actor in a humoristic way.
The actor however does not follow the humoristic framework. He takes it bloody seriously and so a
heavy conflict emerges. In actual fact he is framing the issue at stake, the content of the joke
differently. This is something that happens frequently. Once the facilitator (and the parties involved)
realizes that the conflict is about applying frames, the next step is to go back to the real issue and the
issue may be resolved quickly.
But a warning as well. Sometimes policy experts believe some protesting stakeholders just need to be
reassured that in the end everything will be fine for everybody. And they suggest some different
emphasis in order to reassure people. In actual fact this often is a kind of „framing things differently‟.
It sounds better that way, whereas in essence it is exactly how it was. My point here is that policy
mediation is not a matter of framing things differently.
Conclusion: a good beginning is half the work. If the policy deliberation process to develop a policy is
carried out well and if expectations regarding possible negative side-effects are realistic, it is not so
difficult to get parties together for a mediation process. Very important is that all parties involved in
public policies realize that inclusiveness is a characteristic of a good policy. If the policy appears to
harm the interests of one or more stakeholders, it obviously is not inclusive and is in need for repair.
The success of a mediation process is dependent on the right understanding of the nature of a public
policy as well as on the ability of the mediator to create an atmosphere which favors dialogue and
openness.
176
Q.C.1.15. What is the difference between policy mediation by means of dialogue and by means of
negotiation?
It is not my intention here to provide a course on public policy negotiation. Lawrence Susskind and
Larry Crump issued a very useful 4-volume manual on Multiparty Negotiation, 2009, with numerous
very helpful contributions on a great number of issues. Game theories are quite central in their
approach. If society is fundamentally understood in terms of game theory, negotiation is the natural
way to solve conflicts. If society is understood the way people define it, other definitions of reality may
be offered and considered. Even societies that are strongly in the grip of game and competition, people
might be open to redefine reality and enter into dialogue. But wherever and for whatever reasons
dialogue fails, negotiation is the option.
Policy negotiation is based on the following principles:
People: try to separate people and/or institutions from the problem itself;
Focus on rights and interests and policy objectives, not on positions; which means
there should be a discussion about interests and objectives that are behind positions;
Options: generate a variety of possible policy solutions before getting to an agreement; make
sure all partners in the discussion contribute to finding possible solutions;
Criteria: insist that the discussion should be directed by some objective criteria, of which
inclusion is the crucial one. Inclusion means that the rights and interests of all people are
being acknowledged and taken care of. To achieve this moral imagination is crucial.
See R.Fisher and W.Ury, Getting to Yes, 1981; Deutsch, M. and Coleman, P., The Handbook of Constructive Conflict Resolution,
Theory and Practice, San Francisco, 2006; John Forester, Dealing with Difference, Dramas of Mediating Public Disputes,
Oxford, 2009
As you see, these principles are quite similar to dialogue. What differs is that dialogue requires more
principles (see above and compare the 2 lists). Dialogue leads to understanding and of the position of
the other, the partner in dialogue. As a result of dialogue parties may agree to disagree, on the basis of
mutual respect and trust. Once the position and the interests of the other are understood and vice
versa, both parties will feel challenged go get to a creative compromise that is acceptable to both.
Negotiation may also lead to a creative compromise based on respect. But the nature of respect might
not be trust, but rather calculation. Parties calculate that it is in their interest to cooperate and come to
an agreement. If sometime later they calculate differently, new negotiations might be needed. However
good negotiation will in the end lead to a compromise that all parties embrace „con amore‟ and which
renders the policy more inclusive. Often negotiation will lead to the same type of respect as dialogue,
namely respect on the basis of understanding and trust.
Good governance is inclusive governance and inclusive policies will contribute substantially to good
governance in the service of the public good. Inclusive policies can only be developed in dialogue with
177
stakeholders who are willing to consider the importance of the public interest and to reflect on the
possible impact of personal gain on wider society. I do not want to moralize, but if morality means
anything at all it is the ability to empathize with others, to consider the interest of others and to
understand that my action will affect their lives. Morality is the ability to assess the impact of one
personal action on the (social) environment and to take the interests of others into account. That is
what policy mediation is about.
Conclusion: In cases a policy unexpectedly means harm to some stakeholders, policy mediation may
be a useful repair tool. The main difference between negotiation and policy dialogue is that policy
dialogue is not just geared to individual interests, but also to the ability of parties to put themselves in
the position of the other and understand why the ramifications of the policy are harmful to the other.
However, in both cases the result should be a compromise that all parties embrace and hence a policy
that is more inclusive.
See also the paragraph on „policy coordination‟ and the paragraph on managing the deliberation
process.
178
2. Policies in societies in transition: need for policy partnerships
„as the role of non-state actors in the delivery of public services has increased….the state has become
more interested in various strategies for creating and managing networks and partnerships‟, Mark
Bevir, Democratic Governance, p34
Summary
In this paragraph we introduce the idea of a public policy partnership. Public policy partnerships are
excellent instruments to stimulate substantial participation in society. Societies moving from a
centralized government with decision making at the top to a more democratic and decentralized type
of government need arrangements to make democracy work. Public policy partnerships not only
provide platforms for citizens to express themselves, but what is more, to actually contribute to
developing policies that are geared to solve problems of the target group and improve their living
conditions in a structural way. The best way to include people is to include them in policy
development, evaluation and implementation.
What is a public policy partnership? A partnership between representatives of public administration
(local or central government) on the one hand and CSO‟s on the other hand, to develop relevant
policies together and possibly implement the policies together as well. It is an institutional
arrangement to ensure and facilitate the deliberation process. In fact it is a way of institutionalizing the
deliberation process.
Many governments and societies are aware of the need to institutionalize the deliberation process, lest
it remains something optional and interesting, left to personal choice. Societies in transition benefit
from policy partnerships as an attempt of government and society to work towards a truly functioning
'participatory democracy' as well as an „active society‟, in which policies are being developed,
implemented and evaluated together.
TABLE OF CONTENTS C.2.
Question/
paragraph
Issues Page
Q. C.2.1 Transition and the need for good practice of policy development 179
Q. C.2.2 Do static societies exist? 180
Q. C.2.3 Liquid modernity, transition and pattern theory 183
Q. C.2.4 Public policy partnerships and the institutionalization of practice
of policy development
184
Q. C.2.5 Role of business world and link with corporate social
responsibility
187
179
Q.C.2.1. Why do societies in transition badly need a proper practice of policy development and what
might be the role of policy partnerships?
society perspective.
It is noteworthy that the need for systematic policy development is strongly felt in societies in
transition and with an underdeveloped „middle field‟, due to years of centralized and authoritarian
government, like the Central and Eastern European countries. This is understandable. Such societies
desire to free themselves from their past and dream of becoming like a particular model society. The
question is „how to get there‟. Is it just an automatism? Introduce democracy and everything will be
rosy in due time.
No, the transition from a state-centered society (a pattern that is opposed to individual responsibility)
towards a civil society with a high level of self-regulation and active participation of responsible social
actors in governmental and non-governmental affairs, a specific type of reform is needed. State-
centered societies are characterized by a very dominant governmental sphere, that endeavors to
dominate if not colonize the spheres of oikos, the market and the middle field.
Unfortunately the "illusion of automatic democracy” is at work in many societies that have decided to
move away from state-centeredness. This „illusion‟ does not help. Some readers will ask: but didn‟t we
say that if men define situations as real, the consequences will be likewise? Isn‟t it? Yes, it is, but if you
don‟t know what democracy involves and requires, your definition of the situation will be extremely
limited and so will be the consequences.
Modern democracy as a way to maintain ownership of the government by individual citizens in the
first place and by stakeholders in the other spheres (market and middle-field), is a pattern that takes
time to understand and to settle. People and stakeholders should first see and experience how
„ownership‟ of the government works. Participation in policy development is surely an important step.
Narayan has pleaded extensively for decentralization in India and a measure of local self-governance
as the only way to stimulate citizens to assume responsibility and limit the centralizing and all too
often colonizing tendencies of the central government. Decentralization also implies that is easier for
citizens to have a say in local policy development. In actual fact participation is much easier at the local
level than at the central level. So the best is to start experiencing participation decentralized.
(Jayaprakash Narayan, A Plea for the Reconstruction of the Indian Polity, 1959. A.Tabuns from Latvia coined the term, see his
'Transformation risks in disintegrated societies.p90. in N.Genov. Central and Eastern Europe. Continuing transformation. Sofia
1998.
This means that such societies need to pay special attention to their institutional and regulatory
policies. Proper institutions and adequate regulations are indispensable to any well-governed society.
The problem with societies in transition is that all too often institutions are weak (due to structural
180
changes) and regulations are no longer adequate (due to changed situations) and habits of people are
difficult to combine with the democratic patterns that officially introduced.
However, a transformation of the law and the role of political bodies of government administration etc.
are not sufficient. Dookeran stresses the need for „an emerging policy environment‟ in the Caribbean
region. Right, but there is still a tendency towards a „paternalistic perception of government' and a lack
of a sense of responsibility on the part of many societal actors. In order to stimulate the development
of an active and dynamic civil society, participating in the process of government, the government
should engage in efforts to communicate with the public in a transparent way and to invite as many
relevant actors as possible to take, part in the processes of policy formation. Civil society with its
myriad of institutions, varying from civil rights institutions, consumer associations to hospitals and
private schools, should be developed into a well organized and „responsible -middle field‟, a potential
partner in policy dialogue. For the government cannot be responsible for everything. There is much
discussion on the issue of empowerment. Indeed it is often badly needed. But how to proceed?
Empowerment is not a matter of transmitting expertise and providing endless types of training.
Empowerment is achieved only when entities actually have something to contribute. That happens
when they get involved in policy development and hence with the process of governing. An empowered
CSO is a CSO that is involved, that contributes, to which the government listens. An „emerging policy
environment‟ is an environment in which in principle all societal stakeholders from all spheres may
contribute to the policy process in areas that are important to them.
Conclusion: the success of a transition process is dependent on a strong social support basis. Only
with the support of representatives of different spheres can transition to new patterns be successful. It
is one thing to observe and ascertain that different entities are supporting change; it is quite another
thing whether they actually do. Active support is dependent on involvement and ownership, as well as
on a ditto prospect. This is why involvement in policy development is so crucial for success.
See for the Caribbean transition W.Dookeran, Power, Politics and Performance, A partnership approach for development,
Kingston 2012; and Nauta, O. Explaining Poor Governance, in Goed Bestuur in de West; Institutionele en maatschappelijke
beperkingen voor goed bestuur in de Caribische Rijksdelen, Oisterwijk, 2011
Q.C.2.2. Do static societies exist? Is transition not a characteristic of all societies?
society perspective.
Indeed, it seems that transition is a characteristic of modern societies. Long ago Adam Ferguson
(1723-1816; sometimes called the „first sociologist‟) noticed that all societies change and change
substantially. So we may speak of transition. You cannot compare the development of a society with a
human being who is building a house. At a certain moment the house is ready. The man and his family
move in and that‟s it. If he does he will „sink into languor and listless indifference‟, in the words of
181
Ferguson. In fact that might happen to societies as well, but never forever. „The attainment of one end
is the beginning of a new pursuit‟. There is always movement and the more diversified a society is, the
more its integrity is at risk. For all these different entities need to cooperate not just to maintain
equilibrium, but to creative develop society. That is where active democracy comes in. Entities need to
cooperate and to cooperate they need to deliberate. He is quoting Pericles who ascertains that we see
in all individuals an attention for both private and public affairs. Whether Pericles was right in stating
that a lack of understanding and attention for public affairs renders an individual „totally insignificant‟,
remains to be seen. But the idea is of course clear: mobilization of the public to deal with public affairs
is needed again and again. The big question is which conditions are needed so that individual citizens
may indeed discuss public affairs.
See: Adam Ferguson, An Essay on the History of Civil Society, 1767 (Philadelphia, 8th ed, 1819), p 389 ff.
However, in many societies transition is preceding almost unnoticed and the need for deliberation
about what is happening might not appear to be that urgent any more. Minor demographic, cultural,
economical and, most of all, technological developments result in a series of minor shifts which
together constitute a major pattern change. Often too late people and politicians become aware that
policies are needed. That is another reason why I press for policy imagination. We need to imagine
what patterns are unfolding and what new situations we are going to face in the future. If civic society
organizations are active actors, new and adequate policies to cope with new situations will be easier to
develop. Awareness of change may stimulate creativity if people or institutions have the opportunity to
contribute to the policy discourse. Without proper CSO‟s this is more difficult. At least in theory.
Often civic society institutions and think tanks, not charged with heavy responsibilities, may see more
freely and neutrally and practice policy imagination.
Demographic changes
Between 1975 – 1990 rapid economic growth in many Western European countries required the influx
of millions of mostly North African and Turkish workers. Several sociologists warned that in the long
run this demographic change might lead to serious social problems and that wise integration policies
were badly needed. However, politicians and civil servants were either ignored the slowly emerging
problems or were unable to come up with an adequate policies. In Amsterdam a small CSO
(OudeZijds100, a social work organization active in the Red Light District, which I mentioned in other
examples) developed the idea of a primary school for Moroccan children who were not (yet) fluent in
Dutch: a bi-lingual and bi-cultural school. The Amsterdam administration at first refused to grant its
approval. Very few people in the municipality were aware of the problems with Moroccan youth in
derelict neighborhoods of the city. Signals coming from several CSO‟s were not taken seriously. But at
least these signals were sent and received. A few years later (in 1977) when the number of young drop-
outs started to become problematic, the project was embraced, propagated and even financed. It was
one of the first policy activities geared to integration.
182
Casa Ruth
More recently Italian nuns from Caserta took the initiative to take care of the many Nigerian women.
As migrants fleeing from poverty and on the way to Europe to earn some money for their families, they
(often naively) fell in the hands of the sex traffickers‟ clutches. Many are forced to work as prostitutes
in Palermo, Naples and other cities. The nuns have set up an organization to reach out to them and
offer them shelter „Casa Ruth‟ in Caserta. They receive psychological counsel and different types of
training to empower them and prepare them to live independently. In cooperation with social workers,
churches, agencies and embassies they obtain new documents (their passports are in the hands of the
traffickers) which are of course conditional for a new start in life. Meanwhile they work in the shelter,
producing various goods that can be sold. The present pope is a strong supporter of Casa Ruth.
Apart from the fact that it is a great and badly needed initiative, it is also an interesting example of a
citizens‟ initiative to respond to a new challenge posed by demographic changes. All too often
governments are too preoccupied with present policies to notice significant changes and respond
timely. Smaller CSO‟s, firmly rooted in society, register more quickly what changes are going on. In
this case a group of nuns (sometimes criticized for withdrawing from society) have responded
creatively.
Back in 1968 Amitai Etzioni published his Active Society, in which he offers a theory for societal and
political processes for participation. Later it was followed by A Responsive Society. He became a
driving force behind the communitarian movement, aimed to include families, social work
organizations, schools, religious entities, and all categories of people who would normally keep silent,
like disabled people, etc in the policy process. He elaborated on methods to reach inclusive consensus
regarding policies (see below). Here our point is that an active and mobilized civil society or middle-
field is indispensable for proper policy development. CSO‟s without an active constituency are weak. A
strong CSO is characterized by a strong and mobilized grass roots support and by access to the policy
decision process. Strong CSO‟s are the only weapon against a government‟s tendency to manipulate
and introduce exclusive policies, which in the end will always lead to more problems or even disaster.
What Etzioni did not see was that a too active society might lead to a jungle of policy initiatives and
decision making processes which lack transparency through the mere quantity of issues. Nobody has
an overview anymore and the chances of abuse increase. Going back to the garden metaphor, we may
say the garden needs to be wed, some trees to be pruned, lest they become too dominant. Gardens
need roomification too. So again, it proves to be a matter of balance. Is there a way to find the right
balance? We turn to the next paragraph.
Conclusion: all societies are in transition. Some transition takes place almost unnoticed. There are
small pattern changes that for some time do not upset the entire pattern. Suddenly it does however. If
stakeholders get the opportunity to adapt to new situations and, in turn, contribute to pattern change,
183
the transition will go relatively smoothly. But enough is enough. Too much change is difficult to digest.
An incrementalist approach with some crucial steps is the best.
Amitai Etzioni, Active Society, A theory for Societal and Political Processes, New York 1968, p 622 ff; idem: A Responsive
Society , 1991. See for a critical update: Joseph H. Spear, The Actively Drifting Society, in Wilson C. McWilliam (ed), The Active
Society Revisited, 2006.
Q.C.2.3. Does liquid modernity give rise to rapidly changing societies? And how does liquid
modernity relate to pattern theory?
society perspective.
The term „liquid modernity‟ was coined by the Polish-English sociologist Zygmunt Bauman. The term
quickly resonated all over the global world. Apparently he hit the nail on its head. Liquid identities,
liquid partnerships, liquid nationalities, liquid life, liquid love, even time has become liquid. No
certainties, no solids, no foundations, no fixed borders, no fixed place of residence or address. By
mobile phone and mail we can be reached anywhere. It does not matter where we are and where we
work. The advantages are obvious and numerous. It is less likely that we get „identified‟ and labeled at
an early age for the rest of our life, with no getting away of it. The risks are numerous as well, for we
easily get drowned in this ocean of modernity.
We can say that liquid modernity also means liquid society structures, i.e. society in constant flux and
change. The consequences are manifold. One is that societies can no longer offer an agreeable measure
of certainty, as they did in the second half of the 20th century. In some countries people who worked
hard their entire life, expecting a decent pension at old age, discover that the pension is not even
enough to pay their rent (as in some Eastern European countries). Likewise status, friendships, place
of residence all seem uncertain. The people who take fateful decisions in companies and governments
may have left long before the negative impact of their decisions become apparent. Accountability and
responsibility have become questionable, sometimes even laughable. Two companies sign a contract.
Company A will deliver some chemical liquids to company B. In due time. When the time has come
company A does not deliver. Circumstances have changed. Company B is outraged. There is a contract.
Company A does not seem to be impressed or bothered and advises to take a lawyer. The costs of a
lawsuit are high, too high in comparison to the contract. That is the end of the story. Liquid deals.
And more worrisome: liquid responsibilities.
Therefore some basic stability in terms of a legal framework in connection with a policy framework
seems more important than ever. Otherwise Bauman‟s fear that in the fluid stage of modernity a
nomadic elite will rule the settled majority. The policy framework however should be the outcome of a
public discussion, with citizens who together form the nation or national administration to which it
applies. Public policies are public, in the sense of mutual interest and also in the sense there is shared
184
and mutual responsibility. All partners, including the beneficiaries should be responsible for the
success of the policy. As circumstances change, policies might have to be adapted. The process of
adaptation too is of public importance. In „Postmodernity and its discontents‟ Bauman commented on
such arrangements and raised the question whether the circle can be squared. The question is valid if
liquidity is maximized. But is it? Without fixed identities and values modernity has become somewhat
liquid, a liquidity of low viscosity though. That is why different patterns as frameworks are possible
and required, even needed by people. Patterns are not fixed realities; they are workable frames,
popular for some time, with an impact that might be considered more negative than positive. As a
result people will make alternative decisions and move towards a different pattern. In other words,
liquid modernity leads to „patterned modernity‟. Without a measure of liquidity a plurality of patterns
is unlikely. Typical for patterned modernity are policies to support patterns, make them more
workable, plausible and agreeable. But within an environment that is on constant flux, policies need to
be adaptable and flexible too.
Laws and policies combined form the meta-framework of society. Laws tend to be relatively fixed. They
play a stabilizing role. Policies fulfill the adaptive role. This adaptive role has become quite essential in
liquid times.
My conclusion is that society in rapid transition is indeed a characteristic of liquid modernity, but
liquidity is unlikely to be maximized. It is more likely to get multi-patterned with numerous relatively
unstable patterns. Policies will have to plat an adaptive role, in combination with laws that fulfill a
stabilizing role
See: Bauman, Z. Postmodernity and its Discontents, Cambridge 1997 and Bauman, Z. Liquid Modernity, 2000, p13
Q. C.2.4.How can participation be institutionalized in an orderly way? A useful instrument: public
policy partnerships
There can be too much and too little participation. Too much leads to confusion and abuse, either by
clever politicians who cut their own way in the confused complexity or by clever CSO‟s who manage to
convince some politicians.
Too little leads to autocratic governance, which is another form of abuse of power.
Lip service to include citizens and societal stakeholders in the policy process is almost universal. That
is what dictators say they do all the time, just like centralized governments and decentralized
governments too. For decentralizing power does not mean that local executives automatically listen to
citizens or work together with them.
Governmental arrogance
2002: Introducing the idea of public policy partnerships in Turda (a small city of 100.000 inhabitants
in central Romania) together with the enthusiastic vice-mayor was successful. But during a lunch
185
conversation the rather skeptic mayor told me he did not see the point of doing this. “Why not?” so I
asked him “You see, I am convinced I know their needs better than they do themselves”.
It is all too often the same story. You can hardly maintain yourself as a politician or an executive if you
are not convinced you know your people. When good intended policies go wrong, there is no other
explanation than a hostile group or category of people managed to obstruct the policy effectively. A
strong civil society means a civil society that has a say in public governance. You don‟t want to
participate for bacon and beans. The more civil society is taken seriously by the government, the
stronger it gets. Lots of governments in new democracies find that prospect frightening, but in the long
run it is the only way to „come of age‟. Without a strong civil society, the political situation will remain
fragile.
That is why a particular arrangement should be introduced and institutionalized: public policy
partnerships.
See: Keith Crawford, East Central European Politics Today, Manchester, 1996, p 107 ff; and Gyorgy Szoboszlai, (ed), Democracy
and Political Transformation, Theories and East-Central Realities, Hungarian Political Science association, Budapest, 1991
Participation can be orderly and disorderly as well. If the number of CSO‟s, companies and other
entities participating in deliberation is high it is very difficult to keep the process under control. Very
quickly some partners will take advantage of the chaos, often political parties or big companies or
together. It can hardly be stressed sufficiently that specific expertise is needed to conduct the process.
That is another reason why some sort of institutionalization is useful. So we now turn to public policy
partnerships.
What is a public policy partnership? A partnership between representatives from public
administration or government on the one hand and CSO‟s on the other hand to develop relevant
policies together and possibly implement the policies together as well. It is an institutional
arrangement to ensure and facilitate the deliberation process. In fact it is a way of institutionalizing the
deliberation process.
Public policy deliberation partnerships.
The Republic of Moldova is a typical country in transition, moving from a Russian colony with a
centralized communist governmental system to a modern democracy. Interaction and communication
between governmental structures and society or civic society organizations (CSO‟s) still leaves much to
wish. So the idea was to improve collaboration by introducing „public policy deliberation partnerships‟
between policy departments of the government and CSO‟s active in the same policy domain.
Training in policy development was provided to civil servants and representatives of CSO‟s together.
And together they were expected to develop a particular policy, seen to be important.
In order to practice co-operation and the new acquired capacities, participants formed 7 teams, with
the task of developing policy papers in several areas: agriculture, education, justice and social
186
protection. In order to do this, team members (CSO representatives and civil servants) had to meet
and actually work together in between trainings, in order to develop viable and workable policy papers
that can actually be implemented. The co-operation proved to be fruitful; the participants showed
much enthusiasm and proved that the gap between the government and the civil society organizations
is surmountable. Finally, most of the policy papers that were worked out were accepted by the
government and implemented. The model worked surprisingly well and contributed to more workable
and effective policies as well as to a better understanding of the dynamics of civil society by the
administration and a number of politicians.
Later, in 2010 the policy partnerships were institutionalized in the Consiliul National pentru
Participare (CNP), the National Council for Participation, a council established by CSO‟s and
recognized by the central government to advise the government on policies in general. The council is
divided in 5 divisions advising on 5 policy areas. Once a week the cabinet sits together with the council
to discuss policies. It is then decided whether particular policy partnerships need to get involved or get
established in order to develop or evaluate a policy. A number of 30 CSO‟s may send a representative
to sit on the council. They appoint council secretaries for a period of 2 years.
Note: the Moldovan arrangement is somewhat similar to the traditional Swedish arrangements on
participatory democracy. And in fact is influenced by it! We will discuss the Swedish arrangements
later. See below: paragraph on Policy House
Many governments and societies are aware of this need, but are still unable to move in this direction.
This program aims to support the attempts of government and society to work towards a truly
'participatory democracy' as well as „active society‟, able to develop policies together.
As is already stressed several times, policies do not operate in a mechanical environment. They operate
in a human, responsive environment. Policies are kind of communication patterns. Like dialogues. The
executive introduces a policy idea to solve a problem and the public is responding with a response
pattern, according to the existing common policies. What a shame if the response is inadequate,
negative, destructive or whatever. Good communicators know how to get a dialogue started with
positive and open responses from both parties. This is exactly the same with policies.
Conclusion: The idea of public policy partnerships is to start practicing the policy dialogue with all
(representatives of ) stakeholders involved at an early stage of policy development. The dialogue
consists of an exchange ideas and responses, understanding responses, anticipating desirable
responses and so on. This is followed by all the phases of policy development and it might even be
extended to implementation. The public policy partnership is an institutionalized way to practice
policy cooperation.
For the usefulness, difficulties and advantages of outsourcing see: Alford, J., O‟Flinn, J. Rethinking Public Service Delivery,
Managing with External Providers, 2012; for the management of outsourcing see: Dickinson, H., Peck, E., Managing and
leading in inter-agency settings ; Better Partnership Working, 2008.
187
Q. C.2.5. What might be the role of companies and the business world in public policy partnerships?
How does this fit in the concept of corporate social responsibility?
In his introduction to new ways of corporate social responsibility, Jeremy Moon writes: „new
governance refers to ways in which societies are governed. It brings greater governing roles for civil
society and business organizations alongside governments‟. This is an interesting point of view. It
shows that, finally, CSO‟s and companies are considered part of the active policy environment. Indeed,
companies are „increasingly involved in the delivery of major infrastructure projects, and health and
education systems‟. However, in the present CSR-discussion little attention is given to the political
responsibilities of companies. And, with Joel Bakan, we should realize benevolent corporations do not
exist, nor are corporation‟s democratic institutions. At the same time it is obvious that many
companies have a substantial impact in the sphere of the oikos, as well as the sphere of the political. It
may even be argued that many issues that appear on the political agenda are issues related to the
business world, of companies, banking and technological innovation. This of course is also the reason
why we see so many companies financing political parties in an attempt to influence political decision
making and also why we see so many companies actively lobbying.
Jeremy Moon observes that companies indeed have highly significant political impact „through their
(non-)payment of tax, their lobbying and other kinds of engagement with politics such as financing
candidates and parties or recruiting former senior officials and office-holders‟. This last point is
quickly gaining relevance. Some people attempt to pursue a career in the business world by means of
political parties who may appoint them as governmental executives. Examples are numerous and not
really encouraging from the point of view of the public interest. Was chancellor Gerhard Schroeder
really committed to serving the German public, or was he in actual fact preparing his career in the oil
business. As chancellor he strongly advocated the so-called „Nord Stream Pipeline Project‟ to provide
Germany with Russian gas and making Germany more dependent on Russia. He pressed for signing
the agreement, just before general elections and he also guaranteed a needed loan by Gazprom. After
stepping down as chancellor, he was quickly appointed as president of the shareholder‟s committee of
the Nord Stream AG. Several journalists have raised questions about conflicts of interest.
Apart from such dubious network activities, companies often have important monopolistic positions in
energy and water supply, transportation or pharmaceutical products that impinge on health
policies,environemental politics and so on.
Some critics view the entire CSR-discourse as a way to clean the company‟s social conscience, or take
the wind out of the sails of the critics, or in one word: green washing. It diverts the attention of the
public and gives the appearance of care and solidarity. Whereas in actual fact a negligible percentage of
the company‟s turnover is spent that way. Companies like Enron became notorious. Apart from the
numerous banks that behaved totally irresponsible, causing the financial crisis of 2008 with deep
ramifications for the public good. At the same time the financial crisis revealed a very basic fact,
namely that corporations depend entirely on government for their existence and are therefore, „at least
in theory within the government‟s control‟, as Bakan observes.
188
So it is high time that it is generally accepted that companies and banks to have an enormous impact
on society, oikos and the political. As individual mental health is highly dependent to the individual‟s
capacity of „impact assessment‟, so is corporate health dependant on impact awareness.
Still lots of entrepreneurs and companies agree with Milton Friedmann‟s strong statement that CSR is
a „fundamentally subversive doctrine…..contrary to the core purpose of business‟. In Friedmann‟s eyes
the purpose of business is to make profits, which of course is in the interest of shareholders. His point
of view is am extremely one-sided formalistic juridical, individualistic, almost social-darwinistic point
of view, which is at loggerheads with nature‟s preference for symbiosis. It is parasitic to the core.
Nature is „reality of cooperation‟, not of individualistic action, for we cannot imagine one
individualistic action without other actors, entities and elements, like energy, involved. Therefore
Bakan‟s judgment that it is a pathological viewpoint as well, seems apt. Some entrepreneurs do have
an opposite point of view, like George Goyder or David Packard. Goyder: If it is true that the company
today is "the decisive economic influence of our time", then it is time to bring the corporation‟s
objectives and constitution up to date, and to enable directors of companies to balance the financial
bottom line with the company‟s obligations to all the main stakeholders - not only the holders of
equity, but also the employees, the community, and the environment‟. And Packard:”‟business has
responsibilities beyond making a profit for their shareholders. We have important responsibilities to
our employees, suppliers and to the welfare of our larger societies‟
We should realize that corporations, small and big, banks, insurance companies and trade unions are
part society and more specifically of the policy environment anyway. They have an impact that is
impossible to ignore. Like any individual person is responsible for its own behavior with its impact on
the environment, so are companies. That is why Goyder‟s ideas about regular social audits are so
important. As their impact is substantial, so is their responsibility. This means that we have to find
ways to include them in the policy process and have them assume their responsibility. This is even
more urgently the case in times of transition when things get fluid and new conditions set.
Below I suggest setting up a policy house as the place where stakeholders get together to discuss the
policy environment, the roles of different stakeholders and partners as well as their impact, their
respective responsibilities in the very first place. Next stakeholders should develop policies in the
interest of all, so inclusive policies, and discuss which stakeholders should assume which
responsibilities in carrying out the policies. The political government act as the facilitating and
coordinating body.
My general conclusion is that it is high time that discussions on CSR should pay attention to the
political dimension. And should embrace the statement that any corporate action or development has
an impact on the policy environment. Another conclusion is that governments should involve those
corporations in policy development (just as CSO‟s) that carry out and publish regular social audits.
See: Jeremy Moon‟s excellent summary of major issues in his Corporate Social Responsibility, A Very Short Introduction,
Oxford, 2014, p87 ff. See also: Goyder,G.A. The Just Enterprise, 1987, who discussed practically all these issues half a century
189
ago and introduced a new way of dealing with ownership; and of course J.C. Bakan, The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit
of Profit and Power, 2004, p 150 ff; and for the quote from Packard, see Jerome Want, Corporate Culture, 2007, p 116.
190
3. Note on deliberation process and 5 types of rationality
“The day-to-day making of policy is arguing all the time. You're trying to get the right approach and
the right answer…..”
Madeleine Albright
Summary
The policy deliberation process needs to take into account different types of rationality. But most of
these „rationalities‟ (like all rationalities „bounded rationalities‟ of course) in fact obstruct the open
communication and open dialogue.
However, if the process is based on the rationality of inclusiveness and the facilitator manages to
convince all actors that „inclusive dialogue‟ takes everybody a long way, the process will be relatively
successful. It does not mean that other rationalities should be eliminated. No, but they play a more
relative, modest or marginal role. Indeed all interests should be considered and all values be respected,
under the umbrella of inclusiveness. This is what inclusiveness is all about.
By the way, this approach is similar to Habermas‟ concept of communicative action : communicative
action is the type of „action‟ in which actors do not attempt to influence one another and refrain from
preaching, pushing, pulling leads to mutual understanding, learning and working together as partners.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Q.C.3.
Question/
paragraph
Issues Page
Q. C.3.1 Policy deliberation with partners adhering to different types
if rationality
190
Q. C.3.2 Practice of rationality of inclusiveness 193
Q. C.3.3 Policy deliberation and the quest for justice 187
Q. C.3.1: is policy deliberation possible if different partners in dialogue take different patterns with
different rationalities as starting point? Will they ever understand one another?
There is no thinking, no judgment, no feeling without a series of presuppositions. Presuppositions are
always linked with patterns. If we judge that a particular situation is not right, our judgment is based
on some judicial principles and presuppositions. If we are indignant this is because we feel some basic
principles regarding proper behavior are being violated. However, not all people agree on the same
principles or presuppositions. If in some countries homosexuals are forbidden to marry or even
practice their homosexuality, some people may find this perfectly right, whereas others may judge this
191
to be contrary to basic human rights. To say that a policy aims at changing the pattern of behavior of
its target group in the direction outlined by the policy goals, implies that in many cases the
implementation of that policy can be seen as a restriction of the freedom of individual citizens or other
private actors, or as the imposition of a particular (ideological) viewpoint on citizens. Never will
everybody be happy.
That is why the process of policy deliberation is of crucial importance to the maintenance or
development of a healthy society. Policy deliberation means that all stakeholders and individual
citizens are invited to meet one another and express their ideas, criticize proposals, give feedback, raise
questions, suggest new ideas and be permitted to engage in „out-of-the-box-thinking‟ (which is the
same as „out-of-the-pattern-thinking‟ or „a-typical thinking‟). So there is an urgent need to get
deliberation (or participatory democracy) arrangements established. (see paragraph on „means of
consultation‟)
The more restricted the deliberation process is, the more likely that power will determine how
situations should be interpreted, what should be considered problematic and what not, which goals to
pursue, what policy designs are acceptable and how these should be implemented. The policy
deliberation process should be an open process that encourages free communication between actors.
Free communication in a dialogue is reciprocal communication.
Basic misunderstandings are related to value judgments. Not that we do not share values. In actual fact
we do. We differ as regards our choice of priorities. Different priorities result in different value
hierarchies. Which of these should be put first, second etc ?: (personal) freedom, loyalty, solidarity,
obedience to some religious law, equality, social order and so on. The discussion quickly gets entangled
in condemnation, reproaches, distrust or preachy behavior. This is why so many people utterly dislike
„value rationality‟ and opt for other types of rationality, especially in the public sphere.
Many opt for a so-called neutral technical rationality. In their viewpoint the only thing that
counts are the effects of policy instruments (technical rationality of rationality of
instrumentality) So what is needed is that all should listen to technical policy experts
Others may be of the opinion that well-being or the good life of citizens is really dependant on
social order. Chaos should be avoided at all cost (regulative rationality of rationality order).
There is a large group of politicians, social philosophers and policy experts who foster ideas of
an „ideal society‟. Most of all they are convinced things need to be changed and new conditions
need to be created to further the good life of citizens. They are champions of novelty, though
often they are not very realistic. They are driven by ideological rationality.
As regards the rationality of deliberation, there are 3 major variants.
The basic idea is that some sort of deliberation will be the legitimating ground of a
policy. True deliberation is a matter of open dialogue with a policy idea as a result. A
policy works and is effective and sustainable if it is the outcome of a dialogue in which
192
all stakeholders pay attention to ideas, interests and values of other stakeholders with
the intention to include them in the policy: rationality of inclusiveness
But some may opt for a „give and take‟ mentality, life is a kind of game (rationality of
exchange). The deliberation process thus becomes as kind of negotiation process
And not to forget, there is a strong bunch of politicians who secretly or openly think:
the bottom line is power. The fittest will survive so they conclude that the only thing
that really matters is power. A particular definition of the situation is brutally or subtly
imposed on the partners „in dialogue‟. (rationality of power)
All types of rationality are almost always at work in the process. Usually there is confusion between
actors, because one is using this type of rationality and another is using another type. The result is
talking at cross-purposes and little understanding, let alone mutuality. If one of these rationalities
starts dominating the process, imposing itself as the only one, there will be trouble.
For instance if instrumental (or technical) rationality dominates, the deliberation process will be
viewed as a means towards developing a great policy. All stakeholders who do not contribute in a
useful way, will be excluded. As a result the deliberation process becomes meaningless.
If the rationality of exchange starts dominating, the road is free for all sorts of lobbies, action groups
and powerful companies to put pressure on the government to adopt a particular policy which is in
their (exclusive) interest. The quality of policies will be decreased.
If rationality of value judgment dominates the result will not just be idealistic and less workable
policies, but also an idealistic and perhaps autocratic type of government.
If the rationality of order dominates it surely is a sign the executive or some stakeholders desire to
impose a particular order and limit „deviant behavior‟.
If the rationality of inclusiveness (sometimes called collaborative rationality) dominates the risks are
high that the process goes on forever and ever without resulting in a workable policy.
Conclusion: The policy deliberation process may be viewed from the perspectives of different types
of rationality. And it might be propagated from those viewpoints. But most of these „rationalities‟ in
fact obstruct the open communication and open dialogue.
However, if the process is based on the rationality of inclusiveness, and the facilitator manages to
convince all actors that „inclusive dialogue‟ takes everybody a long way, the process will be relatively
successful. It does not mean that other rationalities should be eliminated. No, but they play a more
marginal or modest. Indeed all interests should be considered and all values be respected, under the
umbrella of inclusiveness.
193
Q. C.3.2: How can the rationality of inclusiveness be practiced among actors who base themselves on
different assumptions of rationality?
The Dutch phenomenologist Strasser was of the opinion that inclusive dialogue is the basis of all types
of dialogue, discussion, conversation, talking and thinking. „For we all see what we see through the
eyes of real or imagined others‟. It is impossible to detach us from fellow human beings. We should
acknowledge we are social beings to the core. The more we become aware of the implications of this
acknowledgement, the more inclusive we get, the more „moral‟ we get, i.e. the more we are open to the
needs and interests of others. Strasser‟s conclusion is the old common sense insight: if you listen
before you speak, and if you reflect before you speak, your speaking might make sense to others.
This is exactly the basis of what Barber called „strong democracy‟ (based on some remarks made by de
Tocqueville on American democracy) In a strong democracy legitimacy of any type of decision is based
on the results of democratic discussion in which all partners have the right to get involved and
integrated. Strong democracy is democracy that actually practices respect for all stakeholders (which
could be individual citizens) in that they may express themselves, knowing their voice will not just be
heard but taken into consideration. That is why we defined morality as: the ability and willingness to
put oneself in the position of the other and be fully attentive to the needs of others and to take them
into full account.
This approach is similar to Habermas‟ concept of communicative action : communicative action is the
type of „action‟ in which actors do not attempt to influence one another and refrain from preaching,
pushing, intimidating, black mailing etc. It means learning and working together as partners. It
stimulates integrity, co-operation and solidarity. It is not necessary to agree on all issues. But partners
in dialogue should be able to agree to disagree and come up with a compromise that is acceptable to
all. Habermas also emphasizes that communicative action serves as an ideal foundation for effective
policy development.
There is an important question to be raised here. When do we understand another person? A basic
barrier to understanding is that we remain unaware of the future implications of an action as seen in
the eyes of another person. How someone is assessing the implications of a policy idea, is highly
dependent on the pattern that he or she is taking for granted. So we need to be aware of patterns that
we take for granted. Patterns often provide us with indications as to the effects of a point of view. And
of the dynamics of a point of view. For viewpoints are not static. They develop in interaction with
changes of the environment, with personal interests and in interaction with other pattern elements.
Here are some examples.
- One partner in dialogue will be of the opinion that „raising taxes will stifle economic growth‟
whereas the other will have an opposite opinion „without raising taxes, the government cannot
care for the poor, who will have nothing to spend and so economic growth will stifle‟. Two
different opinions, related to 2 different patterns. But how strong and static are such opinions?
That depends on a number of factors. Maybe the fist opinion is expressed by an entrepreneur
who owns a company that paying high taxes. Or is he an entrepreneur who owns an
194
international company that is paying taxes abroad? And imagine these entrepreneurs have just
attended a seminar with Paul Krugman on government spending?
- „If you have fewer policemen on the street, crime rate will grow‟. A partner in dialogue will put
forward: „save on policemen and invest in education and the crime rate will decrease‟.
Another partner in dialogue, maybe a politician who at the same time earns some money by
selling cars, will opt for more policemen on the street because he smells a lucrative deal. T
Such examples can easily be multiplied. The first example shows patterns are dynamic and dynamics
imply that people will change viewpoints. The second example shows the partners in dialogue do not
share the same pattern of thinking. The way they reason and try to imagine future implications is very
different. However, the more actively they participate in dialogue the more likely that they will be
aware of fears and expectations of others, the more they are willing to engage in discussion and the
more they become tolerant to other viewpoints.
Indeed there are some indications that the more actively people participate in the policy discourse, the
more open minded they get. After some time they become aware that other people not only have
different viewpoints but also different rationales and interests that lead them to that viewpoint. „Many
studies have found that the correlation between social participation and tolerance is, if anything,
positive, not negative, even holding education constant‟.
See for an interesting discussion: R.D.Putnam Bowling Alone, The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York,
2000, p355.
Each activity and each policy has immediate and long term implications. Very often it is the long term
implication that is at stake. In order to assess the long term implications, a good measure of policy
imagination is need. Without policy imagination the view of the future is colored by desire, fear or
indifference. Very often these future implications, which tend to be somewhat vague, are not openly
discussed. Still they play a crucial role.
Important in dialogue is that all partners are willing to look critically at their own starting point.
Awareness of your own patterns and related common policies, reality definitions, priority values etc is
very useful. For awareness has the effect of putting things into perspective. Once you put your own
position into perspective, you are in the position to understand others with their own rationality more
easily and better. Only then policy imagination is possible. Most partners in dialogue will be open to
discuss the impact of the policy according to different patterns and carry out an assessment of the
impact once they have become aware of their own position.
The most difficult obstacle is the hidden agenda. Good facilitators will wait for the right moment and
then raise the embarrassing question: will your business seriously suffer if you cannot sell cars to the
police anymore? Confrontation at the right moment with the right intonation, may have a disarming
effect, though surely not always. The idea of open dialogue is that it leads to a peaceful climate and
increase of trust. Once partners acknowledge the joint advantage of a peaceful climate, they will take
efforts to create such climate and maintain it. Is this an idealistic dream? No it is not. Several times I
have witnessed progress myself. But it requires facilitators with commitment, experience and capacity.
195
Such facilitators are rare. It also requires basic good intentions. If one partner is really determined to
pursue his or her own hidden agenda and power, the dialogue will fail.
Think of oil spill again. The oil refinery actor is not sufficiently aware of the fear of ecologists that
similar disasters my happen in the future, seriously jeopardizing the balance in nature and putting the
well-being of citizens at risk. The politicians are afraid that strong measures may scare the refinery
people, who may look for alternative locations and eventually close down the refinery and leave with
severe unemployment as a result.
The refinery is eager to produce and make profits, rather than assessing the ecological impact of the
process. The politicians desire to be re-elected and are afraid some potential voters will be angry if they
put too many constraints on the refinery with the threat of unemployment. The ecologists have not the
slightest desire to imagine a smoothly functioning refinery that is friendly to nature and seem unable
to do so.
A good deliberation process manages to get it all on the table and convince partners that the patterns
at work here, all contain some truth. Once this is acknowledged, partners may agree on problem and
goal identification. This is the basis for a discussion on an effective compromise policy.
Some progress is made. Suddenly the refinery gets a brain wave. Maybe the direction of the wind was
such that oil from the refinery could not have caused the disaster. They manage to demand an inquiry
by meteorologists.....With postponement as a result....The facilitators were unable to decline that
request. ...
After a couple of years the process can start all over again. At this moment (2014) the outcome is still
uncertain.
Once the partners in dialogue agree on problem and goal definition, the moment has come to work out
a compromise and an acceptable and effective policy. This requires a rationality shift towards
instrumental rationality, away from specific pattern rationalities. During the policy development
process other rationalities linked to other patterns may be at work, but preferably in a marginal way,
not in a dominating way. It is the only way to come to agreement.
Why is this important? Discussions will not lead to consensus and commitment if discussion partners
are unaware of the type of rationality that serves as the basis of judgment. We will come back to this at
a later stage when we deal with methods of deliberation.
Point of attention: goal shift
Once we understand that patterns are by nature dynamic and in constant flux and once we understand
that policies impinge on patterns, we also understand that it is by definition impossible to exactly
predict the outcome of a policy. Partners in dialogue may agree on the goals to be attained and the
policy actor may earnestly want to put his shoulders to the policy wheel, but once the implementation
process is put to work, we will see that not everything will go exactly according to plan. The to and fro
process should be continued: from the stakeholders communis opinion (the ideal) to policy
196
implementation geared to realization of goals and from policy implementation back to the
stakeholders who will naturally change opinions, take new factors into account, find the policy more
agreeable than they initially viewed it or vice versa. On top of all this nothing will ever exactly work
according to plan. Sometimes we see that the policy actor is quite happy with partial goal realization
and sometimes, in fact quite rarely, we see that things are going so well that indicators get sharpened.
The bar gets raised or lowered.
Even more surprising to the policy technologist is that goals may actually shift. But this should be seen
as a sign of life, of stakeholders who continue to be interested in the policy process, who are aware of
changing environments and failing policies and who dare to change the course on time.
Example: Curitiba
Under the famous mayor Jaime Lerner, Curitiba became well-known for its planning policies. The
idea was to strike two flies in one stroke: give jobs to the many jobless and renovate the city, restore
the old centre, build parks and so on. So lots of jobless people got jobs and renovated the city. A sense
of ownership was one of the positive and unexpected side-effects. The city however attracted lots of
job seekers from outside and finally failed to integrate its growing suburbs into the city. As a result,
most of the planning interventions that Curitiba is known for – public parks, quiet pedestrian streets,
preservation of the historic district – are not accessible to hundreds of thousands of suburban low-
income residents. They feel deprived. Due to a lack of affordable apartments, they are establishing lots
of illegal houses. So the city has to start all over again. But the innovative policies of Lerner should not
be repeated. Now the problems are different and the problems are, at least partly, caused by the Lerner
policies….
Clara Irázabal made the following comments in an interview: “the discrepancy between its flawless
image and reality is growing…..You have to remember at the time all these ideas were very
innovative…..There is a logic of learning from best practices. You can have solutions to problems that
are proven to be effective……..those ideas travel around the world…but sometimes ideas keep on
traveling, even when they're outdated." So continue to pay attention to the voice of the people.
For the interview: Clara Irazabal, Citylab, June 2012
Conclusion: individual citizens, politicians, stakeholders who enter into dialogue encounter different
points of view, different rationalities and common policies. By becoming aware of your own position
and of those off others a first step in the direction of inclusiveness has been taken. Exclusiveness boils
down to viewing the world and others just from your own particular perspective. Exclusiveness is
inevitably leading to conflict and power. It needs power to maintain itself. Inclusiveness opens the way
to cooperation.
See: Benjamin Barber, Strong Democracy. Participatory Politics for a new Age, Berkeley 1984.; J.Dryzek, Discursive Democracy,
Politics, Policy and Political Science, Cambridge 1990; J.Habermas, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Frankfurt am Main
197
1981; J. Ellul, L'illusion politique. Paris, 1965; B.Kristensen, Welzijn in Patronen, Amsterdam 1992; Newman, J. (ed), Remaking
governance: Peoples, politics and the public sphere, 2005; S.Strasser, Bouwstenen voor een filosofische anthropologie,
Hilversum 1965, p 200 ff; and A. de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2000 (transl. of De la Democratie en Amerique, Paris,
1835)
Q.C.3.3. How is the policy deliberation process related to the quest for justice? Does it guarantee a
good and just outcome?
This question takes us back to the basics of deliberation. All too often it is assumed that policy
deliberation is good, democratic and furthering the (collective) well-being of citizens. I also take that
point of view, but not without trying to find a reasonable argumentation. My argumentation goes back
to Aristotle and also to Bertrand de Jouvenel, who discussed so many of the deliberation issues at stake
today in his study on sovereignty. Different social philosophers though have emphasized the need for
public support, consent and input. It certainly is not a recent discussion. The Medieval philosopher
Cusanus (Nicolaas von Cusa, 1401-1464), was the first to take up the matter after ancient Greek
democracy. The question why secular authority should be supported by the public, he answered that
all human beings are equals, created by one God and without any right to dictate others. Let alone to
exalt himself above others like. There is no natural or divinely installed city, nation, nor any public
authority. Our societies and authorities are man-made. This means that citizens should consult
together how they want to regulate their common affairs. A few centuries later John Locke and Jean
Jacques Rousseau took up the matter again. Locke simply stated: it is the citizen who authorizes
society....for his comfortable, safe and peaceable living. If the authorities do not manage to achieve
this, the citizens naturally protest and seek to authorize someone else.
Let us first focus on the public good. For Aristotle the public good is closely connected to: a. the
avoidance of any powerful and hostile entity or exclusive club of people who set the rules of the game;
b. the proper use of material, financial and immaterial resources, avoiding exhaustion of resources;
and c. the inclusion of all citizens as well as the maintenance of social ties between citizens and the
entities they belong to. Let us also note that for Aristotle the essence of justice is „equality of
proportions‟. The combination of the two makes „fairness‟. To give an example: laborers earn a wage of
10 per hour. One works 2 hours and another one works 10 hours. The principle of proportion
prescribes payments of respectively 20 and 100. That will be seen as fair. And if someone makes a very
important contribution to the work, based on extensive professional knowledge and expertise, his or
her net-wage might be higher than 10. Maybe 20. This argument is used by Rawls when he introduces
the famous „difference principle. (see Q.C.4.3.)
Aristotle is using the term „justice‟ in 3 slightly different meanings. In the first place individual people
may (hopefully) have a desire for justice. We may call the justice as a virtue. Secondly what people
consider just, maybe called justice, if supported by reasonable arguments. Aristotle is convinced that
equality and proportionality are at the basis of a universal idea of justice. Thirdly both the citizens and
the polis as a whole may (or should) put justice into practice, by means of habits, by means of a legal
framework, a constitution, regulations and all sorts of institutions. This is the practice of justice. What
Aristotle is saying next is that there is a continuous to and fro between these 3 types of justice. Things
198
are never settled for ever as times and conditions are changing continuously. In other words, his
viewpoint is somewhat „indefinite‟ and in actual fact he is often criticized for being too indefinite.
However, the question is whether a more definitive theory or viewpoint on justice is possible and
desirable. Aristotle was of the opinion this is not desirable. And De Jouvenel is saying: look at the
idealist or politician who claims to be the guardian of the collective good, he is a dangerous man.
Nobody will ever have a clear insight in the needs and interests and opinions of everybody and all
conscientious citizens are eager to listen to what other citizens have to say on an issue, to learn and to
take into account. In actual fact this exactly what the policy deliberation process is all about, to listen,
to exchange opinions, to learn, to combine and to create syntropy. The very fact the all relevant
stakeholders are included in the deliberation process implies an attempt to serve the public good on
the basis of justice (seen from an Aristotelean point of view). This is no guarantee of justice. The
process needs to go on. Feedback has to be worked on and used for improvements. That is one reason
why De Jouvenel is in favor of splitting issues and responsibilities, calling this practice „fragmentation‟,
which, as we have seen, as similar to incrementalism.
What does that specifically and practically mean for the policy deliberation process? In the words of
Wiggins: deliberators should list the specific concerns that all actors have regarding the issue at stake
and engage in the process with the following in mind: a. „In order to uphold and preserve their
cooperative association as a shared thing with a past, a present and s future‟; b. „In order to protect
their modes of cooperation from participants who will otherwise pursue practices or policies that
disregard or slight the interests of other participants‟. An open and transparent process of policy
deliberation with equal chances for all stakeholders to participate is a condition sine qua non for
collective well-being and justice. So is the conclusion of de Jouvenel in good Aristotelean tradition.
And as if to even further stress the importance of this tradition, he also remarks that focusing on the
past is likely to have a divisive effect, whereas focusing on common ends has a unifying effect.
Conclusion: Nobody knows exactly the needs and interests and opinions of everybody. If citizens are
invited to listen to what other citizens have to say on an issue, they learn and will be more likely to take
into account the viewpoint of others. In actual fact this exactly what the policy deliberation process is
all about. The very fact the all relevant stakeholders are included in the deliberation process implies an
attempt to serve the public good on the basis of justice
See: B.de Jouvenel, De la souverainité: à la recherché du bien politique, Paris 1955; and David Wiggins, Ethics, Twelve Lectures
on the Philosophy of Morality, London, 2006, p 283. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 1690, new ed London 1999, p
160 – 165. For Cusanus (his Concordantia Catholica, 1433) see Karl Jaspers, Nikolaus Cusanus, Muenchen, 1964, p 173. Yamaki,
Kazuhiko, ed., Nicholas of Cusa: A Medieval Thinker for the Modern Age, 2001.
199
4. Practice of governance by policy implementation
Vaclav Havel (the famous Czech dissident and president) had to say on this issue: bad politics is „the
art of the possible‟, a type of „realism‟, inevitably leading to entropy, whereas responsible politics is the
„art of the impossible‟, a type of realistic idealism.
Summary.
In this chapter we will step back a little and first sum up the link between good governance and proper
policy development. Then we will have a look at some other and ancient civilizations. How did other
people, past and present measure good governance? Can we learn something about public policies? We
will see that there is quite some discussion about the practice of public policies within an immoral
environment. We will also see that responsibility and accountability are crucial issues, maybe all over
(civilized) history. Not that ancient civilization acted more responsibly than ours, but, like us, the
problem of public responsibility was an important issue. This will lead us to some reflection about
responsibility and how this can be part of parcel of policy practice.
TABLE OF CONTENTS C.3
Question/
paragraph
Issues Page
Q. C.4.1 Link between good governance and proper policy development 199
Q. C.4.2 How did other and ancient civilizations consider this link? 202
Q. C.4.3 What is political responsibility? And responsible policies? 206
Q. C.4.4 Why are good policies in need people with an open mind,
willing to reflect, learn and evaluate?
208
Q.C.4.1. What is the link between good governance and proper policies and policy development?
Political system perspective
The practice of (good) governance by policy implementation is based on 4 principles:
Aristotle the public good is closely connected to: a. the avoidance of any powerful and hostile entity or
exclusive club of people who set the rules of the game; b. the proper use of material, financial and
immaterial resources, avoiding exhaustion of resources; and c. the inclusion of all citizens as well as
the maintenance of social ties between citizens and the entities they belong to; d. Practice of phronesis,
200
of being attentive to different entities, as well as future developments and dangers (these should be
anticipated by wise policies).
The UN has formulated a number of characteristics, which we may summarize in terms of 4 major
ones: a. inclusiveness, participatory and consensus oriented: from the above it is clear that without
participation inclusiveness is unlikely and what does inclusiveness mean without the aim of
consensus?; b. responsiveness, transparency and accountability, which obviously are mutually
interdependent; c. Based on legal principles and the rule of law; and d. Effectiveness and efficiency.
Let us elaborate these principles:
Good governance is public governance, which implies that policy development is not just a
governmental affair. Policies should be the result of an authentic deliberation process with all
stakeholders. In other words, policy development and implementation should be a
„collaborative‟ event in the interest of all the public. That is why some like the term
„collaborative policy development‟. This includes respect for different spheres and patterns
with their „common policies‟ and people. It always starts with defining and interpreting
situations. Power can be defined as the ability to define situations. In a truly democratic
environment, defining situations should be the result of an open deliberation process with all
stakeholders, not the result of one body imposing his definition open the entire society. In
other words an open policy dialogue and a well facilitated deliberation process will result in a
reasonable measure of inclusiveness. This also means that no exclusive party can claim to have
a monopoly on determining which policies promote the public good. Some authors use the
term „collaborative rationality‟. And what is more, where possible stakeholders get involved in
the implementation process as well. This might be called the „subsidiary principle‟: Originally
it is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least
centralized competent authority, closest to the target group. However, it is useful to
reformulate the principle. The (central) public authority should only assume policy
responsibility if societal stakeholders and/or a lower public authority is unable to assume
responsibility. This means: where possible political decisions should be taken at a local level,
by local authorities and/or societal stakeholders, rather than by a central authority. By the
way, the subsidiary principle applies to federalism as well, but the two are not identical. There
can be a unitary state which applies the subsidiary principle in practice, though not regarding
the structure of the state.
Good governance is a matter of looking ahead, envisaging the right activities at the right time
in dialogue with stakeholders representing the right sphere, as well as anticipating possible
negative response-policies, adverse effects and changes in the environment of different
spheres. Exhaustion of resource, including physical resource, should be avoided. Policy
imagination is indispensable for good and effective governance. (we have already discussed
this several times) Policies as scenarios and strategies are excellent instruments in the hands
of a governing body. As long as ad hoc action is limited. For ad hoc activities may effectively
201
disturb the realization of a well-planned policy and produce inefficiency. Response policies
should of course be anticipated and integrated into the scenario. Inclusive policy development
should also be sufficiently flexible so as to allow adaptation if need be. Too many
governmental ad hoc actions will challenge the public to be continuously ready with adequate
response activities. After a while the interaction between government and citizens becomes
like a game that can only be understood with game-theories. As is characteristic for all games,
the idea is to win. Playing games might be useful in a particular situation, but is inherently
opportunistic. Games are great to spend a nice evening in the family, but if families organize
themselves entirely according to gaming rules, the quality of family life with its focus on
education and mutual support, will disappear quickly. The same is true for a country that is in
the grip of gaming rules. We can say that policies stimulate consistency as the opposite of
arbitrariness. But let us beware of consistency for the sake of consistency. The trick is to find
the balance between „ anticipated decision making‟ and „ anticipated adaptation-readiness‟.
Governance by policies implies that everybody knows why and how the government is acting
as it does. Policies, especially when written down clearly, imply transparency and
communication and thus democracy. This was one of the points that Gijs Kuypers from
Amsterdam never got tired of putting forward. He was right. As policies should have a legal
basis, they may also guarantee legitimacy. Finally, policies with clearly defined goals and
indicators also challenge the governing body to account for what has been achieved or what
has been failed to achieve. In other words, policies stimulate accountability. If stakeholders get
involved in evaluation of policies, they will surely ask themselves whether the policy is serving
the public good. So accountability has much to do with customer-service. Please note that
accountability is more than just responsibility. It means one can be hold and should be hold
accountable by those who are affected. It also means there should be sufficient „checks and
balances‟. (see M.Bevir, ibid, p33-38)
Divide between policy development and implementation: professionals in charge of executing
policies focus on the tactics of implementation, on the immediate effects and of adjusting the
implementation so as to increase its effectiveness. This is their duty and responsibility. But as
they are so closely connected to practice, they tend to find it difficult to take distance and to
observe critically. That can better be done by professionals who do not have any executive
responsibility. Their responsibility is to observe, analyze, reflect and suggest improvements. It
is like artists being unable to be a good art critic and art critics who fail as artists. Or
politicians who try to be political scientists or political scientists who want to be politicians.
Successful examples prove the rule. We conclude that this divide stimulates reflection on the
part of the government. Without reflection there will be less openness for feedback and less
willingness to adapt policies in case it turns out to be ineffective or even counter effective.
202
Please note the following: Together these 4 principles regarding good governance and good policy
practice, secure a number of general conditions for good governance like: inclusiveness, consistency,
transparency, legitimacy, accountability and reflection.
Conclusion: good governance is characterized by inclusiveness and taking into account the different
needs, interests and values of stakeholders, anticipating possible response policies, directed to the
public good and respecting sphere differences and responsibilities of different stakeholders. The best
way to ensure this is to develop policies together in a „ collaborative way‟. When it comes to
implementation of policies, this involves the „ subsidiary principle‟ and the „divide between design and
implementation‟.
See J.van Putten, Politiek, een relistische visie, Utrecht 1994, p83
Q.C.4.2.: what did people in ancient civilizations think of good governance? Is their viewpoint
different from ours? What can we learn from them?
Political system perspective
Governing by policies requires a professional attitude of the governing body. The insight is certainly
not new. See what Socrates had to say about it and a generation later Aristotle:
Socrates: we expect a carpenter to have mastered the craftsmanship of carpentry; don‟t we?; so, how
can it be that we expect our politicians just to have mastered the art of chatting and of making
wonderful promises?
Aristotle: a craftsman should have mastered the art of technique, a scientist should have mastered the
art of logical reasoning and academic method, a politician or governor should be a master of
„phronesis‟: the art of weighing up the pros and cons, of assessing what is both wise, technically
possible, culturally desirable and legal, taking into account the reality of the dynamics of power and
the demands of inclusiveness. In Latin prudentia, derived from to verb providere. Aristotle: “ It seems
proper to a prudent person to be able to deliberate finely….about what sort of things promote living
well in general”. Cicero noted this verb has a double meaning: to foresee and to provide (with a future
state of affairs in view). Combining the two leads to his definition of „ prudence”: the art of taking
action anticipating possible future state of affairs into account. The art of public governing requires
anticipation as well as the virtue of finding a middle road. For instance between doing nothing or
doing too much. Planning ahead and be prepared to adapt the planned course of action. Aristotle was
the philosopher of the middle road. People with great principles and strong convictions may like to act
accordingly, completely ignoring the possible adverse effects. For social and political reality is far from
ideal and often not at all welcoming principled policies. So we have to seek compromises. This we
might translate with „situational wisdom‟. Sometimes words like sagacity and statecraft are used, when
referring to public governance. But I prefer situational wisdom. Literally he formulated: “phronesis,
wisdom to take counsel, to judge the goods and evils and all the things in life that are desirable and to
be avoided, to use all the available goods finely, to behave rightly in society, to observe due occasions,
203
to employ both speech and action with sagacity, to have expert knowledge of all things that are useful
and, as Confucius would stress, be parsimonious with power”. Situational wisdom combines universal
principles (which even young people can get acquainted with) and situational demands. It is the art of
applying universal principles in concrete situations. Because young people still have little life-
experience, one needs to get older in order to develop situational wisdom.
This comes remarkably close to what Confucius was teaching about lǐ: doing the proper thing at the
proper time, balancing between maintaining existing norms to perpetuate an ethical social fabric,
while at the same time adapting them with courage and commitment to accomplish ethical good.
Training in the lǐ cultivates in people virtues like ethical judgment within the situational context. And
as regards the advice to be parsimonious with power, we should always keep in mind that the exertion
of power is a sign of weakness and, what is more, is likely to spark resistance, negative response
patterns, protest and conflict. Being parsimonious is likely to spark respect and understanding. It
implies an invitation to cooperate.
See: Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book VI, 5, Engl ed 1999; Confucius, Analects, (transl Lun Yü), London, 2000, p 76ff; Chin,
Ann-ping, The authentic Confucius: A life of thought and politics. New York, 2007; Cicero De Officiis, 44 BC, Engl translation
On Duties, 1960.
And ancient Egypt?
In Egypt the concept of ma‟at (sometimes presented as a goddess) was used to express cosmic order.
Virtue and justice were seen to be servants of ma‟at. Some have argued that in the old kingdom the
concept played a unifying role. The kingdom was facing conflictuous multi-culturality. How to bind all
these traditions together? What do people coming from different cultural traditions and now living
together have in common? Do they have anything in common? Apparently the old Egyptians were of
the opinion that all people have something in common. Although there were different deities and half-
deities, there was an awareness of a common universal law, which they expressed in the concept of
ma‟at. It points to universality and inclusiveness. Pharaoh‟s duty is to govern inclusively. His laws
should have a universal value as if it applicable to all people of all times. This sounds abstract. And
surely it was an abstract concept. But the Egyptians did not have difficulties in seeing the concrete
application of the principle. Like these sentences found on tombs: "I made every man like his fellow".
And according to ma‟at the rich should support the less fortunate rather than exploit them: "I have
given bread to the hungry and clothed the naked" and "I was a husband to the widow and father to the
orphan". Ma‟at as a goddess was seen to be characterized by authenticity, honesty, truthfulness,
faithfulness, righteousness and interestingly ability to govern well, i.e. to the well-being of all. She was
wearing the feather of an ostrich, the feather of truth. However, the truth was not seen as some lofty
ideal, but much rather as the capacity to apply truth in the reality of daily existence. Like a go-between
god, between chaos and cosmos. This is interesting, for apparently the Egyptians were aware they
needed such go-between wisdom. Or to put it more sharply: wisdom is a go-between capacity.
204
See: G.van Ek, Mens en Maatschappij tussen Chaos en Kosmos, Utrecht 1997; and M.Karenga, Maat, the Moral Ideal in Ancient
Egypt, New York, 2004.
The ancient discussion is still reverberating in some present day discussions among political scientists
and some politicians.
Vaclav Havel (the famous Czech dissident and president) put the issue sharply: bad politics is „the art
of the possible‟, a type of „realism‟, inevitably leading to entropy, whereas good politics is the „art of the
impossible‟, introducing new, idealist elements to situations that seem to be blocked by vested
interests and preconceived ideas. True and creative politics may be understood as the art of applying
moral values within immoral reality. Havel realized that the „impossible way of dialogue‟ puts pressure
on people to have a different look at things. This may lead to creative policy solutions and substantial
improvement of quality of life. And do note that Havel is also talking about political obstacles and that
he is encouraging young politicians to try to creatively overcome political obstacles rather than falling
back into an opportunistic pragmatism that is essentially passivity. „Realism‟ is the attitude that
accepts situation as they are and trying to make the best of it, which puts creativity to the service of
keeping things under control. The „art of the impossible‟ is making a different use of creativity, namely
to bridge gaps between people, overcome polarization, to turn economic depression into development,
to stop escalation of violence and start a process of de-escalation and so on. It sounded as if Reinhold
Niebuhr was back in town propagating his famous study again: moral man in immoral society.
Although he had a rather subtle view of man, like Havel: "Man's capacity for justice makes democracy
possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary."
In Guyana Rupert Roopnaraine emphasized that creating space for all citizens (which is roomification)
and a society built on the foundation of solidarity, justice and equality is not sufficient. There are
always conflicts which need to be solved and wounds to be healed. That is why „we must embrace
reconciliation and aspire to a higher humanity‟. Why? Because reconciliation will open up the future
and provide new chances for new and better policies supported by all citizens. In the words of Paul
Lederach, quoted by him: constructive social change seeks to change the flow of human interaction in
social conflict from cycles of destructive relational violence toward cycles of relational dignity and
respectful engagement‟. From the flows of fear to the flows of love that edify. That is the challenge „how
to move from that which destroys to that which builds‟. For Roopnaraine it means the value of
togetherness should get priority in all politics and policy-building.
De Gaulle often said something along these lines: „Politics, as an art or service, rather than a way of
exploitation, is about acting for an ideal, taking realities into account‟. (c'est une action pour un idéal à
travers des réalités). And he added the warning: „No policy is worth anything outside of reality‟.
Lasswell considered it and formulated as follows: “the art of policies is the art of mediating between
available technical knowledge and political responsibilities”. In actual fact he is trying to convey this
message: assume responsibility but do not go ahead with a policies that are ill-conceived. With
Lasswell we arrive at the political science practice of today with its focus on analysis. Moral
considerations and moral imagination is kept at a distance. If political science and policy science are of
205
any useful value, they should take „political responsibilities‟ seriously and study the nature of these
responsibilities.
(see: V. Havel, Naar alle windstreken, (transl Do ruznych stran, 1989), p314 ff; H.D.Lasswell, A preview of policy sciences, New
York, 1971; A.Comte-Sponville, Petit Traité des Grandes Vertus, Paris 1996, p 35 ff.; Niebuhr, R. Moral Man and Immoral
Society: A Study of Ethics and Politics,1932; Rupert Roopnaraine, Sharing, Solidarity and Togetherness, in: The Sky‟s Wild
Nose, Leeds, 2012
Back to Aristotle who was well aware that phronesis (which can be translated as „sagacity‟ or „state-
craft‟ or situational wisdom) without „justitia or justice‟ leads to opportunism. Policies need to be an
expression of righteousness to all involved and need a legal basis. Phronesis without „temperentia or
moderation‟ leads to authoritarianism. For without moderation we may not be open to feed back and
end up imposing measures on people. In this context he points to the fact that phronesis needs
experience. Young people have little experience and therefore little insight in the „particulars‟ of the
situation. They tend to radical universal application, which can be very destructive. People with
experience understand that wisdom and justice need to be related to particular situations. This is
quite clear. Less clear is that „phronesis‟ needs „fortitudo or courage‟ lest it leads to paralysis.
Combining phronesis with courage, moderation and justice results in virtue. Courage means: facing
the future with a good sense of policy imagination, taking responsibility and taking due action while
being fully aware of risk. Those who take action unaware of risk are just stupidly shortsighted. The
element of responsibility is essential to virtue. The opposite of responsibility is cowardice, which,
results in resentment and revenge and is hence, as Montaigne observed, the mother of cruelty. Virtue,
on the other hand, results in compassion and inclusiveness. Phronesis is a type of quality. Let us try to
formulate this correctly. It is important not to get caught in the dilemmas of subjectivity and
objectivity, of soul and matter, internal and external reality, or mind and product of the mind. Quality
is, as Pirsig put it, a characteristic of the movement between the two. In my own words I would say
that according to Pirsig quality means: the result of the ability of an actor to take the (potential)
response of the environment into account when working with a method, technique (policy) to change
that environement. Good policies are characterized by quality.
Likewise is the case with phronesis. It means the mind is with reality, or with social reality as a
dynamic reality, being aware of its needs and is potential unfolding or emerging (in contradistinction
to enfolding!) itself in the future, responding to it positively and creatively, stimulating development,
rather than destroying it or imposing something on it. Sagacity is the characteristic of people who
manage to achieve quality by focusing entirely on the dynamics of the outside world, rather than on
their personal inner world. Preoccupation with our own inner world and our personal fears, interests
and preconceived ideas, produce a thwarted vision of the external world. That is why Pirsig is
interested in Zen-meditation as a means to develop phronesis. In our case, the result should be a
higher quality of policy imagination and commitment to what needs to be done for the public good. It
seems to me that Taoism is advocating exactly the same attitude. So we may conclude that phronesis
or sagacity is the art of producing quality and more specifically to produce policies with quality
206
Conclusion: all serious governments in the past were aware of a moral order, which is not the same
as just a framework of rules to obey. Much rather it is the challenge that the external world implies for
the governing body. To be moral is to accept that challenge. Quality is the event of awareness of both
subject and external world of others, resulting in readiness to respond to the needs of the external
world. Phronesis or situational wisdom is the art of producing quality and more specifically to produce
policies with quality. Inclusive politics can thus be defined as the art of applying moral values within
immoral reality.
See; Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book VI, 9, Engl ed 1999; and R.Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,
London, 1974, p231; P. de Martelaere, Taoisme, De weg om niet te volgen, Amsterdam 2006, p 164 ff
Q.C.4.3. We have been talking much about the need to respond to the environment, to act responsibly
and so on. But what exactly is the nature of political responsibility? And what is a responsible policy?
Political system perspective
Let us start with 2 opposites
Some answer that a responsible politician must try to get society under control as much as possible.
This is the traditional and centralist fallacy, often charged with heavy ideological values and principles.
Communist, socialist, nationalist, fascist and fundamentalist ideologues get fascinated by this
perspective: total control. During the inception phase people may be excited and full of high
expectations, like a young person who falls in love. After a while reality will start showing its true face,
both to those in power and those subjected to power. Neither of those will be happy. Sooner or later
both realize they live in continuous fear. Both have to be on the watch continuously. Both have a
gnawing feeling they are upholding a false appearance, a lie, or, in the words of Vaclav Havel: of being
trapped in living outside the truth.
Others answer that a responsible politician should refrain from intervention, except in time of disaster
and conflict. A government should just administer interaction between citizens, entities and the state
according to law. The government is the protector of natural and individual rights. Society consists of
networks of interests of individuals and groups of individuals who are responsible for minding their
own business and looking out for themselves. Neo-conservatives and people in privileged and powerful
positions find this a very attractive perspective: limited control and lots of freedom to do what
everybody desires to do. The end result is similar to the result of the centralist position: fear. The haves
live in gated and heavily protected communities. The danger of becoming the victim of a criminal act is
looming constantly. The have-nots live in fear to fall ill, to have nothing to eat, to lose their jobs and
all the rest. Those in positions of power have a good excuse to play around and, as Susan Neiman
recently observed, not to grow up, i.e. not to assume responsibility regarding the inevitable
environemtnal (social and physical) impact of teir activities, and remain happily infantile.
207
(see B.Mullaly, The new structural social work: Ideology, theory and practice, Ontario 2007; and the very interesting analysis
van Susan Neiman, Why Grow up?, subversive thoughts for an infantile age, 2015
Almost all politicians and governments take some middle position, either tending to the first or to the
second extreme.
That is why a middle position should be substantiated so that we can actively work towards the
realization of it.
In my view the middle position is indeed desirable and should be based on 3 principles:
a. Whatever responsibility can be delegated to a lower level within the governmental
organization should be delegated to the lower level, including non-governmental stakeholders:
the „subsidiary principle‟. It is based on the assumptions that people are willing and able to
assume responsibility. And what is more, they consider it to be an expression of respect if
charged with responsibilities. The subsidiary principle supports societal participation and
ownership of problems and solutions. This principle is also limiting power of the central
governing body to a more coordinating role. We may call it network coordination.
b. Representative democracy should be complemented with participatory or collaborative
democracy arrangements, notably new public spaces and institutions to facilitate policy
deliberation. In other words, we need „dual democracy‟. Wherever co-operation with private
entities is possible this should be effectuated: creation of public policy deliberation
partnerships. Governments may deliberately put as many responsibilities into the hands of
civic society organizations (CSO‟s as stakeholders) as possible.
c. Power management by means of distribution of wealth as well as keeping big companies under
control . There may be differences in wealth, but only as long as those who are less well-off do
benefit in some way or another and no one is harmed. Differences must be seen as fair. This
so-called „difference principle‟, as formulated by John Rawls, can be applied as a criterion to
assess policies. Otherwise power management is going to be almost impossible and, as a
result, open dialogue will get extremely difficult. Back in 1910 Theodore Roosevelt had this to
say: „the absence of effective state…restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a
small class f enormously wealthy and powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase
power‟. He was forthright in arguing that public policy should seek to limit inequality for
political as well as economic reasons, for „ great wealth poses a danger to democracy‟. Next big
challenge is to deal with big international organizations, banks and companies without
territorial barriers. With their power they naturally undermine the nation state. Apart from
limiting and regulating their private policy space within a nation state, they should assume
public policy responsibility. Like all other actors. This means that they should participate in
policy dialogue and their power must be limited, which can only be achieved by international
cooperation.
Note that in summary Rawls difference principle can be formulated as such: social and economic
inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: a. to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged;
and, b. attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair and equal opportunity.
208
(See J.Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, 1971.; and see U.Beck, De Erfindung des Politischen. Zu einer Theorie reflexiven
Modernisierung, Frankfurt am Main, 1993; J.M.Guehenno, The End of the Nation State, transl. of La fin de la democratie, 1993;
and regarding Roosevelt see Paul Krugman, America‟s taxation tradition, International New York Times, 30/3/2014)
One of the great advantages of a policy deliberation process in which all relevant stakeholders are
included is the opportunity to receive useful feedback from society. Stakeholders are part of society.
Executive bodies that are aloof are much less sensitive than executive bodies which enter into
communication with the target group. Another advantage is that heterogeneity and diversity stimulate
creativity, whereas homogeneity and uniformity stimulate conformity. Last but not least, individual
citizens often have useful experience, expertise and creative solutions to offer. This is sometimes called
„local knowledge‟. I have noticed again and again that policy experts and civil servants charged with
policy development have a low opinion of local knowledge. This is detrimental to good policy
development.
So, this middle position is the perfect position to organize feedback, which is vital for learning and for
adapting policy implementation to the requirements of ever changing environments. And what is
more, getting in touch with stakeholders, including them in the deliberation process, respecting their
readiness to take some responsibility, means that a basis of trust is created. Without communication
there will be no trust and no challenge to take the interest of others seriously into account.
Conclusion: What does that mean for policy development? It means policies should be developed
and carried out in co-operation with all relevant governmental echelons as well as with as many
relevant CSO‟s and other entities (like companies) as possible. The present course is strongly based on
this „middle position‟.
Q.C.4.4. Why are good policies in need people with an open mind, willing to reflect, learn and
evaluate?
Evaluation approaches abound: process evaluation, impact evaluation, cost-benefit evaluation,
evaluation of contributions of stakeholders and so on. What does evaluation from a pattern point of
view mean? And which is an appropriate method?
It focuses on the impact of a policy on different patterns in society. By now it should be clear that the
dimension of time must be taken seriously. Patterns unfold and enfold in time. The impact of a policy
might be very positive and promising today. But tomorrow we may see the cat peeping out. Some
people start becoming very unhappy. Unexpected side effects appear, usually as unexpected response
patterns. Evaluation needs to take the time dimension seriously, need to raise the question whether
relevant patterns were indeed adapted or replace by other, more suitable patterns and of course
whether negative response patterns that might undermine the policy‟s effectiveness did or did not
emerge. Next it will ask the question whether the newly adapted patterns can be continued or should
209
be re-adapted. In other words evaluation will deal with the question whether the original policy
imagination was right.
Inevitably evaluation will then lead to the question whether the newly created situation with its new
patterns is what we want. Policy imagination is needed again. For this question can only be answered if
we manage to imagine where it leads to. This question is not really a question of evaluation. Much
rather it is one of appreciation. Indeed these 2 have to be distinguished.
Example: why words matter
It was Confucius who warned that words matter a lot. Education is geared to the development of
character, knowledge and skills. In the 70„ies of the last century character development was seen to be
of pivotal importance. In order to combat the American type training-business or training-culture, lots
of European and Latin American teachers and professors were talking about „formation‟ or
„development‟ rather than „training‟. Rats can be trained (and perhaps should be trained…), human
beings should receive teaching and can better be stimulated to learn. This was sort of „commons sense‟,
backed by a common policy. Somewhere in the early 80„ies, people working in European education
began to feel somewhat inferior to people working in the business world. Mainly because they had
started to earn considerably more money. Salaries and reputation are related ( of course depending on
the pattern you are tuned in….the shift took place unnoticed). In order to look more reputable the
educators introduced new words to impress: suddenly the educational system was called an „industry‟
and the outcome of the educational process, the student with a diploma, was called the educational
„product‟. In a number of European countries these terms are still in use. The financial subsidy
systems were also adapted to the new trend and would even initiate and stimulate that trend.
Colleges and universities in The Netherlands were challenged to increase „production‟ and to increase
the „quality of production‟. A good production was rewarded with additional funding. Professors were
expected to come up with smart indicators. To deliver lectures without clearly defined „outcome‟
became anathema. Objectives and indicators had to be formulated. Likewise with competences which
students were supposed to develop. Knowledge was more and more defined in terms of information
and links between bits of information. Academic learning skills were more and more defined in terms
of how to get access to the right information. Reflection got focused on effective dealing with
information. Step by step knowledge got lost in information and the student as a person as well. At
some stage it was impossible to put a book like Polanyi‟s Personal Knowledge on the reading list for an
examination. The text was not just supposed to be unreadable by the contemporary student, the text
was impractical as well, unable to produce useful knowledge that would have an added value to the
„final product‟ of the course: a professional.
How do stakeholders view this new situation? The students in the first place. The teachers and
professors in the second place. The schools, colleges and universities in the third place. The „market‟ in
the fourth place, for it is the market that needs the new professionals.
Round 1987 an American director-engineer from IBM (still flourishing at the time) told me that of all
engineers 90% will be in charge of the nitty-gritty of the work. They need to have the right skills and
the right knowledge. They are plenty in stock. No problem recruiting them. The problem is to find the
210
10% of the engineers who know how to think and who are creative. Almost impossible to find them.
Colleges don‟t deliver such people.
It was the same year that Allan Bloom published his The Closing of the American Mind. About “how
higher education has failed democracy and impoverished the souls of today‟s students”. The heart of
his argument is that universities have agreed to play a useful role in participatory society, but by doing
so the universities and colleges have become saturated with the backflow of the problems and needs of
society and market. Meanwhile they stopped being islands of intellectual freedom. The idea of proper
education, according to Bloom, is not the ability to reproduce, but the ability to reflect. Reflection
needs time. You cannot properly reflect on something and jump to another issue a few hours later.
Creativity flows from the ability to think differently, to break through the self-evidence of patterns, to
question the relevance of available information and interpretation of information. Bloom endeavored
to imagine what the new type of education may bring forward in the years to come.
In actual fact we witnessed a pattern shift. The ideal teacher in the past was the teacher who did not
convey knowledge or information, but who conveyed a way of thinking and reflection about the subject
matter, stimulating students to „learn and reflect‟ themselves. Information and knowledge could be
drawn from books. This required a way of teaching in which the teacher is anticipating responses from
students. The teacher is raising relevant questions and shows how to deal with these questions. By
doing so he presents himself or herself as a „model of learning‟. However, the concrete outcome of this
kind of teaching is not easy to measure….
I am not teaching regularly myself anymore. But it strikes me again and again that students who
expect to acquire useful information are surprised and very open to this „old fashioned‟ way of teaching
that I still practice. I start my occasional seminar with some warnings: no useful skills, no information,
no tangible outcomes. Just learning to reflect on the issue that is on the agenda. The result may be that
you realize you know little and you need to reflect more regularly, more intensely and most of all more
existentially. Education is about the formation of mind and person. That is a totally different pattern.
And so we move from evaluation to appreciation.
Bloom was criticized of being elitist. Indeed he likes to follow Plato in his quest for truth. It would have
been useful if he had invited Popper to be a partner in discussion as well. For Popper had much to say
about educational culture and educational policies. However, Bloom made a point. All societies need
room for reflection, lest it becomes one-dimensional. Put differently, evaluation is about the ways we
„roomificate‟ and see to it that important functions, like creative reflection and learning, can be
stimulated. Societies need space where patterns of reflectivity can resonate. Like so many other spaces
that are needed in society.
See: Bloom, A, The Closing of the American Mind, New York 1987.
Conclusion: There are various reasons why evaluation is important to good policy development. Of
course we need to be open for feedback, we need to reflect on what we are doing and we need to
change the course if we realize the outcome is not going to be desirable. This is all in the realm of
evaluation. But there is one more reason: policy implementation is a matter of time and as time goes
211
by, patterns unfold and enfold. Evaluation is needed to register these trends, study the effects and
reflect on them.
212
5. The need for policy coordination
T.S Elliott summarized Dante‟s Inferno with the words: “inferno is the place where nothing connects
with nothing”. Policies are meant to limit the realm of hell, to limit fragmentation.
Summary
In order to prevent overlapping, incoherence, inefficiency and contradiction between policy domains, 2
paths can be followed. Some governments tend towards centralization, so that policy development is
centrally coordinated. Other governments prefer decentralization and try to coordinate policy
development and implementation. Here we opt for decentralization in combination of an institution
specifically set up to coordinate.
Policy domains are all interconnected, closely and directly or indirectly. The effectiveness of policies
can be substantially improved if some measure of synergy can be achieved with policies on related
domains, and/or support policies developed to provide necessary support from other policy domains.
The basic idea of policy coordination is to draw policy maps that indicate how different domains are
interrelated and how policies in related domains should support one another, forming coherent
patterns. These maps should be discussed with the responsible policy makers in the different policy
domains.
Of course, the policy makers in each domain should come with suggestions as to what additional
policies from other domains are needed for support.
On the basis of this information the policy co-coordinating body will be able to get an overview of all
major policies in all policy domains, as well as their interconnections. This information is also useful in
order to translate a general governmental agreement into more concrete policy plans for different
domains.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Q.C.5
Question/
paragraph
issues Page
Q. C.5.1 Why is policy coordination important and who should
coordinate?
213
Q. C.5.2 Why are complementary policies often essential for good
policy practice?
214
Q. C.5.3 Policy coordination and the need to make crucial choices 218
213
Q.C.5.1. First question: Why is coordination important and who should coordinate?
Political system perspective
In the very first and obvious place, coordination involves monitoring of public policies and report to
the central ministry or ministry of planning what is a happening and what is not happening, what is
being achieved and what is not by means of indicators, which problems and negative side effects occur
and how executive ministries or department cope with the problems, and, in some cases, whether
policy implementation remains within budget limitations.
Next is checking whether there is any overlapping or contradiction between policies in different policy
domains.
In order to prevent overlapping, incoherence, inefficiency and contradiction between policy domains, 2
paths can be followed. The path of centralization is in actual fact the most natural inclination. All
communist and social-democratic and nationalistic governments opt for centralization. The problem is
that centrally developed policies rarely include stakeholders. They seldom succeed in policy
deliberation and what is worse, feedback mechanisms works slowly if at all.
That is why today so many governments insist that decentralization and a measure of deregulation is
to be preferred, including social-democratic ones. But decentralization often implies a lack of
coordination, especially in multi-party coalitions. Meanwhile such governments encounter requests
from numerous powerful interest groups which push the government to adopt policies which are in
their interest. This can lead to conflicting policies and ultimately to „demosclerosis‟, a state of
government characterized by ineffective input or participation of citizens and interest groups. The
term is suggested by Joachim Rauch. Rational individuals acting in their own best interests do not
necessarily benefit the common interest. What is good for me, might not be good for others and, in the
long run might even harm me as well. “The sum of all the group interests in a pluralist system does not
equal the general interest” Rauch argued. Decentralization and deregulation may work out to be
harmful.
If these two positions are opposites, there is a middle road: decentralization with a central
coordinating advisory body, to be consulted in case of new policies to check whether there is any
overlap or contradiction with other policy domains and to find out whether synergy with other policy
domains is possible. The central coordinating advisory body may take initiative and suggest
adaptations so as to improve synergy and combat demosclerosis. This body may also report to the
prime minister and provide him with policy advice.
The coordinating body may also function as a facilitating agency to facility internal policy deliberation,
mediation and adaptation.
214
Conclusion: the realm of policies in different spheres with different supporters and different
ramifications is badly in need for coordination, lest they cancel each other out. Centralist policy
planning puts everything in the hands of the central government. Sooner or later civic society will
be left aside. Although its support is badly needed. The opposite of deregulation and decentralization
will call up a policy jungle. So a middle road with a coordinating body is desirable. The coordinating
body should be close to the central government (prime minister‟s office or office of the ministry of
planning) and, locally, to the mayor.
See: Rauch, J. Demosclerosis, The Silent Killer of American Government, 1994.
Q.C.5.2. Why are complementary policies or „complementarity‟ in general (this word is badly needed)
essential for proper policy practice?
Policy domains are all interconnected, closely and directly or indirectly. One of the challenges of
modern inclusive democracy is to aggregate the choices of individual citizens and stakeholders. How to
reconcile, balance and combine diverse choices? Without clever coordination it is uncertain that policy
implementation will be very effective and certain that it will be inefficient. The poor need to be helped,
but the rich desire to enjoy the fruits of their riches maximally. Probably by seeking an optimum, often
the Aristotelean ideal of a middle road. Another challenge is to combine policies from different sectors
and to make sure they are not at loggerheads. The effectiveness of policies can be substantially
improved if some measure of synergy can be achieved with policies on related domains. In other
words, interconnectedness as well as consistency should be used and exploited in order to produce
synergetic energy.
And in any case non-consistent or contradictory policies are not desirable. Policies are patterns of
activities, instruments and goals (related to values). Coherent patterns are sustainable. Incoherent
patterns quickly fall apart. Coherence between different policies will enforce the sustainability of each
individual policy.
Most governments start with a governmental (coalition) agreement or statement or contract on what
the new government wants to achieve in the next years. Such agreements usually contain paragraphs
for all policy domains: education, economy, health etc, but contain few or no indications how to create
synergy between them. Complementarity is needed to create synergy.
Integral development
For example: the government has decided that economic development will focus more on tourism
development and aims to increase the number of tourists from abroad with 20%. New investments in
the tourist industry will be necessary which requires a specific policy. Investors have to be attracted to
invest in the tourist sector. So the question is how to make the country more interesting for tourists to
visit? More and easy airlift, more museums, festivals, shopping malls and a safe city? But there will
also be an increased need for people whose professional education is geared to different features of
215
tourism. There will be a need of more people with professional expertise to work in hotels and
restaurants. There will be a need for tourist guides, for information, but also for a specific type of
police control in places where tourists gather and perhaps a more welcoming smile on the face of
immigration officers at the local airport.
The very first impression people coming from outside get from a new country is the airport: is it well-
organized or ill-organized? Is it clean or dirty? Is it easy or complicated to find your way? Do
immigrant officers welcome you or do they express a nasty measure of distrust?
And so on and so forth with getting a permit, with getting professional healthcare, with a police corps
that can offer protection against criminal attacks on tourists and so on.
One policy measure will not suffice. Complementary measures will be needed.
The financial and banking crisis again: Economic development and inequality
Economic development can be stimulated by many factors. Recently we have started to realize that
income equality is a crucial factor. Pikkety pointed out in detail that serious inequality was a main
determinant of the banking crisis of 2008 . He also pointed out that several old recipes for economic
development have ceased to be effective. Global inequality eventually will be an obstacle to economic
growth and societal stability on the planet. It also is a factor that causes desintegrity and corruption at
the national level, which in turn will hamper economic development. The conclusion is that
governments need to pay ample attention to combating poverty. Plus the introduction of a global
wealth tax. To make that happen surely is a matter of policy coordination.
Inequality has penetrated into the banking sector as well. The bonus-phenomenon has a large number
of negative side effects. Bank employees develop hugely complicated banking products and urge clients
to use such products as well as to borrow abundantly from the bank, speculating that their future is
sunny and that they will be able to pay back. These employees are greedy for bonuses on the basis of
their performance. Driving force and motivation is money, to distinguish themselves from others.
Without inequality distinction becomes so much more difficult. As a result of this banking behavior,
millions of lenders went into trouble. The remaining story is well known. A banking crisis, economic
stagnation and international conflict.What we witness here is a pattern that is revealing an increasing
number of anomalies with negative effects. Basis assumptions of the present pattern are being
challenged. Complementary measures approaching the problem from different sides, are needed and
may herald the upcoming enfoldment of the pattern, followed by the unfoldment of another pattern.
This will frighten some people, notably the stakeholders from the financial world, but also the
responsible politicians. As a result the needed complementary measures will not be taken. Efforts will
be made to keep the system going.
Some years ago Christian Marazzi argued that we cannot escape the pre-capitalist nature of common
goods and common property. The use of resources to the benefit of just a small number of people is OK
as long as others benefit. If others suffer, friction is the inevitable result. He notices an „inside and
against‟ crisis of global capitalism with the following objectives: „imposing, collectively and from the
ground up, new rules to govern the market and the financial system, a social mobilization of starting
anew investment policies in public services, education and welfare, the creation of public employment
216
for the conversion of energy, a refusal to defiscalize high incomes….‟. The basis should be a
collaborative and participative model that does not confer power to one part of the same whole,
putting the interest of the latter at the center of attention‟. Complementary measures need to be taken
to make sure the interest of the whole will be taken care of. In practice Marazzi is pleading for the
introduction of collaborative financial policy development in order to restore fairness as well as
legitimacy.
By the way, this sounds very similar to what Goyder said half a century before. Basis of foundation of
any economy is the „common‟ and ownership is in essence „owership‟, a type of stewardship that
implies that any „owner‟ owes something to the whole, to the entire community that is entitled to use
the common. We discussed his ideas already above.( Q.B.4.3.)
If economic policy makers start planning, they should not take for granted that policy makers in the
field of education, police force and immigration will automatically support the new economic policies
with supporting policies. Keyword is: „complementarity of development in related sectors (and
sometimes spheres) in order to create synergy and in the long run syntropy‟. Moreover,
complementarity should of course be timely (and a time of crisis surely is a time of opportunity) .
Development of one crucial sector should not lag behind. This requires planning in advance.
As the effectiveness of policies is strongly dependent on a social support base and cooperation between
different stakeholders, coordination of policies should take into account not just the coordination
between different governmental bodies, but also between the policy partners in society. And apart
from coordination communication often is of crucial importance. Policy partners should get informed
in order to align themselves. Although it all sounds so obvious, it so often is neglected……
See: Christian Marazzi, The Violence of Financial Capitalism, Bellinzona, 2011, p 119 ff; Th.Pikkety, Le Capital au XXIe siècle,
Paris 2013 contains an incredible amount of detail, information, analysis and discussion. The reader easily loses his way in this
overwhelming study, but his conclusions seem very convincing.
On to support policies. There are 2 categories of support policies.
First there is the supporting policy that has a value in itself and is geared to its own objectives apart
from supporting another policy in another domain. An educational policy may have as a side effect that
it supports or obstructs a particular economic policy by not delivering graduates with the needed
expertise.
Secondly there are support policies which are specifically intended to provide support to a policy in
another policy domain. For instance, a reorganization of the labor market needs support from a policy
intended to provide training or social assistance. Or to go back to the Amsterdam example. Great to
take care of ladies who became victim of forced prostitution. But that is a symptom. Good governance
would try to develop and carry out policies to prevent forced prostitution and trafficking of people,
notably ladies. As well as policies to „clean up‟ the police.
217
The basic idea of policy coordination is to draw policy maps that indicate how different policy domains
within different spheres are interrelated and how policies in related domains may or should support
one another, forming coherent patterns. These maps should be discussed with the responsible policy
makers in the different policy domains.
To make things a bit more complicated, coordination should take into account levels of public
administration: central, regional and local. There is a rule of the thumb: aim at consistency. It rarely
works if at the central level there is no coordination between domains, whereas the local level requires
coordination. In most cases it is the local level, which is the level where policies have to prove
themselves, where the shoes of the policy are pinching. This is exactly what is happening again and
again, local administrators (like mayors) complain that the central level is insufficiently aware of the
implementation-problems at the local level.
Of course, the policy makers in each domain, each sphere and each level of administration should
come with suggestions as to what additional policies from other domains are needed for support. The
coordinating body may make inventories and take the initiative to discuss collaboration.
On the basis of this information the policy coordinating body will be able to get an overview of all
major policies in all policy domains, as well as their interconnections.
Nowhere will (financial) means be infinite. Choices have to be made, priorities have to be determined
and perhaps a critical path should be designed. What policies first and what policies next in what
sequence. Here crucial choices are welcome. By crucial choices we mean a choice for a particular policy
that can be expected to have such an impact that other policies might be much easier to carry out or
might not even be necessary.
Point of attention: on reductionist thinking
The old Greek philosopher Democritus (460 – 370 BC) introduced atomistic and reductionist
thinking. It fitted modern individualism very well. Slowly we gave up thinking holistically. As if the
core of reality is the individual atom. Nothing more real than an atom. Individualism as an „ism‟ is
atomism applied to the human world. However nothing can exist on its own. It is all symbiosis what
nature is about. Any entity or organism able and willing to deny that, will inevitably develop into a
parasite. Some people have a funny idea of gardening. They put a plant here and another one over
there, with nothing in between, forgetting that plants dislike being on their own. Organisms so much
prefer the densely wooded forest, the tropical jungle to the desert where nothing grows. A keen
observer is aware of the interconnectedness, the symbiosis of it all, and has the courage to include
himself. A fearful observer wants to escape from it. He prefers the empty garden with just a few well-
pruned trees. Everything cut back. This is how bad gardeners tend to work. We need to find the
middle-road. We need to create some order to live, build some roads and open spaces. We need to
protect our environment against aggressively intruding parasites. This is fine, as long as we do not
218
forget that we ourselves have potentially become the most dangerous parasite of all. Policy
coordination is a type of gardening.
See for the difference between fearful and creative gardening the beautiful little book by John Fowles, The Tree, 1979.
Conclusion: Coordination is not just a matter of coordinating activities, deciding about priorities and
making limited funds available. It also involves discussion with respect to the content of policies,
getting together with experts from different areas. For the heart of coordination is not the
organizational side of it (though this is very important), but the content of policies and the ways they
interact. Put differently, policy coordination is above all content-coordination so as to realize syntropy.
See for coordination of policies: Bouckaert, G., Peters, B.G., Verhoest, K., The coordination of the Public Sector Organization:
shifting Patterns of Public Management, 2010
Q.C.5.3. Why should policy coordination be focused on making crucial choices and setting priorities?
“in principle everything starts small....the story of mankind is built on this principle: it is the history of
decisive millimeters. Whether small beginnings yield large consequences depends on the fertility of the
soil in which they fall”
Albert Helman , Blijf even staan, 1987. (English translation: Just wait for a while)
Here we will deal with millimeter-beginnings and different types of soil.
If you have followed the discussion on the nature of patterns, you will understand that the art of
making crucial choices depends on whether you have a good understanding of a particular pattern, on
which factors it is dependant, which factors block its development (it‟s unfolding) or stimulate it and
so on.
Crucial factors and keystone species
An example: all governments all over the world make efforts to develop policies to reduce crime and
improve safety in the streets. Most of these policies turn out to be disappointing.
Some cities have made the following crucial choice: create some squares and streets that are beautiful,
with nice colors so that people living there start being proud of their neighborhood. If done well, it has
a radiating effect to other parts of the neighborhood. Cities like Coventry in England, Medellin in
Columbia, Curitiba in Brazil offer good examples.
The same cities have made another crucial choice: keep pupils and youngsters off the street during the
afternoon and offer them opportunities to develop talents in sport, music, theatre etc. An excellent
policy instrument is vocational testing. Every young person wants to find out what his talents are,
especially when the school is focusing on cognitive learning. All too often school teachers excel in
telling pupils what they do wrong. Many young people are insecure for they have not the slightest
ideas what they are good at. Vocational testing turns out to be a synergetic policy choice. It will ease
the work of the police and reduce criminality and prison populations.
219
But there is another mechanism at work here as well. Freud was of the opinion that destructiveness
and criminality are the opposite of creativity. So in order to combat criminality we should encourage
people to be creative. Find out the creative talents of people and you have found the right button to
press. Develop these talents and creativity will be unleashed.
(in his „Anatomy of Human Destructiveness‟ 1973, Erich Fromm has elaborated on this)
Talking about crime and criminals, the number of policies and kinds of policies is huge. Drug related
crime is hopelessly worrisome. Sophisticated integral policies turn out to be failures. Recently some
governments are experimenting with meetings between drug dealers and ordinary citizens. Dealers
caught by the police are presented with the evidence of harm brought by drugs and confronted by
angry neighbors, parents, clergy etc. Each dealer is offered a choice: stop dealing and get help to turn
your life around, or tell it to the judge and enjoy some prison years. Strangely enough a high
percentage prefers a turn around. With lots of positive ramifications. Confrontation is the key.
Or a completely unexpected effect. In Curitiba the famous Brazilian architect Oscar Niemeyer
designed the new museum for contemporary art. The NovoMuseo is not just an unparalleled design,
but it also magnificently fits it environment. People in the city call it „the eye‟. In actual fact Niemeyer
is using the old Egyptian hieroglyph, symbolizing the „eye of Horus‟, the god of the sky, who is not just
watching everything, he is also offering protection. In Egypt the symbol was called „wadyet‟ meaning:
togetherness, integrity and protection. The museum is indeed considered a watching eye, as if God is
watching us, protecting us and discouraging us from becoming violent.
See M.A.R. Kleiman, J.P.Calkins and A. Hawken, Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone needs to know, 2011.
Styliane Philippou, Oscar Niemeyer, Curves of Irreverence, London 2008.
And the link with biology: keystone species:
An example from biology illustrates that we have to do with a universal principle. All ecosystems are
characterized by a delicate balance of species. When an ecosystem is in balance or equilibrium, the
average numbers of organisms within each species remain stable. Biologist Robert Paine decided to
draw maps of the food-based interactions between species, using arrows to indicate which species is
dependent on which other species. His hypothesis was that not all species are equally important in
maintaining the equilibrium of the ecosystem. Some species have much greater importance to the
community. A sizable change in the population of this type of species, which he called „keystone
species‟, have more ramifications than others, even to the extent that the entire system may collapse.
In a place, called Mukkaw Bay, he experimented with the so-called purple sea fish (in actual fact an
invertebrate, a kind of sea star). He noticed that taking away the purple sea fish, the ramifications were
substantial. For their removal caused an overabundance of mussels resulting in a breakdown of the
balance between mussels and sea sponges. Suddenly the mussels could dominate the system to the
detriment of the sponges, anemones, sea moss, urchins and so on. Put the keystone species back and
slowly the ecosystem recovers. In other words, keystone species fulfill a crucial function.
220
See the article of Rebecca Steinberg, Keystone Species, in Animal Sciences 2002, in Encyclopedia.com.
Policy development is indeed about making crucial choices in order to use limited financial means as
efficiently as possible. Above we ascertained that policy experts have a tendency to focus on their
particular area and develop elaborated and integrated policies. They want to do their work thoroughly
and also they want to meet the needs and requests from different stakeholders. Such policies are often
too complicated to implement effectively and on top of it they tend to be expensive.
Also different ministries and executives like to impress the electorate by launching big, ambitious
policies. They rarely apply the principle „less is more‟. That is another reason why an entity responsible
for policy coordination can be useful. That entity should focus on crucial policy measures with a
maximum of positive ramifications in different areas and encourage policy experts in different areas to
review their plans according to the maxim „reduce, renounce, reorganize‟. Do note that the middle
term, to renounce, is the most difficult one. For once we have designed a promising policy, reducing it
to crucial elements is difficult anyway, but the next step to actually renounce what is superfluous
seems cruel. But once it is done, reorganizing the policy is relatively easy.
Policy coordinators should see to it that policy ideas are based as much and as often as possible on
crucial choices. The more crucial as well as effective a policy is, the more elegant it is. Sure, crucial
choices may also be determined by urgency. This might be a pleasant coincidence. Some issues might
indeed be of so much urgency that it would be stupid to ignore them.
Again, the idea of a crucial policy instrument or measure is to change one crucial element in a pattern
so as to change the entire pattern, create syntropy in related policy areas and realize important policy
goals.
Although at times the crucial and the urgent are identical very often they are not. In practice there
often is a tension between what is crucial and what is urgent. And all too often the governing body will
decide to give priority to the urgent. A „regime of the urgent‟ might be the consequence. This may
result in policy efforts directed to combating symptoms. A failing pattern might thus be maintained. If
the causes of problems are not removed, a series of never ending incremental policies will be the
result. What should be considered seriously is to make crucial choices which will hopefully solve some
crucial problems, resulting in pattern change or pattern adaptation.
A coordinating body will be able to take some distance from complicated policy practice and will be in
the position to have a birds‟eye view. That means this body is in a good position to analyse the
interaction between policies, the need for complementary policies and to point to crucial problems and
solutions.
Next, the policy coordinating body should present the elaborated policy maps and a list of crucial
choices to the governing body and seek political and budgetary approval. This will require strong
powers of policy argumentation and authority. For politicians responsible for a particular domain may
221
have their own priorities and not be eager to develop supportive policies to help colleagues perform
better or accept a particular crucial choice.
Conclusion: the unit responsible for policy coordination is in the ideal position to assess policy
designs from different policy domain from the point of view of effectiveness, overlap and syntropy.
Assessing policies raises the question whether the policy instruments might be limited to crucial
instruments with a maximum (and possibly syntropic) effect. The maxim might be: „reduce, renounce,
reorganize‟.
222
6. Working with scenario‟s and pattern analysis
„The best scenario for the future is to be found in the past‟. Lord Byron.
Summary
In this paragraph we will give some guidelines as how to develop scenarios. The idea is to find out what
impact a particular policy decision may have. Talking about the impact of a policy is talking about
possible response patterns. Scenario‟s are about change. It is basically an answer to the question: if
this happens or if we make this strategic choice what will be the result(s) in different policy domains,
what patterns may enfold? In order to give a clever answer to that question, you must take into
account possible response patterns. If a particular response pattern is undesirable, though likely to
occur, it is wise to take that into account rather than to ignore it. That is why scenario‟s development
should go from a simple level of complexity (what will be the impact of a particular policy measure in a
particular policy domain), to a higher level of complexity (how will that policy measure affect other
policy domains and how can policies support one another to be more effective) to a third level of
complexity: taking into account possible response patterns and suggest measures to favor desirable
response patterns.
TABLE OF CONTENTS C.6
Question/
paragraph
Issues Page
Q. C.6.1 Why policies are about breaking through barriers of
resistance.
222
Q. C.6.2 Why scenario‟s are useful to imagine a process of change 225
Q. C.6.3 Characteristics of complexity levels of scenario‟s 226
Q.C.6.1. Why policies are about breaking through barriers of resistance.
Working with policies means working with change. For policies are about change, positive and
desirable change, initiated and intended change. It is the reign of logic of finality.
Policies are meant to adapt or change or replace particular patterns in society that are seen to be
dysfunctional. At least by some stakeholders. Maybe the government. Policies are about reorganizing
and changing patterns. Societies exist as an infinitely complicated web of patterns, embodied by
groups and networks. Each individual is member of several groups and networks all of which have
their particular patterns. Some of these patterns support one another, some complement one another,
some function relatively neutral, some are in friction with other, some totally at loggerheads with
others.
223
As we explained before, patterns are hierarchical systems of elements (habits, assumptions,
judgments, attitudes, norms, taboos, values, expectations and interests, etc) related to survival and
meaning. Always intertwined. And interconnected by means of „habits and methods‟: to get
somewhere, to survive or to live meaningfully. (see above). Patterns contain „ common policies‟
(MAGIC) to maintain themselves. This leads to some measure of resilience, which is needed for any
pattern to survive at all. But resilience may have a negative side effect: rigidity as a means of resistance
against change that may occasionally be necessary. Resilience is the normal way of maintaining itself.
Rigidity is extreme or dysfunctional resilience.
Resilience has a creative component. In the words of Sheldrake: „without creativity, no new habits
would come into being; all nature would follow repetitive patterns and behave as if it were governed by
non-evolutionary laws. On the other hand, without the controlling influence of habit formation,
creativity would lead to a chaotic process of change in which nothing ever stabilized‟. Policies, as
creative plans, need to take that into account.
If a policy undermines some pattern elements or introduces an alien element into a pattern, it may
cause a mutation. If it goes against the grain of the need of security and of interests of people, the
response might be harsh. People may go from the mode „resilience‟ into the mode „resistance‟. This can
often be avoided. If you anticipate well with a good sense for policy imagination, you may anticipate a
negative response and come up with counter measures that are acceptable. Rigidity sends the
message: don‟t touch me, don‟t change anything. Resilience sends the message: if you want to move
something it is okay as long as you make sure other elements will be harmoniously rearranged.
Change of a crucial element within a pattern will gradually and sometimes quite rapidly or even
suddenly change the entire pattern. It is like a composition of Mondriaan. Try to imagine that one of
the straight lines is moved 1 centimeter to the right or left.....The entire composition falls apart. Now
try the opposite. There is no composition between capriciously positioned lines. It is chaos what we
see. An artist like Mondriaan comes in and moves a few lines. Suddenly there is a great composition.
Or something from another realm. When Auden sent the manuscript of „Journey to Iceland‟ to his
publisher the editors misinterpreted a word. Instead of the sentence „and the poets have names for the
sea‟, they printed „and the ports have names for the sea‟. Auden was surprised and concluded quickly
that the mistake was more „intriguingly suggestive than his own version‟. In fact the entire mood poem
was altered, and perhaps its meaning also. In this case a happy change.
See: Peter Conrad, Modern Times, Modern Places, Life and Art in the 20th Century, 1998, p 722; Rupert Sheldrake, The Rebirth
of Nature, The Greening of Science and God, 1991, p145
Policy imagination
You remember the example of local Amsterdam government some 30 years ago that attempted to
change its policies to help illegal prostitutes in the Red Light District. They did not discuss the policy
change with stakeholders and as a result they were totally unaware of the possible implications of the
policy measures they were about to take. But after some discussions they developed second thoughts
and the end result was pattern change. The municipal government decided to cooperate with civic
224
society organizations to deal with social problems and arrange for subsidies to support CSO‟s. They
changed their viewpoint about civic society initiatives as well about their own (lack of) capacity to deal
with social problems.
Vocational culture and training.
In his study The Craftsman, Richard Sennett explores the implications of viewing work as a mere
means to earn money. The result is a loss of pleasure and a loss of a sense of quality. He discusses the
modern hospital and the impact of health insurance policies: Doctors' and nurses' attitudes to patients
were originally craftsman like, driven by professional expertise, curiosity for individual cases,
investigating slowly and repeatedly, retaining an ability to "learn from ambiguity". What is left over?
Health policies and insurance policies introduced „health care targets‟ which are almost entirely
quantitative and so is the reward. Doctors may spend just 10 minutes for a patient, irrespective of the
needs of the patient or the complications of his case. There is little space left for “the craftsman's subtle
and practiced "interplay between tacit knowledge and self-conscious awareness". In other words, this
is very poor „roomification‟ and the implication is a reduced sensitivity to the individual case. This too
is pattern change. In the new pattern the individual is indeed an individual, a single entity. In past
patterns an individual was seen to be part of a network of other people and as a doctor or nurse to
reach out to an individual implied participation in his or her network. Sennett shows that this new way
of seeing one vocation results in loss of vocational pleasure and quality. The relationship between the
professional and the object of his work becomes vague and unreal and so he might be less open to the
needed feed aback on his professional acting.
Vocational training has changed as well. For centuries or even millennia it was training on the job. In
the European Middle Ages there was the guild system to protect the interests of a particular category of
craftsmen. But the guild system was also an apprentice system by which young people were introduced
to the profession step by step. Working and learning went hand in hand. Much later vocational schools
were established. With the vocational school system the issue of attuning the curriculum to the needs
of the labor market emerged as a problematic issue. A student who leaves school with a diploma is
unsure how to practice his knowledge. He might even be unsure whether his education is relevant.
Policy imagination is needed to take relevant measures to ensure attunement.
See: R.Sennett, The Craftsman, 2008
Habit/method does not exist without fear, interconnectedness and interest. Fear is a formidable
power. People almost always prefer the status quo of a present pattern, even if unpleasant or cruel, to a
new and uncertain future pattern. „I know what I have and I don‟t know what I will get‟.
Interconnectedness is another formidable power. We are part of networks, with expectations,
including negative intimidations, responsibilities and lots of loss-makers. To change habit/method the
policy designer must take into account the interconnectedness. Interests speak for themselves. Some
have financial interests. Others enjoy the comfort of power and again others fear repercussions and
225
punishment (interest and fear combined). If you forget the power of fear, interconnectedness and
interest, the policy design will be unrealistic or optimistic.
You want to forbid arms? Great, but be aware the arms industry will not like it, nor the arms dealers,
nor the smugglers, nor the people who are fearful and desire to protect themselves by means of arms.
So some response policies can be expected. And make sure the boys feel they need and even deserve
respect.....
Many more similar policy questions can be asked.
Conclusion: policies affect existing patterns. Individual people almost intuitively realize that policies
mean change, not just limited change but unforeseen change with unforeseen effects in the future.
That is why people often are reluctant to embrace a new policy. The policy expert is aware of this and
will try to anticipate, inform, discuss and convince that certain changes may be beneficial in the long
run.
Q.C.6.2. Why scenarios are useful to imagine a process of change.
Scenario‟s are about change. It is basically an answer to the question: if this happens or if we make this
strategic choice what will be the result(s) in different policy domains?
Policies are about realizing desirable goals in the future. Policies are not just steps that tell you how to
get there. Policies are also about starting chains of events or about starting a particular development
which will, hopefully, lead to the desirable future. In other words, planning for the future. Or in the
words of John Forester ‟planning is the organization of hope‟, for creative planning carried out by all
stakeholders, helps us to imagine a community as everybody likes to have it. For this you need hope,
imagination and rational insight on how patterns or projected courses of action may enfold. A
scenario is a synopsis of a projected course of action, or a developmental model, based on an imagined
course of development.
(see J.Forester, Dealing with Differences, 2009, p6)
The second level of complexity deals with scenarios that combine different internal policy decisions.
Starting with level 1 examples, some new scenario‟s can be drawn on the basis of several policy
decisions: the decision to do nothing with the new e-communication trends, the decision to introduce
changes in the educational curricula to prepare students for a professional career in e-communication,
the decision to favor particular branches of the economy etc.
The same applies to the initial decision to close the big oil refinery and then take into account a next
policy decision to use the harbor for new industries, or for touristic development, or for We should
discern between 3 levels of complexity. Most scenario work is carried out at level 1, which is the least
complex. Policy makers are busy trying to understand the interaction between policy elements at level
2 and sometimes use a scenario method to analyze the interaction in order to achieve a maximum of
226
synergy. At level 3 very little work is done and still very little insight is available. But a better
understanding is crucial to get workable and desirable policies.
By way of conclusion we give a description of scenario‟s in general: Scenarios are coherent
descriptions of one or more hypothetical future situations that are seen to be the results of pattern
developments based on different interpretations of past and future developments, which can serve as
a basis for policy, or which are expected to be the possible result of one or more fateful decisions to be
taken in the near future
Q.C.6.3. Which are the main characteristics of different complexity levels of scenario‟s?
Let us start with complexity level 1.
Level 1 complexity is about the impact of 1 major change factor without considering possible
policy intervention. The factor can be external factors and trends or internal policy decisions.
External factors are factors beyond the control of the government. Internal factors are choices
that a government makes
This is the classical scenario method. For instance a scenario can be drawn on the basis of an
international increase of e-communication. This is an external factor. The effects of increased
use of e-communication can be studied for different policy domains. Like education, economy
or the government‟s communication policies.
Another example is a scenario that will evolve as a result of a governmental decision. For
instance the decision to continue or to close down an oil refinery.
Example: the ageing of the population: right now some 2,5 million Dutchman receive AOW. In
2030 the number will be 4 million. Today 10 working people support one AOW-payment. In
2030 that will be reduced to 6. If nothing is being done it means the AOW-scheme is going to
be y% more expensive. That is not without consequence for the working employees‟
contribution to the AOW-fund. But it also has consequences for services to the elderly,
especially in the area of health care and housing.
Present situation
New situation
trend
227
To make it somewhat more complicated, it is very useful to distinguish between different spheres of
society. All trends always have an impact, directly or indirectly on all spheres in society. The AOW
example shows the trend has an impact on the sphere of the market, the oikos and the government.
Civic society is less clear but a higher % of old and still healthy people, who are retired, may increase
civic participation.
On to complexity level 2
The second level of complexity deals with scenarios that combine different internal policy
decisions. Starting with level 1 examples, some new scenario‟s can be drawn on the basis of
several policy decisions: the decision to do nothing with the new e-communication trends, the
decision to introduce changes in the educational curricula to prepare students for a
professional career in e-communication, the decision to favor particular branches of the
economy etc.
The same applies to the initial decision to close the big oil refinery and then take into account a
next policy decision to use the harbor for new industries, or for touristic development, or for
environmental experiments
So the idea is to draft several scenarios based on (series of) different policy decisions. Usually
such scenarios will also take into account the need for supportive policies in related policy
areas. For instance, if the harbor is going to be used for touristic development there will be a
need for lots of professionals working in this area. So there will be a need for different types of
training and perhaps even a college for services to tourists. And so on.
It speaks for itself that different spheres will always be differently affected.
Example: take the ageing of the population again. How should the collective debt and its
future development be taken into account? It shows the country will even be less able to
maintain AOW-levels. What will happen if pension age is raised from 65 to 69? But other
policy decisions can be taken as well and all of these have their particular effects: raising taxes;
lowering public service levels; stimulating investments; discouraging birth control to make
sure the % of young people is going to grow again etc.
Present situation
New Situation a
New Situation c
New Situation b
Policy decision a
Policy decision b
Policy decision c
Resulting development
Resulting developmentt
Resulting development
228
And finally complexity level 3
Starting point is policy pattern analysis. The scenarios deal with the question what will happen
if a particular policy pattern gets disturbed by an external trend or by a particular policy
decision. Basic question is whether the existing pattern will be able to absorb the new
development, or will it collapse and be replaced by a new pattern. And if an existing pattern is
desirable, what can be done to maintain it. Or if a new pattern is desirable, what can be done
to stimulate the formation of a new pattern and limit the number of negative side-effects
(chaos) that always occurs when an existing pattern collapse.
Pattern analysis is based on the principle of synergy between different policy domains,
including culture. Let us explore this a little further.
Each individual policy consists of a number of main policy strategies. A good and workable
policy is designed in such a way that these strategies support one another. Put differently,
good policies are coherent policies. Put differently again, good policies consist of strategies or
sub-policies that interact synergetically.
But a good policy will also make use of related policies for even more synergy, or suggest policy
measures in other policy domains in order to develop more synergy.
And what is more, a good policy fits the cultural environment or has adopted strategies to
change the cultural environment. For instance, if people do not know how to incorporate e-
communication because communication is strongly determined by traditional and personal
factors, there might be a problem to make full use of e-communication. So that has to be
encouraged. However, getting used to new ways of (e-types of) communication, the old
traditions will get undermined or fade away. Misunderstanding, stress and frustration might
be side-effects as an old communication pattern is gradually replaced by a new one. In other
words, possible response policies or patterns should be taken into account.
So what we need is the capacity of pattern reading, within a policy and between policies. And
we need to understand that each pattern is dynamic. In the words of Buckminster Fuller:
„there are no solids. There are no things. There are only interfering and non-interfering
patterns operative‟....in a synergetic and creative way or lacking synergy and leading to crisis
and destruction. I will say more about this in the chapter on the policy house and propose a
„symbiotic model‟ for good governance.
(see R.Buckminster Fuller, Critical Path, New York 1981, p158 vv; and see also for the realm of biology Lyn Margulis,
The Symbiotic Planet, Amherst, 1998)
229
This is why crucial interventions are so important in policy development. Crucial interventions
are interventions that interfere with the crucial elements of a pattern, supporting these
elements and therefore stimulating development, or destroying it and making room for a new
pattern. Crucial interventions also spark the development of useful response policies or
patterns.
Pattern analysis is a means to find out what is crucial.
Scenario‟s describe pattern development (the unfolding of patterns) or describe the collapse of
patterns ( enfolding of patterns) or describe the formation of new patterns.
An example:
230
In the Netherlands some market principles were introduced in social welfare and assistance policies
with consequences that were considerably more far-reaching than expected. Comparative policy
analyzes had demonstrated that effectiveness and efficiency could be improved. The idea was indeed to
increase efficiency, including financial efficiency, i.e. cost reduction. But as a result a large number of
CSO‟s that carried most of the load of welfare and social assistance arrangements, had to be closed
down. Before the introduction of market principles they were sure of a basic amount of governmental
subsidy. Now they were paid according to the number of cases they managed and often clients had to
contribute themselves. A response policy that did not strongly manifested itself in Anglo Saxon
culture, manifested itself strongly in Dutch culture, with unhappy effects.
Some years later the capacity to deal with particular assistance (like rehabilitation) was so much
reduced that it was insufficient. This caused a number of new social problems as well as headaches to
local governments that originally were not foreseen at all.
Why did these principles work reasonably well in the USA and not in the Netherlands or Sweden? The
answer is the difference in cultural environment. In the USA the idea of a market that may regulate
itself in a kind of social-darwinistic way, is widely accepted. If a CSO has an interesting mission to
fulfill to rehabilitate a growing number of otherwise very problematic prisoners, they will receive
money and be able to carry out their mission. So a positive response policy occurred.
Not so in the more social-democratic Northern European countries. In fact we have to do with
response patterns, consisting of a number of concrete policy elements, within a larger framework of
cultural values, attitudes, expectations, institutional arrangements, related policies. A crucial change in
a pattern may change the entire pattern or even replace it by a different pattern and change the
interaction with policies in related areas, improving or disturbing synergy
We still have little insight into the response patterns of policy development. But we need to note that
patterns unfold when crucial choices that stimulate synergy are taken. Without the right crucial
choices possible patterns enfold again and get replaced by other patterns, which might be patterns that
we do not want, patterns that stimulate passivity, resentment, criminality or whatever.
The unfolding of patterns goes according to a specific route, which we call a scenario. The unfoldment
route has to be mapped and indicators have to be identified which will give an early insight into which
path is developing and how this path is developing.
(see for methodological elaboration B.Kristensen, Patterns of Welfare Policies, transl. Welzijn in Patronen, Amsterdam 1992)
231
Conclusion: A concluding remark: The future of policy development depends not just on our ability
for rational planning and effective communication with stakeholders, but also on our ability to
understand patterns and the enfolding of patterns, or development. So far policy design is done in
rather technical ways, taking into account the first two complexity levels and ignoring level 3. This has
to be changed. We need to pay full attention to synergetics and pattern dynamics (unfolding and
enfolding patterns). In other words, policy design needs policy imagination. Good governance needs
policies with strong synergetical value.
Present situation Policy
decision a
Policy decision b
Response policy a1 A1
Response policy A2
Response policy B
new situation A1 A1
New situation A2
New situation B
Resulting development
Resulting development
Resulting development
232
7. The idea of ordered reality, pattern analysis and social science methodology
David Bohm and David Peat: “order pervades all aspects of life....and may be comprehended as similar
differences and different similarities”.
Summary
If reality is not just a bunch of atoms that stick together like saw dust, it is ordered and requires order.
Or, so I suggest, it springs from order. I suggest we take David Bohm‟s idea of an implicate order
serious. Even though it is an idea that goes against the grain of modernity. Let me confess that for me
personally, whether in the physical world, the organic world or the human world, there is a tendency
towards order all the time. Closed systems seem to be subordinated to the law of entropy, but open
systems seek order. Here I suggest we make use of David Bohm‟s ideas for quantum mechanics to
understand society a bit better. Next I make some methodological suggestions that might be useful for
policy development.
++__
TABLE OF CONTENTS Q.C.7
Question/
paragraph
Issues Page
Q. C.7.1 Atomistic and holistic order 232
Q. C.7.2 How do we know we can or cannot develop any functional
knowledge of human behavior?
236
Q.C.7.1. Atomism and holism. Is reality composed of independent interacting elements or do
elements interact according to patterns?
society perspective.
This question as often understood as the opposition of holism and reductionism. Either the „whole‟
determines how elements and aggregate elements behave, or individual elements interact like
indivisible atoms, interacting according to? This is an old tradition that goes back to Democritus (see
Q.C.5.2.). The tradition is popular and problematic.Why and how do the elements move? Yes,
according to what laws of movement? What are they? Gravity? Electro-magnetic fields? Using such
concepts means assuming order that surpasses individual elements. And how about the elements? Are
they really indivisible? If we split and reduce ad infinitum, matter seems to merge with time and time
seems to express itself in matter. Once we introduce space we observe interaction, always patterned.
Except for short moments of chaos, in waiting for new patterns to emerge. The term „in waiting‟ is
appropriate for it is as if the new pattern is already there, waiting to be unfolded. We observe the order
of time and we realize time does not exist if there is no order, just as order does not exist without time.
233
The so-called order of space is non-existent without time. Without time ordered space is like dark
matter.
Let us approach the question from a different point of view. The well-known poet T.S.Eliot was
concerned about the effects of fragmentation: „connection and patterns of connection between
elements‟, that is what we need to be aware of, he said, lest wisdom gets lost in knowledge and
knowledge gets lost in information. And, what is even more problematic, memory gets lost in
information. That is, our human experience of time gets lost in information. Those acquainted with
European philosophical tradition will understand that this is what Augustin called „dispersion‟.
The opposite of fragmentation is unity, order, even harmony. The quantum physicist David Bohm
observed that „fragmentary thinking is constantly breaking up into disorderly, disharmonious and
destructive partial activities‟. This applies to nature and to society. If we take this for granted as our
world-view, it becomes part of our existence, like a self-world-view, which has a profound effect on us
and our societies. Does that world-view correspond with the real world? As a quantum physicist Bohm
emphasizes the dynamics of order are part of our universe. He states there is an „implicate order‟ which
may unfold itself in numerous patterns, which somehow are related to one another. Our vision and
understanding though, remain partial. It is a challenge to discover which patterns apply to which
situations and tune in to these patterns. Pattern-thinking is radically different from atomistic thinking.
Pattern thinking is related to wholeness and order. It does resemble holistic thinking but it is both
more complicated and specific.
Atomistic thinking is related to parts, elements and the absence of intrinsic order. Bohm used the
example of a watch. Take a hammer and slash the watch. What remains? Parts, like indicators, cogs, a
battery, pieces of glass etc. Some still whole, some broken, fragmented, useless, impossible to
reassemble again. So what is the essence of the watch? Just pieces of metal and glass? No, the essence
is the pattern of the watch, which can be reproduced, unfolded again into a functional watch. He is
inviting us to think in terms of patterns, rather than meaningless pieces. Policy imagination is an
attempt to imagine the functioning of patterns, the ways they unfold and enfold again.
This pattern approach has several recent roots in European thinking. Apart from quantum theory we
find a similar approach in literary theory in the early stage of the 20th century. Yury Tynyanov (a
leading Russian „formalist‟) was approaching the history of literature as a type of system, with a
continuous shifting of „dominant‟ and „subordinate‟ genres. Genres can be compared to patterns.
Literary development is in his opinion a matter of shifts within a hierarchical system. He uses the term
„defamiliarization‟ of a dominant literary form that is growing stale and is slowly being replaced by
another, previously subordinate genre that is gaining popularity. He assumes that nothing ever
disappears, development is a matter of shifting hierarchies between elements. In his essay „Literary
Fact „ Tynyanov states: „during the period of its deterioration a given genre is shoved from the center
toward the periphery, but in its place, from literature‟s backyard and from life itself, new phenomena
flow into the centre‟. Nothing is static. Life is continuously surprising us with shifts. The literary critic
himself is a „shifting power‟ as well, and so are readers and publishers.
See: Yuri Tynyanov,”The Literary Fact”, in ”Modern Genre Theory”, ed. David Duff, Longman Critical Readers, Essex, 2000,
pp.29-49 (transl taken from Y.Tynyanov, Problema stikhotvornova yazyka, Leningrad, 1924)
234
This way of thinking is not new. Neither Bohm nor Tynyanv were aware of its roots. Although Bohm
was aware that his view of order and link between the individual and the universe, dated back from the
Middle Ages. Individual persons were considered to be a microcosm, thus standing as an analogy to
the entire cosmos. Therefore it could be understood there was an intimate relationship between
human intelligence and the intelligibility of the universe. But a more explicit pattern thinking was
introduced by Nicolaus of Cusa (or Kues or Cusanus who lived from 1401-1464). He used the concepts
of complicatio versus explicatio , or „ folded up‟ versus „folded out‟, or enfolded versus unfolded, or as a
verb: enfolding versus unfolding. The infinite wholeness includes the manifold and there is a
continuous movement between the two by way of enfolding and unfolding patterns. He calls God the
complicatio explicans, the unfolding wholeness. In Him the entire universe is enfolded, which is the
reason why he was accused of pantheism. A misinterpretation. This can easily be understood if the
process of unfoldment is understood in terms of patterns as fields that shape reality and minds in
time,in history. Put differently: patterns may be seen as results of a „dialogue‟ between the infinite
wholeness and any „created entity‟ which is nothing in itself until it starts responding to the infinite
wholeness, with response patterns as a result. These can be relatively simple physical patterns, or more
complicated organic patterns or even more complicated mental patterns as in the animal and human
world.
Point of attention: Dada, Zaum, surrealism and superrealism
Big question: how to become aware of aspects of the still enfolded order. For our starting point is
always the pattern of the present. Sure, during the process of unfoldment patterns may collide with the
requirements of the environment. Such collisions may start a process of enfoldment and facilitate the
emergence of an alternative pattern. But the human imagination may also be at work. Either by
imagining the consequences of its unfoldment or otherwise.
Let me point to an author who at first sight might be seen as a strange outsider in this discussion:
André Breton, the very influential artist and author who was part of Dadaism first and Surrealism
later. In his first surrealist manifesto (1924), he wrote: “Surrealism is based on the belief in the
superior reality of certain forms of association heretofore neglected”. Breton was struggling with a
major question, that was raised by Tristan Tzara (the Romanian poet who was at the birth of „dada‟):
how can anyone hope to order the chaos that constitutes that infinite, formless variation: man?‟. Tzara
was almost obsessed with the feeling of infinite chaos and especially its manifestation in man‟s mind.
All attempts by the „societal powers that be‟ to create a reasonable order (patterns) seemed futile in his
eyes. Deep down or high up is unfathomable chaos. That was Dada. Breton went on and initiated
surrealism, as a way of dreaming to discover some new order and meaning. What I believe is
interesting is that the entire dada-surrealist movement emerged during the chaotic times of World
War I and the turbulent interbellum. Existing systems to create order were criticized as being
inhuman. Modern technology caused the misery of industrial revolutions and cruel wars. Dreaming
might get us in touch with the surrounding universal order and may result in new patterns of thinking
and culture. There was something of hope.
235
By the way, we should not forget that around the same time the Russian poet Velimir Chlebnikov
(1885-1922) published Zangezi and coined the term „zaym‟ of „zaum‟, an amagalmation of 2 Russian
words „za‟ and „ym‟, literally to be translated as „trans-spirit‟ of „outside-mind‟. Acknowledgement that
external to our mind is a universe that can be understood by means of poetry, art and Music. The
movement conceived of a new world order and appointed Chlebnikov as its first president, charged
with realizing zaum in the reality of the 20th century
The movement, named De Stijl in The Netherlands got some inspiration from Dadaism (many don‟t
know that Theo van Doesburg kept in close contact for a while), but developed itself in a different
direction. Especially Mondriaan elaborated its message. He stated that „whatever lies ouside time and
space is not unreal. At first only an intuitive concept, it becomes real as our intuition grows purer and
stronger‟. He then used the name „superrealism‟. Explaining the importance of his superrealist
conviction he wrote: the palpable environment in which we „live‟ and which so deeply influences our
mentality, expresses the conception of equivalence‟, or „equlibrium through equivalence of
relationships…..man can create a new reality, a superreality‟. And a page later: „In the full daylight of
reality he is able to express that superreality‟, where not one aspect is dominating all other aspects but
where all aspects of reality are reorganized. Mondriaans idea was that art makes visible the superreal
universal order in which „all is one united wholeness‟ (as he wrote in a letter to his friend Albert van
den Briel. What art will make visible may then be realized in the material world, in society. That is the
crucial mission of art in the world according to Mondriaan, as well as Breton.
In spite of their enthusiasm Dada, Zaum, Surrealism and Superrealism all totally failed in the realm of
politics. Even in the midst of nazi-idelogical trends Mondriaan could write that superrealistic plastic
art „can enlighten the future of mankind‟. Breton wrote a political manifesto in collaboration with
Leon Trotsky and Diego Rivera, when in Mexico: Towards a Free Revolutionary Art. Perhaps it was
Frida Kahlo who contributed as well. Breton admired her and was inspired by her. Nevertheless the
surrealists were unable to imagine a new feasible social and political order. My point though is that
some notable artists were fully aware of an existing encompassing order that we badly need to
humanize our world. Remaining out of touch with that universal order there would be little chance for
any type of creative and constructive evolution. By means of free imagination (or even „automatism‟)
and dreaming they hoped to get new creative insights.
Let us call it the „principle of imagination‟ that was strongly revived by Dada, Zaum, the Breton-type of
Surrealism and Mondriaan‟s superrealism and found its way in literature and philosophy.
Unfortunately not yet in the social sciences and policy development. It is high time that equivalence
acknowledged and the connection is reestablished. This will only happen if the preconceived idea that
(social) science and art and religion, have little in common and should not be mixed up, is thrown
overboard. The symbiotic principle should be kept in mind and be observed.
See for an English translation of Andre Breton‟s text on surrealism: Patrick Waldberg, Surrealism , New York, 1971, pp. 66ff; Aai
Prins: Velimir Chlebnikov, President van de Wereldbol, in: Zangezi, Nl translation Amsterdam 2013; For Mondriaan and
superrealism: The New Art – The New Life, Collected writings of Piet Mondriaan, edited and translated by Harry Holtzman and
Martin James, New York, 1973, p175, 230 , 235 and 321; Piet Mondriaan and Albert van den Briel, „t is alles een groote eenheid,
Bert‟, Haarlem 1988.
236
David Bohm would call the enfolded reality the „implicate order‟. Our human ability to know
(something) and to comprehend (something) is first of all not dependant on an understanding of terms
and concepts, but on our awareness of unfolding patterns and hidden, enfolded patterns. Our ability to
comprehend, flows from our ability to imagine unfolding processes. Here artistic imagination is
helpful. From this statement follows that ability to comprehend is essentially the ability for
imagination, looking ahead, anticipating the „becoming‟ of something, rather than the „being‟ of it.
Indications of a new pattern that is emerging or unfolding itself, is a shift in the hierarchy of elements,
or a shift in the regular use of terms.
Conclusion: Sure, our ability to know and comprehend such movements is limited and the more we
attempt to improve our knowledge and comprehension, the more we realize how little we know and
comprehend. Cusanus called it: learned ignorance. As all patterns are, in his view, part of the unfolding
wholeness, our knowledge is in essence directed to the Infinite. Learned ignorance is mystic
awareness.
Having said that, we may also conclude that true knowledge is unifying knowledge, rather than
dividing knowledge for it links the human mind as a microcosm with the cosmos that includes
everything. Inclusiveness is a sign of true knowledge and, to jump to policies, of good policies.
Fragmentation and atomism are expressions of timeless disorder.
See: David Bohm, D. Unfolding Meaning, London, 1985; David Bohm and David Peat, Science Order and Creativity, 1987, p149
ff; Kazuhiko Yamaki, ed., Nicholas of Cusa: A Medieval Thinker for the Modern Age, 2001; M. Alvarez-Gomez, Die verborgere
Gegenwart des Unendlichen bei Nikolaus von Kues, München, 1968. and a note: Cusanus follows the tradition of Thomas
Aquinas who is hinting in the same direction in his On Being and Essence, Chapter V (in translation J.Bobick, Notre Dame,
1965) and he, in turn is following some hints by Aristotle. The influence of the Egyptian philosopher Plotinus on Cusanus, as a
go between him and the Greek masters, is significant. Though Cusanus may not have read him. One of Plotinus‟ main points was
that all creations emanates from the One, manifesting the One imperfectly. And another point is Plotinus‟insistance on the
radical otherness of the ground of being, the radical and logical divide beteen explanantia on the one hand and the explananda
on the other hand, a difference that is conveniently overlooked in modern times. See also: Karl Jaspers, Nikolaus
Cusanus,Muenchen, 1964, p 142;
Q. C.7.2. Is there any logic possibility of developing „true‟ or functional knowledge of society and
human behavior? How do we know we can or cannot develop any „true‟ knowledge of human
behavior?
society perspective.
We need to pay a little attention to methodology. And I mean exactly methodology, which is the
discipline that focuses on the why and how of methods. All too often the 2, method and methodology,
are seen to be mutually exchangeable. Surely we may define things this way. But it still leaves us with
the necessity to come up with a term to indicate that any method is based on some principles and
237
assumptions. In other words, there is a logic of method. And I suggest we leave the term „methodology‟
to signify exactly that.
Methodology often is given the meaning of a body of methods, rules and procedures employed by a
particular scientific field. We may add that methodology also should be used as a meaningful term to
indicate the logic behind a method or to indicate the logic of methods in general. It then refers to the
“theoretical analysis of the methods appropriate to a field of study or to the body of methods and
principles particular to a branch of knowledge” (Oxford Dictionary)
Indeed there is and should be a methodology of policy analysis. This type of methodology is, hopefully,
sufficiently covered in this syllabus.
There is also the methodology of political and social science, which is more basic. Without this basic
methodology, the methodology (and methods) of policy development are hanging in the air of the
ephemeral. Maybe there will be some effects in reality (what exactly is reality?), but whether these
effects are sustainable is still to be seen. Any progress will depend on good methodology. We are
talking about political science, which is the science that is focusing on public decision making and the
complicated organization that facilitates public decision making, like political parties, public
administration, trias politica and so on. Basically the public decision making process is part of the
functioning of society. That is why we can say that from a fundamental methodological point of view
political science and sociology are in the same category.
Let me point to the following elements to take into account regarding fundamental methodology:
1. Subject matter: the matter which is subject to our inquiry, that we want to know better:
society as an aggregate of patterns each with its own dynamics, interacting with each other as
well. Here we leave aside the discussion on the foundation of reality, about realness, being and
the possibility of knowledge about being. Such questions deal with fundamental assumptions.
In the very first place it is philosophy that should deal with such questions, in spite of the fact
that they seem unanswerable. However, for social scientists who consider social reality to be
mainly a social construction (as I do) this question is of paramount importance. As it is not of
immediate relevance to our policy discussion, I will not elaborate here. However, my choice of
concepts and methodology is typical for social scientists who consider social reality to be a
construction, i.e. our constructions should be considered as attempts to apply principles that
are believed to belong to the „universal order‟ in everyday reality. This means that such
constructions are the result of an often tacit and sometimes explicit „dialogue‟ between
everyday reality and universal or superreality. As stated before patterns are the result of
construction activities of humans. That is why they are the subject matter of sociology.
2. Concepts (or categories) by means of which we may develop knowledge of the subject
matter. There is no knowledge without concepts. Concepts are like two-sided coins. On the
one hand a concept is supposed to be an inherent characteristic of the subject matter and on
the other hand is a means to gain insight and knowledge in the subject matter. Put differently,
238
by means of a concept we participate in the truth (of the subject matter). In the social science I
consider the following concepts to be of essential importance: first situation definition , value
orientation and (im)morality as the basic concepts, plus logic of finality, organizational power
and collective consciousness. It is important to realize that in social reality these concepts
should always be combined. Together they reveal what we call „ social reality‟ or the working of
patterns.
3. Methodological idea , based on concepts, that is needed to systematically develop knowledge
of the subject matter, by means of theory development, hypothesis formulation, research,
critical analysis, provisional acceptance or refutation. In my opinion, social definition
processes, pattern formation and pattern dynamics (unfolding and enfolding movements)
should be the main methodological idea for the social sciences, including political science.
4. Connection framework. At first sight this is a rather obscure aspect of methodology. But a
closer look will tell us something else. It might be the most crucial aspect of methodology. The
discussion about the link between categories and subject matter, is already going on for ages.
Kant was asking how we can be sure that categories or concepts have „sense and significance‟.
In ordinary language: how can we be sure that our knowledge is real, rather than imaginary or
just fake. In order to deal with this question Kant is suggesting a transcendental schema: the
procedural rule by which a category is connected or linked with a sense impression. A
subjective intuition is thereby discursively or logically considered to be a representation of the
external subject matter . He uses the word „ procedure‟, indicating a way of proceeding, a way
of acting according to method. In similar manner the Dutch philosopher Loen uses the word „
invoegen‟, „ to insert‟, i.e. to insert the knowing subject (me) into truth regarding the subject
matter. In phenomenology „ intentionality‟ is a conditional attitude towards the subject matter.
This tradition goes back to Augustin, who was sharply aware that only an attitude of positive
intention leads to „existential acceptance‟ of the subject matter and to dialogue. It is only with
that attitude that one is open to do justice to the „real being‟ , including its development. And,
what is more, knowledge formation of the human subject (including society) needs the human
subject to open up. To open up and reveal oneself to another an atmosphere of trust is needed.
That is why dialogue is so essential. For dialogue will open up both partners to each other and,
while being open to each other the partners of dialogue also start „dis-covering‟ themselves. As
reality is being inserted in the human mind, and the human mind is being inserted in reality, a
heuristic field is emerging. This heuristic field is characterized by mutuality of insertion. ( see
Q.B.1.3.) If there is no mutuality we impose our own understanding or interpretation on the
subject matter, colonizing it as it were with our concepts. Connection is dependent on
intentionality (from the side of the subject) and interpretive readiness (from the side of the
object). Without connection there cannot be dialogue, nor discovery. That is where
„imagination‟ comes in. For it is by means of imagination that we discover a particular pattern
in its enfolding or unfolding development.
239
However the connection goes both ways. This is very fundamental. For vice versa no academic
information, theory or reflection will ever escape from its inevitable impact on society. As soon
as something has been said about the subject matter (man and society) the subject matter has
received the information and the information is doing its work in the individual and collective
brain. It inevitable leads to some sort of reflection and, possibly pattern change. The change
can be minor or major or even lead to total pattern enfoldment, followed by new pattern
unfoldment. This is the principle of „indeterminacy of human behavior‟. The implication is
that academic point of view of the present is obsolete the moment it is expressed.
Methodologically speaking the principle of indeterminacy of human behavior leads to a second
principle: the „principle of obsoleteness‟.
Point of attention: je fus
By the end of his life Bernard Charbonneau wrote a fine „essay on liberty‟. Here is the issue of time and
space again, applied to human consciousness. The moment I take distance to myself, I observe myself
as from outside, it is not only a matter of space, but also a matter of time. I look at „me‟ as a person
from the past, even if the time difference is not more than a fraction of a second. If external self-
observation leading to self-awareness is the essence of consciousness, it means that the saying „I am‟ is
meaningless. We must accept that all we can say is „I was‟. This is another way of expressing the
principle of obsoleteness and ultimately, so Charbonneau puts forward, freedom.
This is linked to what I was referring above in a note on Cusanus. Being is unfathomable. All our
knowledge is limited to becoming and hence dependant on our ability to imagine its unfoldment or
enfoldment. Like reality is established in time, so is our knowledge of it. Fixed and definitive
knowledge does not exist, nor is any object of our knowledge static. Once we realize something or
somebody is this or is that, our knowledge is already obsolete.
At first sight it sounds like a short summary of Henry Bergson‟s idea of time as duration. But it is
slightly different in that Charbonneau was well aware that „I‟, as a being, am radically dependent on
the environment I live in and especially on the other person I am communicating with. I am not just
dependant on my own personal continuous reflection, but also on the way others are reflecting,
become conscious of themselves and of „me‟, thus affecting my own personal reflection. Even the more
as a conscious being I am conscious of lagging behind „myself‟. This is another way of formulating that
being means being aware of the continuous flowing of time. Being connected also means being aware
of the time dimension, lest we get cut off.
Today many involved in social-scientific research projects reject this kind of phenomenological
thinking. They believe in the possibility of empirical research leading to sure knowledge. By now it will
240
be clear that in my punt of view this is a misconception. It involves the denial of the principle of
indeterminacy of human behavior. Also it passes over the basic fact that history is continuously
passing over, i.e. human beings, relationships networks, groups and societies are continuously in flux,
which means change. Every bit of social scientific information will impinge on this flux. This does not
mean research is meaningless. It means we have to be aware of the status of research and research
conclusions. It is part and parcel of the object matter that it is trying to understand.
Think of the link between good governance and the capacity for policy development. Based on my
own experience in several countries and reading report of other countries, I would draw the conclusion
that indeed there is a positive correlation between the two. So did World Bank director Daniel
Kaufman and so did many others. However it would be good if a research student would carry out
empirical research based on clear indicators for both good governance and policy development.
Imagine now that the conclusions of empirical research would be irrefutable: yes the connection exists.
As a result a number of serious countries would invest in developing capacity of policy development
and some governments would decide to make ample use of such capacity. At the same time some
politicians may get worried about the prospect of diminishing opportunity to serve their own interests.
What will they do? Sure they will look for alternative ways to serve their interests inspite of accepted
and institutionalized policy development methods, policy chambers and so on. So a clever student to
carry out similar research some years later will find that the correlation is in fact very weak. How can
this be? Well, the answer is crystal clear. The answers shows something about the nature of human and
societal reality, that is often overlooked by empiricists. Conveniently overlooked? No, in the long run
this point of view will turn out to be an inconvenient misconception.
Conclusion. Where does this lead to? It leads to a social science practice, which like an ellipse, is
determined by 2 focus points: interpretation and imagination. The social scientist is interpreting the
behavior of people by means of basic concepts. As social reality is never static, the social scientist
should attempt to imagine how situations will develop. The main methodological tool that is it his
disposal is pattern analysis. The method that he should use is, in my opinion, the interpretive method.
And, vice versa no academic reflection will escape from its inevitable impact on society: the principle of
obsoleteness‟. In other words there can never be any definitive description or analysis of a pattern.
Patterns are set in time frames with unfolding and enfolding movements. Interpretation and
discussion will also have an impact on pattern dynamics, never leaving a pattern unchanged. This
takes us to the inevitable moral dimension of the social sciences.
See: Bernard Charbonneau, Je fus, essay sur la liberté, Opales, 2000; B. Kristensen, Vooronderstelling, intentie en begrip,
uitgave Windesheim Zwolle, 1993; which is heavily based on: A.E.Loen, De Geschiedenis, haar plaats, zijn, zin en kenbaarheid,
Assen 1973; and Peter L.Berger, HansFried Kellner, The Act of Interpretation‟, in Sociology Reinterpreted, an Essay on Method
and Vocation, 1981, p24ff.
241
General Conclusion of Part I
It is time to draw some very general conclusions.
The main line was: public policy development. In daily practice we find that different approaches are
followed: technical, regulatory, ideological or deliberational.
These approaches do not exclude one another. On the contrary. They should not. There is one point of
view, which, so I suggested here, may include all 4 approaches and is very useful for developing policy
craftsmanship: the pattern approach. The pattern point of view may take other dimensions into
account. Why is a pattern approach important? Just because it may include different dimensions? Or
more?
Here we touch a second line, namely the perspective of citizens or the perspective of society as a
framework of patterns. Very few individuals think idiosyncratically. Much rather we think according to
a pattern we are tuned into. We may tune it to different patterns. So, to understand people and the
way they think, we should develop an understanding of pattern dynamics. Patterns reveal the ways of
our thinking. All policies interfere in patterns. By means of the pattern point of view we can better
imagine how a policy will affect the life of an individual (the way he or she interprets life) as well as the
environment. What responses it may spark.
Taking into account the pattern point of view means that we stop looking at society as a bunch of
identical particles who will all respond exactly the same way to policies. Society (and its spheres)
functions according to patterns. Policies need to take such patterns into account, lest the policy will be
ineffective or a source of conflict. Policy imagination is based on some knowledge of patterns that are
at work, with their specific rationale and specific ways of reasoning. It imagines what may happen
if....how patterns will unfold if that particular policy is being implemented.
In order to practice policy imagination we need to have a sound understanding of pattern dynamics,
how they maintain themselves (MAGIC) how they function in the 4 different spheres of society (oikos,
market, civic society and government), why they unfold and unfold and how they relate to one another.
We also need to take societal spheres into account: there a marked differences between the oikos, the
market, the civil society and the governmental sphere. They each have their own characteristics. Not
all patterns fit anywhere. Policies need to be geared to the characteristics of spheres.
We can take a further step and say that good policies make „ room‟ for people or entities to develop. We
have called that roomification.
Now we touch a third line: the perspective of the policy actor, who is part of a political system. The
public policy actor is responsible for good governance. Good governance means working with policies.
Whether policies are beneficial depends to a large extent on the way they were developed. It is not just
a matter of effective instrumentation and communication, as many think. Good policy development is
dependent on a good deliberation process with stakeholders.
242
So the policy process is more than just a technical matter or regulating threatening chaos or realizing a
beautiful and promising ideology. It is also more than a discussion or deliberation process with
stakeholders to agree on goals to achieve and choice of instruments. Good policy development takes
into account the patterns of attitudes, ideals, habits and common sense judgments that people foster
within different spheres.
Good policy development also makes sure policies in different domains or spheres, do not colonize
other domains or spheres and cause disruption and chaos. As public policies they should serve the
entire public, and this be inclusive.
Once this is all clear the policy expert may opt for the ideal policy model. This can be the decision to do
nothing (zero policy), or just adapt an existing policy to a new situation (contextual), or to introduce
one crucial policy element assuming it will have a strong mobilizing or innovating effect (synergetic
policy) or to go ahead step by step, evaluating each step and decide about the next one
(incrementalism), or to design an integrated policy of coherent elements, maybe to introduce a new
pattern (integral or comprehensive model), or just to choose a number of actions, not necessarily
coherent, assuming that some will have a positive effect: this is the clustered approach.
From a pattern point of view, all models have potential advantages and disadvantages. The synergetic
model is to be preferred, but it is awfully difficult to find the right „ crucial‟ factor. In practice very
often the policy actor will fall back on the incremental model.
In this part of the syllabus we also tried to get a clearer understanding of the nature of policies. We
stated that all policies are directed towards a goal, that appears desirable to achieve. Policies are goal
directed and belong to the realm of logic of finality (sometimes called intervention logic). Policies are
meant to effectuate some positive change. We called it „novelty‟. To find out which is the most effective
way to get there, which policy model is appropriate, we may learn from past experience and find some
evidence as regards effective instrumentation. So, policies might be evidence based as well as novelty
geared.
243
Part II: Support methods
General summary of part II
In this part we will deal with some „support methods‟, which the policy expert might use in order to
develop good policies.
To start with of all the policy expert needs to know how to analyze existing policies. Some or explicitly
put on paper, others are just implicit and informal. The idea is first to understand the intervention
logic of the policy. And second to understand how the policy actually works, how it impacts different
patterns in society.
Next we turn to the policy deliberation process. We already discussed it in part I. Mostly in a
theoretical way. Now we should become more practical. However the two are inseparable. And
discussing a number of practical issues, we discover that these issues have organizational and
theoretical implications. So we will also think about the present principles of government, based on the
„trias politica‟. Because of emphasis on policy development I suggest the idea of „policy chambers‟,
forming together a „policy house to secure good deliberation. Theoretical implications lead to the idea
of „symbiotic governance.
This chapter is followed by a chapter on the different roles of policy designers and experts in the
government. Very important in the organization of the government is the assignment that is given to
the policy experts.
Finally we will discuss how to organize a policy development department within the government.
244
A. Policy design analysis
Everything can be analyzed: the policy environment, the actors with their interests, the policy
development process, the ways of implementation, the balance between costs and benefits, the impact
and effectiveness of the policy, the policy in comparison to other, similar policies (comparative policy
development) and so on and so forth. On the basis of any type of analysis results policies can be
evaluated from different points of view.
Here we focus on analysis of the policy design and the (relative) effectiveness of a policy, also in
comparison to similar policies. We will call it „policy design analysis‟.
Aim of this type of policy analysis is a descriptive one: how is a policy designed and how is it meant to
serve a particular goal. Secondly policy analysis is meant to determine which of various alternative
policies are most likely to be effective in a particular policy environment and why. This requires policy
imagination. We should also take the term „analysis‟ in its literal way: an examination geared to
identification of the elements as well as the interrelationships between the elements of a policy,
whether explicit or implicit. All the rest which is considered to be the practice of policy analyzes, flows
from this basis.
Indeed, policies are part and parcel of an environment with actors, stakeholders, values, problems and
so on. Policy analysis without taking into account the responding environment is a meaningless
activity. Here we suggest looking at policies within their social and political environment.
See: David L. Wiemer and Aidan R. Vining. Policy Analysis Concepts and Practice , 1989.
We will continue by looking at policies in a down to earth manner, forgetting the complexities for a
while. We start with two useful tools.
245
1. A useful figure and a useful matrix
TABLE OF CONTENTS II: Q.A.1.
Question/
paragraph
Issues Page
Q. A.1.1. Why is the Tree of objectives useful for policy development? 245
Q. A.1.2 Why is the Logical framework useful for policy development? 247
Q. A.1.1. Why is the Tree of objectives useful for policy development?
Altogether, schematically a policy paper can be analyzed as follows:
The tree of objectives is extremely useful as a design tool. In actual fact it is not a tree of objectives, but
much rather a „tree of policy elements‟ (goals, activities, means). But it is usually called tree of
objectives. While discussing a policy design it can be sketched on the black board or white board,
changed, adapted and elaborated. The big thing is that the tree of objectives, shows you in one glance
how the policy idea is structured.
We may call this a „tree of policy elements‟. It is meant to provide a visual picture of the main policy
elements in their „relationships of finality‟.
goal
Concrete strategic subgoal
a
Activity a1 Activity a2
Concrete strategic subgoal
b
Activity b
246
247
Q. A.1.2. Why is the logical framework a useful for policy development?
The logframe provides is with a summary view not just of all policy elements (see the tree of objectives)
but also of their side effects, indicators and assumptions. The best is to fill in the logframe on the basis
of the completed tree of objectives. This means the left column is completed. Next step is to identify
for all policy elements the possible side effects, indicators, response patterns from different actors,
assumptions and critical success factors or conditions.
Many different logframes are in use. Some more complicated. Others more simple.
On the basis of the tree of policy elements we may draft a logframe:
Policy
elements
Side effects
(Positive
Negative)
Possible
response
patterns
indicators
(sources of
verification)
Assumptions
And risks
Critical
success
Factors
Ultimate
goal
Concrete
strategic
Sub goal a, b
Results
a1,a2,b
Activities
a1,a2,b
Means to
carry out the
activities
The 3 most important columns are:
the first one: policy elements;
the fifth one: assumptions and risks.
Side effects, closely related to response patterns: how might the target group respond? What
negative or positive responses are feasible?
The best is to work on these 3 first. Later we will go into more detail.
248
2. Dimensions of Policy analysis
By way of summary TABLE OF CONTENTS : Q.A.2.
Question/
paragraph
Issues page
Q. A.2.1. What is the purpose of policy analysis? 248
Q. A.2.2 Which are the different approaches to policy analysis? 249
Q. A.2.3 How does professional policy design look like? 250
Q. A.2.4 Policy environment and stakeholder analysis 252
Q. A.2.5 Analysis of existing public policies 256
Q. A.2.6 Analysis of public policy design 260
Q. A.2.7 Importance of assumptions 263
Q. A.2.8 Assumptions, risks and success factors 264
Q. A.2.9 Types of assumptions 265
Q. A.2.10 Usefulness of comparative policy analysis 267
Q. A.2.11 How to predict response patterns? 267
Q.A.2.1.What is the purpose of policy analysis?
Policies do not emerge in a vacuum. Each policy is part and parcel of an environment, with actors and
stakeholders, with values and ideologies, with problem perceptions and ideas how to improve the
living environment. Plus existing policies-in-practice, implicit or explicit, as well as common policies
which are changing the environment. Plus (international) trends which are also having an impact on
the environment. In other words the policy environment is far from static, it is dynamic and
continuously changing
Professional policy design analysis is not the same as policy evaluation, though the outcome of
evaluation studies may be very helpful in comparing different policies with one another.
Policy evaluation focuses on a particular policy to find out whether its design and its implementation
method realize the goals to be achieved and generate the desired changes in the environment.
In this paragraph we deal with policy analysis. Policy evaluation will come later.
249
Policy analysis is first about analyzing a policy against the background of the policy environment.
What environmental problems were the reason to suggest a new or an adapted? What problem
analysis was at the basis of the new policy? How did the problem definition come about? Which
stakeholders had a say? Next step is policy design analysis.
For policy design analysis is in the very first place about the ways in which goals are supposed or
expected to be realized. So policy design analysis is about determining which strategies and which
policy elements are or should be involved and how these policy elements relate or might relate to one
another. Policies are directed towards a goal that they are supposed to realize. That is why policy
design analysis is also about "determining which of various alternative policies will most achieve a
given set of goals in light of the relations between the policies and its various instruments and activities
and the goals to be achieved”. Alternatives may come from the designers table, they may come from
comparing an existing policy (policy in practice) with a newly designed alternative or come as a result
of research in comparative policies, comparing similar policies in similar domains in different
locations or countries.
(free according to S. Nagel, Policy Analysis Methods, 1999)
Finally practice comes. Policies will have an impact on society and its patterns. How do stakeholders
respond to the policy? What is its impact and how can this impact be understood in terms of patterns?
Conclusion: Policy design analysis is supposed to reveal the reasoning behind the design, the type of
intervention logic (or lack of) that was used by the designers, the assumptions about the environment
that they took for granted, as well as they ways they imagined the policy to affect the environment.
Why? Because we can only understand a policy of we understand the reasoning behind it.
Q.A.2.2. Which different approaches to analyze policies exist?
Of course there are different approaches to policy analysis.
First of all, and mostly known, is the comparative approach. This is an academic approach. Based on
comparison between similar policies and/or between the same policy carried out in different
environments, insight is found as to the why of effectiveness of policy designs. This approach is also
useful for evaluations. Comparative policy analysis is not necessarily serving a political or practical
interest. It is meant to be objective, academic and purely analytical. However, it has its limitations.
First because environments are never identical. As policies are carried out in environments, a pure
comparison is impossible. Secondly because different actors and stakeholders view the same policy in
different ways and will act differently. This also affects the outcome of a policy.
Secondly there is the political approach, which is either initiated by ideology or by interest. This is a
political approach because it takes the point of view of a political policy actor. But of course policy
250
experts may view and study policies from this perspective too. Policies are seen to be flowing from a
political party program or ideology or are seen o be the outcome of a political game between various
players in a coalition government or are meant to impress the electorate. The idea is again to look
around, comparing different policies and select the one that fits the ideology or the interest of the
party. Sometimes politicians seek the advice from policy scientists or experts and make use of their
advice.
Thirdly civil servants naturally are interested in the useful administrative approach, which focuses on
the details of implementation, administration, budget control, process management, monitoring and
adapting to changing environments.
Fourthly we may discern a more personal approach, as Dubnick and Bardes call it. Indeed all people
interested in policies (and in fact most citizens are, for they are the main target group, whether they
realize it or not) have opinions based on personal experience with a policy, based on their world view
or interest, or gut feeling, or, more refined, based on reflection and some measure of policy
imagination. The personal approach springs from a concern about the impact of the policy on the lives
of people. This approach is also called the interpretive or interpretive approach. In fact it includes the
second approach. For it tries to analyze policies from the viewpoint of the policy actor(s) and
stakeholders.
Finally there is the professional approach which attempts to take into account all 4 approaches and is
geared to serve a practical interest. It should be based on the academic approach, but the difference is
that it is meant to turning insight into useful new designs, as well as better tools to design policies and
better policy imagination. It takes into account the political factor, the administrative factor and the
various interests of stakeholders. It studies how these different factors have influenced the policy
design. In other words, it takes into account the fact the human societies are responding entities.
In this syllabus we follow the professional approach.
See: Dubnick, M.J., Bardes, B.A. Thinking about Public Policy: A problem solving Approach, 1983
Conclusion: Professional Policy Design Analysis is about analyzing existing and new policies within a
particular policy domain (and sphere):
taking into account the present environment and
taking into account the desired changes in the environment, and
taking into account the actors‟ and stakeholders‟ interests, goals and values.
Q.A.2.3. How does professional policy design analysis process look like?
251
It is helpful to discern 4 phases:
a. Deliberation phase: analyzing the policy environment and its dynamics that push
and pull toward the policy actors; in actual fact this refers to the environment that
is the background of the genesis of policies. Analysis should provide us with
insight in this process of genesis; analyzing the existence, interests, values and
activities of different stakeholders and policy actors, leading to particular problem
perceptions;
b. Elaboration phase: analyzing policy designs that are supposed to be eventually put
into practice. This is often done by analyzing the structure of the design, the
relationship with related policies and comparing a particular design with other
possible designs. (called „comparative policy analysis‟). Comparative studies
produce very useful information about advantages and disadvantages of various
policy designs; it basically deal with questions of effectiveness and adequateness;
c. Implementation phase: analyzing existing policies, their goals, instrumentation,
effects and impact, actors and stakeholders, costs. This refers to policies-in-
practice; it helps us to find out why some policies are successful and other not; as
well as (international) trends that change the policy environment;
d. Evaluation and revision phase: analyzing the possible and manifold response
patterns to policies-in-practice, both negative and positive, in opposition and in
support; in actual fact this refers to the response policies. All this is essential to
understand the relative (in)effectiveness of a policy and the need for adaptation or
revision.
Schematically:
There is the present environment with its characteristic values, world views etc (patterns), with its
problems and problem perceptions by different stakeholders (and their interests) and with its actors
eager to act by means of new policies. In short: its patterns. Somehow this will lead to a new (and
hopefully „lighter‟ environment and better patterns.
But there are all sorts of trends, there are existing policies, common policies and there are response
patterns of the people...........so it is not so easy to predict how the new environment will look like.
Maybe brighter and lighter, maybe darker and more problematic. But we are optimistic and have given
it a lighter color....
252
Now we will focus on the different phases.
Q. A. 2.4. How to analyze the policy environment and conduct a stakeholder analysis
For different policy domains, such as infrastructure, education etc, and different spheres, different
stakeholders and policy actors should be identified. Policy actors are actors responsible for designing,
carrying out and evaluating policies. In the words of Easton: persons who engage in the daily affairs of
the political system and who are recognized by most members of the system (citizens) as having
responsibility for these matters. We should think of chiefs, monarchs, cabinet ministers and so on.
Stakeholders are actors who take an interest in the policies, either because the policies are primarily
directed to them as beneficiaries or because the policies affect them somehow, positively or negatively.
See: David Easton, A systems Analysis of Political Life, New York, 1965, p 200 ff
trends
Existing policies
New policy
design
Present environment 4 spheres
patterns
stakeholders
actors
interests
New environment 4 spheres
Res- ponse policies
Changed patterns ?
actors
Problem Percep-tions
stakeholders
New Interests?
New Pro-blems?
Other similar policies to compare with Similar
environments
Changed
environments
253
All actors and stakeholders have a particular interest and an ideological viewpoint that springs from
the pattern they adhere to. Interests tend to be stable. Ideological viewpoint are either flexible or fixed.
Important to find out which! Ideological viewpoints (as part of a pattern) result in dreaming about the
realization of a desired state of affairs. Ideological viewpoints also serve a point of orientation in
interpreting situations. Socialists will view any situation of marked inequality as undesirable and thus
problematic, and in need of change. Whereas liberals will view such situations as natural. They, in
turn, may look with suspicion at situations that limit freedom.
Once all actors and stakeholders are listed, we can start a stakeholder analysis. This analysis starts
with identification of all stakeholders (i.e. all who have an interest in the policy, plus those who are
likely to be affected by it, positively or negatively) and involves identification and analysis of their
interests, problems, goals and values.
Example: the Amsterdam Red Light district social service centre again.
The text with information you find at the start of the syllabus
First we have the ladies: they are focused on survival, both physically and mentally. They know the
pimps need them, but the pimps are more powerful. They hate them (especially when they once fell in
love with them....) They try to decrease their power over them, but often they get blackmailed and
intimidated. They fear the police. Last but not least, those who come from abroad are not so sure they
would be welcomed at home....
The pimps: they are focused on money by all means. They have managed to effectively turn off their
conscience. So that does not bother them. The big and exciting thing is to cooperate with the police and
make deals. They are willing to pay quite a bit in return for much power
The police: they are supposed to keep things under control. They fail, simply because 1. The situation is
complicated and rough and 2. they are understaffed. They don‟t know how to cope, so they agree to
make deals with pimps. They turn a blind eye to the personal situation of some ladies. If they receive
money from pimps, they tell themselves their right hand should not know what the left hand receives.
The centre: stimulated and funded by some churches and lots of individuals who are concerned, they
are committed to make life in the Red Light District a bit more human and a bit more livable, by
offering counsel, shelter, medical help and, if need be juridical help. The centre works with volunteers,
varying from medical doctors, to social workers, cooks, lawyers and hostesses.
The municipal government: first of all they don‟t know. They are the most flexible, open to different
viewpoints, mostly of a political nature. They realize the district attracts lots of people, tourists, which
is important from an economic point of view. They don‟t want trouble. So whoever can convince them
that they will effectively maintain some basic order, is welcome.
How to proceed? One needs to find out:
which are the interests of actors and stakeholders. Please keep in mind that interests will often
remain hidden. By deliberately keeping them hidden they may serve as a means of power.
However, not all interests are hidden or need to be hidden. There are analysts who consider all
254
(ideological) desired state of affairs as interests as well. Personally I would opt for making a
difference. Interests are dominated by the material dimensions (basically by money and
position), where as ideological preferences are dominated by the immaterial dimension
(basically by values and a vision of a more ideal society). There is more. Interests and desires,
likes and dislikes, fears and hang-ups, values and objectives are always shared. Individual
people and organizations imitate one another. So they form a pattern. And the patterns also
provide an ideological framework for justification and interpretation. It is very helpful if such
patterns can be discerned. Important is to distinguish between interests that are likely to
support the policy and those that are likely to oppose it.
Which are their ideological points of view, relevant to the policy? How do actors and
stakeholders propagate their ideological viewpoints? How do they justify their interests,
habits, method? Which arguments do they use? Please note that viewpoints are often
propagated tacitly as if it is the most normal and natural way of looking at things. So part of an
ideological point of view is concealed as a set of assumptions. It is very useful to discover these
assumptions. Why? Because somewhere in the policy practice they demand attention. But
there is also the open part of the ideological viewpoint, the part that is openly discussed and
propagated.
How and why do actors and stakeholders interpret particular situations and define them as
problematic or unproblematic. Please note that such interpretations and definitions are always
linked with the patterns, mentioned above. What action do they take to get their interpretation
accepted by other actors and stakeholders?
What is their opinion about existing policies? Do they support these policies? Do they want to
change, improve and adapt them? Or do they want to replace them by totally different
policies? If so why?
See for instance: Amenta, E and Skocpol, T. States and Social Policies, in Annual Rev. Sociology, 1986, 12
The academic policy analyst will be happy just analyzing these 4 issues and will then try to understand
the genesis of different policies in practice. He will endeavor to gain respect from colleagues by
offering insight in the link between the policy environment and policy practice and publishing an
interesting article in a respected journal.
The civil servant charged with policy development has a more complicated duty to fulfill. He is
expected not just to:
- Analyze the policy environment as objectively and detached as possible (like
the academic policy analyst) and discern some patterns; but also:
- Serve the policy actor (his minister or mayor) responsible for this policy
domain and help him to achieve his policy goals; and
255
- As a representative of public administration serve the public with all its
stakeholders, make sure they are listened to and taken into account when it
some to making policy decisions. In other words, make sure they are
included in the process
These different roles are not necessarily at loggerheads with one another, although they often are. That
is because often policy actor (the minister of mayor) does not really understand that:
- Analysis of the policy environment may provide him with very useful
information and insight, although painful and unwelcome;
- Inclusion of stakeholders will provide the social support that is necessary
for a successful implementation
All too often the policy actor prefers not to see. Also his or her feeling for policy imagination is
minimal. Why? Because policy actors tend to focus on the near future and on what can be produced
immediately, tomorrow, if not today of even yesterday. For most politicians the day after tomorrow is
foggy or cloudy as if tomorrow does not even exist. This does not mean that a discussion about the day
after tomorrow is bound to be impossible. Somehow you must see to it the sun will break through the
clouds.
We will come back to this when we discuss the matter of „agenda setting‟ in the next chapter. For an
analysis of the policy environment this is all useful: for a proper management of the policy cycle, and
for agenda setting, problem definition and goal setting in particular. In that chapter we will deal with
the analysis of the policy environment in a practical way.
Have a look at the Curacao educational environment, which is dazzling in its complexity. There are the
public and private school boards, some of them very powerful. There are the many schools with
marked differences in quality and language of instruction. There are the many foundations that
prepare and suggest educational ideas and tools to improve quality. There are the political parties and
churches each with different (ideological) viewpoints. There is the business world complaining that
professional education is not geared to their needs and last but not least the individual citizens who
feel at a loss in this labyrinth-like environment.
But we can go on. There are many interpretations of the present problematic situation. Different
stakeholders and actors point to different causes of the problems and propagate different policies as
remedies.
Next there are the many concrete attempts to improve the system by introducing new policies and
educational methods. Evaluation studies show that these attempts were not particularly helpful.
Next there are the manifold and urgent problems, like the high percentage of drop-outs.
Any attempt to improve this incredible system with proper policies is bound to be extremely difficult.
But you cannot just design policies and impose them. The first step is to understand the dynamics of
the environment and to seek common ground and support.
Actors and Stakeholders
256
Who are the actors involved in the environment related to the policy domain?
Actors are responsible for implementation of the policy. Actors may include:
Ministries and/or departments of ministries, local administration etc;
Special governmental agencies charged with (part of) implementation, like the police an
ombudsman etc;
Entities external to the government, like CSO‟s, Chamber of Commerce, School Boards,
Quango‟s, Trade Unions etc, charged with specific policy responsibilities
Other entities: companies, sport clubs etc
Individual citizens
Make a comprehensive list of these groups of actors, indicating what is expected from each of them
and what means they get in order to assume responsibility.
Stakeholders are all entities (might be groups of individual citizens living in a particular area, CSO‟s
operating in a particular domain, companies active in a particular branch etc) who take an active or
passive interest in the policy. Some might be beneficiaries others might be „victims‟.
Make a comprehensive list of stakeholders as well, and find out whether they take an active of passive
interest in the policy and whether they are clearly beneficiaries or perhaps victims. How does the
policy affect each of the stakeholders. And next: try to find out what response policies to existing
policies they are pursuing.
Do check whether attention has been paid to all possible stakeholders from all spheres in society. This
is especially important when it comes to analyzing response patterns, for they tend to be quite different
from different spheres and this can be very surprising. Usually in a negative way
With possible response policies or patterns we will deal later
Q.A.2.5. How to analyze existing public policies ?
Two types of policies in practice to be analyzed:
Implicit policies (always policies-in-practice! Those carried out in spheres
other than the public, governmental sphere can be called „common
policies‟)
Explicit policies
Implicit policies include all traditional, customary, common sense and roughly designed ways of
coping with situations. Human life and human societies work by means of policies. Parents educate
their children in a particular way in order to introduce them to society and help them to develop
257
themselves. Schools provide support policies and so do churches and sport clubs. Most of it is based in
tacit knowledge. Most of the time we are hardly aware we are in fact acting according to a policy plan.
Until recently most of public administration activity would fall in the category of implicit policies.
Governments raise taxes, build and maintain roads, introduce some traffic regulations and policy to
check whether people abbey these regulation, make sure an ambulance is ready to carry the wounded
from a traffic accident to hospital etc. All this was never designed in any integral way. Much rather it is
the result of a number of decisions during some period of time to keep things under control, solve
problems and achieve some goals in a somewhat ad hoc manner. Implicit policies are almost always
the result of uncoordinated incremental activities.
How to analyze implicit public policies?
First of all the implicit policy has to be made explicit in order to analyze them.
Second, the implicit policy made explicit is analyzed in the same way as explicit policies.
So the question is how to make explicit what is implicit?
We assume nothing is done without purpose. Each human activity is geared towards some end. Behind
each implicit policy is a pattern that bestows meaning on the policy. In part I we discussed patterns
extensively. Here we will just state that terms like „problem‟, „purpose‟, „goal‟, „meaning‟ are always part
of a pattern. It is useful to describe the pattern that is likely to be the background of the policy. As well
as its MAGIC to maintain itself as a pattern. Without MAGIC patterns have no resilience and will
quickly fade out or enfold. This means we have to ask ourselves:
- M:Which are its maintenance features: how does it manage to be credible
- A: How does it adapt itself to changing environments
- G: To what extent does it realize goals
- I: How does it integrate different elements into one pattern
- C: what charismatic people are active
Policies play a role within one or more patterns, which are supported by stakeholders. There are
policies of maintenance, policies of adaptation, policies of goal attainment, policies of integration and
even policies of charismatic people to boost the pattern.
Example: social service pattern Red Light District
Let us go back to the original illustration: the social service centre in the Amsterdam Red Light District
The centre was part of a pattern to which churches adhered to, as well as lots of individual citizens. We
may call it „Christian presence in the world‟ to use this term which was so popular in the 50‟ies of the
20th century. The service centre was an expression of that „presence‟.
What did the centre do in terms of maintenance?
It was itself an expression of maintenance of credibility. But the centre did much to convince
supporters and donors that the centre worked well and meaningfully. We may call this PR.
258
What did the centre do to adapt to changing environments? A lot. Once it became clear the entire
neighborhood was becoming derelict, the centre started a foundation to buy houses n the area and
make sure respectable people, offices and restaurants were using these houses, rather than nightclubs
and brothels. Once it became clear there were many people living there without any medical insurance,
a medical post was established to offer free medical help. And so on.
What did the centre do to reach its goals? Many maintenance and adaptation goals were concretized in
concrete projects: a PR-project, a medical service project, a social/juridical assistance project and so
on. Each with its concrete goals.
What did the centre do to keep itself coherent and integrated? Basically two ways: an organizational
network was set up that connected different activities organizationally. And secondly there were daily
meetings in a small chapel for all staff and volunteers, plus regular work meetings and board meetings
to make sure different activities were integrated with a synergetic effect.
And was there any charisma? Yes, there was. For years the centre was strongly dependent on the
director Rolf Boiten who was the „voice‟ of the centre and who was also seen by different supporting
churches as the „voice of Christian presence‟ in the world. He was quite a well-know figure in
Amsterdam and even the municipality acknowledges his authority.
The result is that a number of implicit common maintenance and integration policies will be revealed.
More easily to discover are policies geared to goal attainment and adaptation. They are much more
visible.
Likewise the student can draw a map of the pattern that was relevant to the municipality and the
resulting public policy that flowed from it. Next maps can be drawn from patterns relevant to the
clients of the centre that were in need and turned to the centre to be helped. That pattern may help to
predict responses to the policy of the centre and the policy of the Amsterdam government. Finally we
may draw maps from patterns to which the pimps and the police are tuned in.
See for „presence in the world‟: Jacques Ellul, Présence au Monde Moderne, Geneve, 1948.
Now let us be somewhat more concrete and general as regards the (mostly implicit) public policies of
the local government. We do this with the example of the Amsterdam service centre in our mind.
As to the activities of a public administration department in general: We make an inventory of its
mission and vision (maintenance and credibility); its attempts to keep an eye on trends and changing
environments and how the administration is using the feedback to adapt its policies; the concrete
policy goals; its attempts to coordinate all activities, make sure there is coherence and integration so as
to achieve some synergy; and finally we study what „charismatic‟ people play a crucial role, or lack of
such people.
Next we make an inventory of concrete deliverables or output. It could well be that the people involved
in a particular activity are not clearly aware of the expected deliverable. Once we know what output is
produced, we ask the following questions:
259
- What purpose is this output serving? What is the ultimate goal to be
achieved?
- What other supportive activities are being carried out? And how does the
underlying pattern looks like?
- Who is responsible for carrying out the activities (who are the actors)
We may choose a particular public policy, which can be a PR-policy, an institutional arrangement, like
setting up a social service centre, an adaptation of the law, a financial incentive, or whatever. Such
activities serve one or more goals. Which are these goals? And how do planned activities relate to these
goals? The answers to these 2 questions should help drawing a „tree of policy elements‟. The tree is
revealing the basic structure of the implicit policy design, now made explicit.
Other questions are also useful in order to draft a more complete picture of the implicit policy:
- On what problem definition is the implicit policy based? Who defined?
- On what assumptions are the activities based. In other words, why these
activities and not other activities?
- Which patterns of which stakeholders are affected by the policies? And
how?
Basic questions that apply to the public policy-in-practice now follow:
- What can be said about the effectiveness of the activities together and
individually?
- Do all actors in the process (sometimes coming from different spheres)
understand their responsibilities and what can be said about their
contribution?
- Which are the negative and positive side effects? In which spheres?
- How do the stakeholders and beneficiaries respond? Are they supporting
the policy or obstructing or trying to force the policy to their own will? How
solid is the social support basis? What related common policies do the
stakeholders and beneficiaries pursue and to what extent are these common
policies in harmony with the implicit public policy? Or are they at
loggerheads with one another? How do the stakeholders and beneficiaries
try to combine their common policies with the implicit public policy?
- Is there any (implicit) feedback mechanism that tells the executive that they
are on the right or wrong track? Is there a mechanism of accountability, i.e.
are stakeholders and/or beneficiaries in the position to provide feedback
and ask the executive to account for the policy?
Explicit policies. With explicit policies a very similar type of analysis applies. The difference with
implicit policies is that basically the structure of the policy is known (according to the policy design as
presented in the policy document). But you must find out whether this basic structure is in actual fact
260
applied. Or is it (maybe tacitly) replaced by a different structure? This means that in actual fact the
analysis needed follows the one that is used for implicit policies.
Q.A.2.6. How to analyze public policy designs?
Here we deal with policy designs already written out in a policy paper. So in the paper you should find
a description of all elements of the policy: activities and goals. Which policy elements (goals, subgaols,
activities, instruments, etc.) are mentioned in the policy paper? And how are they related to each
other? In other words, the first step is about the policy structure
Next policy analysis is about the question why a particular design is seen to be effective. Please note:
the question whether it in fact is effective, is an evaluative question. We will deal with this in the
paragraph on evaluation.
Next policy analysis is about comparing with similar policies in similar situations in order to learn why
particular elements are effective or ineffective and to get new ideas.
Structure of the policy
Essentially policy analysis of an explicit policy is done by carefully reading the policy paper. The idea is
to depict the policy paper as a „tree of objectives‟, i.e. to see what its goals and sub-goals are and what
its planned activities are, meant to realize these goals. Put differently: to discover its logic of finality.
But no policy paper makes sense if not seen against the background of an environment that is
considered to be problematic or imperfect and in need of some perfection. And what is more, no policy
paper will make sense either if not seen in its value perspective or ideological perspective (sometimes
called „ value horizon). We will not have any opinion about any environment if we do not have the
slightest idea how things „should be‟. Without any feeling for values anything will do. Survival is a basic
value, but as human beings are not solitary beings but social beings, survival implies social survival
and hence some social values. Most people understand there is more than just survival and happiness
that is worth living for.
Above I stated that patterns and policies have a partner in „moral dialogue‟
What is important is that apparently people have some ideas of right and wrong, justice and injustice
in mind as they are looking at their environment. So they desire some changes to the good. For
themselves and sometimes for others as well. If not, policies do not make any sense at all, apart from
being instruments of mere power.
So, we will have to take into account the particular value-horizon in order to understand its
interpretation of the environment, its problem definition and its choice of goals to achieve.
Now we are ready to study the text. From each sentence in the policy paper you have to find out
whether it is:
261
1. descriptive and/or informative: it describes and provides information about the environment;
for instance it describes existing problems
2. interpretive: it reveals how the environment is interpreted and what is seen as problematic
and why. So we search for problem definitions, desirable ends to be achieved and also for
explicit statements about values that serve as a value-horizon. If there are no such explicit
statements there will be some hidden implicit values in the text and it is useful to discover
them.
3. indicative: contains one or more policy elements, i.e. objectives, activities, results to be
achieved, means to be used.
Ad.1. Descriptive sentences for example say something about the present situation of the environment,
or they given an opinion about the present situation, or they make a statement about the causes of the
present situation, or they give a prognosis about the future.
Important is to find out what is seen to be the main problem, why it is seen as a problem that has to be
tackled and what is the main objective to be realized and why this objective is seen to be of value.
Typical examples of descriptive sentences look like:
“The situation in our city can be characterized by poor infrastructure and a general feeling that the city
is not safe.”
“Neighborhood improvement has top-priority”.
“ The number of drop-outs from school increased with x% during the past 2 years”
“Unemployment is on the rise in our region with x % per year.”
“ 60% of the respondents have little or no confidence in the present government”
“ the number of people with positive expectations about economic development is on the decrease”
Often the cooperation with related policies of other policy designs is described.
„In order to get there, working together with the ministry of infrastructure is necessary‟, or even more
explicit: „ a particular infrastructural policy is necessary as a support policy‟
Often information is given about situations in other countries, followed by information about policies
that were developed.
Ad 2. Interpretive sentences reveal why the environment is viewed and interpreted as problematical
and what changes in the environment seem desirable. So it adds a new dimension to the descriptive
analysis. Description states what is. Interpretation tries to provide an explanation why things are as
they are and why they are not as they should be.
On the basis of interpretations problems and objectives are defined. Interpretations may include
interpretations of citizens, of experts, politicians, civil servants etc. Interpretive sentences reveal basic
attitudes and values and explain why a particular policy approach is suggested.
262
“As a consequence of what happened X years ago, we now are confronted with Y.”
“When nothing is done, in the coming years Y will soon be the case”
“The main reason why so few students from the Caribbean return to their island after graduation is the
limited career perspective.”
“ The number of dengue cases is posing a serious threat to public health”
“ income inequality has reached unacceptable levels”
But they also include sentences that contain a problem formulation or a description of the ideal
situation to be realized in the future.
“the unemployment rate of x is unacceptable and needs to be reduced with y% over the next 12
months”
“ corruption and lack of integrity of highly ranked civil servants is seen to be a main obstacle to good
governance....therefore measures to create conditions for integrity need to be developed and
introduced”
Ad3. Indicative sentences that indicate what policy elements will be used in the policy proposed. Policy
elements are:
- values, norms or an ideological program
- objectives, goals, aims,
- strategic activities
- concrete activities and instruments, tools
- results (output) of activities
- side-effects
- means, financial, organizational etc
When sentences in the policy paper describe something that should be in the future, there is likely to
be also an indication regarding the action that is needed, or the results to be achieved by the action .
All such sentences contain policy elements. Finally there might be an indication why this is seen to be
desirable? Maybe even an entire argumentation.
For example:
“In five years from now we hope to have reduced the number of drop-outs with 50%.” This sentence
indicates that reduction of 50% is a goal. At the same time it shows measurable the indicator: 50%
reduction
263
“We plan to provide after-school programs in order to keep youngsters from the street. This will
hamper their educational development. And what is more, spending too much time on the street is
increasing the chance that they get involved in a street gang” This sentence describes the after school
program as a policy instrument and it also provides an (value based) argumentation.
“In order to reduce the number of drop-outs, it will be necessary to introduce after-school programs.”
This sentence shows the after-school program is considered as (on of the) instruments to achieve the
desired reduction of drop-outs.
Note that policy elements tend to be linked by means of words that reveal a logic of finality:
- in order to....
- so that.....
- in view of.....
- in order to realize.....
- as a result of....
After having identified all the policy instruments, we can put them together in a scheme (tree of policy
elements) that more or less looks like the one above.
Now we are ready to make a summary of the policy:
brief description of background/environment etc with some basis data
problem and/or goal formulation: what needs to be done and why (argumentation)
tree of policy elements
This means we now have an overview of the structure of the policy paper, its relation with other
policies and its intended impact on the policy environment.
Often a policy plan is schematically presented by means of a logframe (see above). The logframe
provides a clear overview of what the policy is about.
Please note that the same exercise applies to policies that are put into practice, consciously or even
unconsciously, but which are not written out in a policy paper. Many people, companies and
governments perform a series of actions that together are geared to a particular goal. This is fact is the
policy they are pursuing.
In case there is no policy paper available, we may discover the policy by means of interviews and
statements.
Q.A.2.7. Why are assumptions so extremely important for policies?
All policy elements are based on assumptions. Each sphere has its own distinctive assumptions, about
privacy, the market, freedom of speech etc. Assumptions often remain implicit. Nobody is talking
about them. It is the tacit knowledge that is at work but we are not really conscious of it. Tacit
264
knowledge that concerns relevant assumptions needs to be made explicit. For nothing makes sense
without certain assumptions. Or, nothing makes sense outside a pettern. If do not take this into
account we will be in for surprises. All sorts of unexpected response policies may pop up.
The idea of policy analysis is to make assumptions explicit. Once explicit the question can be raised: is
the assumption justified. If so, everything is OK. If not there is a risk involved, namely that the policy
will not work. Risks are based on assumptions.
Assumptions are contained in all „of course‟ statements, or „of course‟ answers. Or similar expressions,
like „naturally‟, „ as a matter of fact‟, by principle‟, „obviously‟ etc .
Assumptions can be:
Value judgments
Norms that are supposed to be shared (as embodied in habits, attitudes and mores)
Statements of facts that seem certain (situation definitions)
Trends that are supposed to take place; or the opposite: a situation of apparent stability to be
foreseen;
Financial conditions that should be fulfilled and willingness to make financial means available;
HR conditions that should be fulfilled;
Existence of a social support basis;
Commitment of a „ sponsor‟ (usually the executive);
Commitment of other actors.
Together such assumptions (notably the frist 2) reveal an underlying pattern. If such assumptions are
shared by the policy actor and the majority of beneficiaries (stakeholders), especially when it fits a
sphere, it means they share a pattern and it is likely that the policy will be a success. Slight changes
and improvements can be achieved by nudging people into the desired behavior, in conformity to the
pattern they uphold.
Q.A.2.8. What is the link between assumptions, critical success factors and risks?
Unjustified assumptions are risks. This is the case if a number of stakeholders have different opinions
about such assumptions. If there is no broadly supported pattern. If there is no chance nudging people
into the desired behavior.
Or this is the case if a particular favorable trend is assumed, or political stability and so on, while the
assumption is based on thin evidence. Often we see that wishful thinking is the father of a positive risk
analysis.
If the risks seem high, some activity should be introduced into the policy structure to reduce the risk or
better start all over again with the deliberation process. Factors that the policy actor may influence, we
may label internal assumptions. For instance the readiness of actors to participate. However most
factors are entirely beyond the policy actor‟s influence. Like international trends.
265
For instance: the commitment of some actors is very uncertain. So, an advocacy campaign should to be
part of the policy. But if the policy ideas are at loggerheads with existing patterns or spheres, such
campaigns are a waste of money.
Or it is doubtful whether there is sufficient HR-capacity. So, a series of trainings is introduced into the
policy. For instance, an afterschool program is a brilliant idea to keep youngsters from the street. But
whether it is successful depends very much on co-operation with parents and on the likelihood that
teachers and/or other people can be found to conduct an after school program.
But what to do with the risk of an international financial crisis? It is exactly this reason that is used as
an argument against a comprehensive policy model and for an incremental model. For an incremental
model is more adaptable to new situations.
Let us put all this differently: assumptions reveal critical success factors.
Nota bene: critical success factors point to something which in principle is under the policy actors
control! If it is outside the realm of his control, you are dealing with an assumption! The distinction
between critical success factors and assumptions is crucial.
Q.A.2.9. what types of assumptions may we discern?
Assumptions concern:
Trends: demographic, economic, financial, political, cultural etc
Response policies: how are the stakeholders and beneficiaries and possibly others going to
respond? Will they support or creatively find alternative habits etc
Policies in related areas: maybe a particular economic policy is of importance and it is a. not
sure whether this policy will be continued; and/or b. it is unclear what the response policies
will be. So as a result there is much to assume.
Political development: will there be political continuity or change and will the change affect
the policy? Or in the case of a legal instrument, it might be doubtful whether the new law will
pass the parliament.
Methodological: in some cases there will be important or crucial methodological assumptions.
Especially in areas like financial, educational, social assistance.
Sufficiency of means: financial, human capacity and expertise. Usually this aspect is clear, but
that does not mean it gets attention. So let us elaborate a bit:
266
Financial: In order to get a clear picture of the assumptions of the policy under investigation, you need
to get empirical data regarding:
a. Costs involved to carry out the policy activities and availability of financial means, in both
the short and long run
b. Number of beneficiaries and „victims‟, followed by an estimate of benefits and an estimate
of the balance between costs and benefits
c. Costs of additional negative effects and possible additional benefits
d. Costs of problems if nothing is being done
Human Capacity:
a. Policies need to be prepared and carried out ant that requires human capacity of various
sorts: varying from maintenance, monitoring, evaluation, adaptation, sanctioning and so
on.
b. Availability of human resources with institutions (institutional arrangements, private
partners) that might be needed to carry out the policy (like external evaluation)
c. Specific professional expertise is often needed
How are assumptions related to patterns?
As we saw above, good policies can be viewed as coherent patterns with a sufficient measure of synergy
between different strategic elements. But each policy is also in need of support by related policies and
the question is whether there is a sufficient level of synergy between policies in different domains. Put
differently, the question is whether a much needed support policy is in harmony with relevant
patterns. If not the effectiveness of the support policy and the main policy is at risk. So here
assumptions need to be investigated as well.
Furthermore, each pattern is based on a number of basic values (for instance: market principles and
fair competition; or equal chances for everybody to follow suitable education, or class justice must be
avoided, or a free press, or a set of fundamentalist micro ethics etc. As long as these basic values are
coherent with the surrounding culture and sphere, the policy is likely to be welcomed. If not there will
be trouble with at least some stakeholders. Some awkward and undesirable response policies may
emerge.
For example, welfare policies and educational policies based on market values do not fit (non-Anglo-
Saxon) European culture well. Welfare workers and teachers cannot be compared with entrepreneurs
and should not be expected to run a „business‟ and make profit, so most people in most European
continental countries would say. As a result „ business incentives‟ have quite a different effect in
different cultures. Anglo-Saxon culture is likely to make a positive use of it, but whether other
European countries will respond positively remains to be seen.
Likewise, policies flowing from „ reinventing government‟ fit competitive societies as England and
Australia well, but in central and northern European countries who decide to adopt outsourcing
267
policies for governments such policies fail because such policies cannot easily get embedded in society
and culture.
Q.A.2.10.Why is comparative policy analysis useful? And how should it be conducted?
Now it is time to consider comparative analysis. Problematic issues occur in all countries and all
countries have discovered ways to cope with problematic issues. In other words they have developed
consciously or unconsciously policies to deal with problems and to realize desirable goals.
That means we can learn from one another. It could well be that other cities or countries have
discovered some bright policy ideas that may well be applicable.
The obvious thing to learn is to find out:
a. Which city or country has a similar environment with similar patterns?
b. Do the same problems occur in this similar environment? What were the problem definitions?
c. If no similar problem occurred: why not? Maybe some effective measures have been taken to
prevent the problem from emerging. This might provide very important information. Maybe
the measures taken form together a policy and maybe some of these policy elements can be
used in a different place. Maybe pattern embedment is very different here.
d. If yes: what are or were they doing to cope with the problematic situation? Have they perhaps
developed an interesting policy design? And does that policy have some positive effect?
a. If yes, it is worth considering
b. If no, it might be a warning that the instruments used are a waste of time, energy and
funds
e. What evaluation studies are available and what do they say about the evaluated policies?
f. What academic research has been carried out and what are its conclusions?
The less obvious thing to do is to contact people (notably the policy actor, the beneficiaries, the
stakeholders) and discuss the relevant policy with them. Almost always you learn most from a personal
discussion.
Q. A.2.11. How to predict response policies or patterns?
This particular aspect of policy analysis is still in its infancy. Yet it is important.
Different methods to „predict the future‟ abound, varying from Maya calculations to statistical
regularities, from cyclical movements to intuitions regarding fashionable trends. The Dutch Fred Polak
(1907 – 1985) coined the science of the future: „futurology‟. His most important work „The Image of
the Future‟ (1973) attracked much international attention. Polak wrote about the mental
capacity of man „to categorize and reorder reality within the self (present reality) and in relation to
perceptions of the not-self (the Other) enable him to be a citizen of two worlds: the present and the
268
imagined. Out of this antithesis is the future is born‟. I.e. man will start anticipating the imagined
future. Polak then continues: „Man's dualism is thus the indispensable prerequisite to the movement
of events in time, and to the dynamics of historical change‟…. In this work we are, in a sense, taking the
existence of images of the future as given and tracing out the effects of their existence on the course of
history‟(p 23). His viewpoint is rather activist. He strongly believes in the free capacity of man to create
a new image of the future, pointing to movements in history where this happened: Renaissance,
Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution. Though he is also aware of man‟s habit to cling to past patterns
with which he feels secure. His basic ideas, in which cultural patterns play an important role, I would
embrace, but not the very broad way he works them out
I am afraid we have to cope with a much more complicated view of pattern dynamics, with different
patterns co-existing, affecting our minds and even our imagination, moving us into a certain
direction, until we start getting doubts and our dualism is, as it were, activated to critically observe
which direction we are heading. So I do not believe we can do much in terms of predictions. But what
we can do is point to a number of choices, based on a number of possible patterns and ask the
question: if we opt for this or that pattern, what will be the consequences? In other words, patterns
and pattern analysis may spark future awareness, and, hopefully, better choices.
The famous maxim of Arthur Clarke that „future isn‟t what it used to be‟, can be applied to pattern
theory. For our viewpoints spring from patterns. If we change patterns, we change viewpoints,
including our viewpoint of the future.
Above we discussed in some detail that policies do not operate in a mechanical environment, full of
dummies who will respond predictably. Policies operate in a human and social environment and one
can be sure that individuals and stakeholders will all respond in their own unique way. Sometimes
supporting the policy and even improving its effects. Sometimes opposing the policy and obstructing
its effects, causing a negative backlash. Sometimes the policy is used to pursue an unexpected course in
a creative way, adapting it or using it for different purposes.
Usually the response is a mixture of support, adaptation, opposition and creative innovation.
All too often policies achieve the opposite of what they were intended for, a backlash. We have called
this the policy-paradox.
See: F.E.Polak, The Image of the Future (translated and abridged by Elise Boulding), 1973; Amenta, E and Skocpol, T. States
and Social Policies, in Annual Rev. Sociology, 1986, nr 12
To predict response polices or patterns we first need to get a clear picture of present patterns that
relevant stakeholders adhere to. And we need to know whether a pattern is just resilient or rigid. In
other words, the difference between healthy resilience and unhealthy rigidity is the way the adhere to a
pattern. Do they adhere to the pattern in a relatively reasonable and relaxed way, or do they
passionately cling to it because they feel insecure and threatened. That leads to rigidity. Put differently,
are they able to relativize things or are they in a mood to take everything bloody seriously. This
depends very much on the environment. The more turbulent the environment is, the more people tend
to cling to trusted patterns.
269
We already gave lots of indications and examples how to describe or analyze patterns. So let us sum
up:
We need to identify and describe the following elements in patterns of relevant stakeholders:
Basic attitudes and assumptions; including elementary „theories‟ how the world works and
why people act as they seem to do, including problem definitions; and values and ideals or
objectives we would like to realize; and including judgments and problem definitions that flow
from it. Note the difference between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge! (we discussed
that in part I).
Habits, mores, norms which characterize their daily way of working and living together: the
common ways of acting and judging and expecting others to act.
Readymade solutions and model-solutions, including more refined methods and methodology
and common policies , considered to be„common sense‟, to deal with problematic situations or
to deny the existence of a problem.
Concepts, words, metaphors and slogans: metaphors in particular are important. Plus the
typical jargon-characteristics.
Next step: try to find out whether people adhering to other patterns are considered to be a challenge.
How does the stakeholder population respond to such challenges. His will lead us to the question how
MAGIC is performed. (see part I)
An understanding of response patterns rests on insight in:
The agenda of the stakeholder: what is his priority? What does he want to achieve? How does
he want to change the policy environment?
Does he see the policy as a possible instrument to realize his goals directly? Or is he perhaps
willing to co-operate in order to gain something else (does the policy have an exchange value?)
and if that is the case, what is it?
Is he perhaps pretending to agree (in order to maintain a friendly relationship) but in fact
intending to obstruct?
How does the environment look like: stable and clearly set out, or complex, unfathomable,
threatening. This will result in either resilience or rigidity.
At this stage it is helpful to practice „policy imagination‟. As a policy expert try to imagine how the
stakeholder(population) might respond to a policy. The next step is in fact to verify whether this is
indeed the case. If so, it is a strong indication that: 1. pattern analysis was carried out well; and 2.
Policy imagination was carried out well.
So, now can we raise the question how in real life the stakeholder (population) understands the policy.
Next question is whether and how they have changed their behavior as a result of the policy. Has the
policy changed their environment, the question is how they have adapted to the new environment.
Do they see new challenges and how did they respond to the new challenges?
If they oppose the policy (or parts of it) the question is what they do to minimize its effects or whether
they have embarked on a course to obstruct the policy implementation.
270
It is clear that a good communication with stakeholders will help you to predict possible response
patterns better.
This analysis will give insight in the relative strength of the social support basis. If positive response
patterns dominate we say there is a solid social support basis.
All policies spark response policies. By studying response patterns it will eventually be possible to
anticipate responses when designing policies, but so far we have little insight in the ways people may
respond.
Indeed our insight in response patterns is still limited. There are some exceptions though. A typical
and well-known one: policies that forbid the use of alcohol or drugs, as they are supposed to harm
health. As a response smuggling, home distilleries and the so-called „coffee shops‟ will surely
mushroom and create serious problems with public health and substance related crime.
Less widely known is this one: in order to protect tenants against the law regarding letting and renting,
the Dutch law was revised in such a way to protect tenants against the whims of house owners. The
result of this adaptation was that contracts with tenants could not be terminated by land lords so easily
anymore. Is the new law really in the interest of the tenant? As a result few house owners let their
houses, apartments and room anymore and an enormous shortage is the unpredicted and undesirable
outcome. The behavior of the owners is a typical response policy.
Likewise the meanwhile notorious Law nr 18 in Italy is meant to protect employees against employers
who desire to fire an employee for dubious reasons. Employees who get fired go to their trade union,
get a lawyer and after a while the judge will force the employer to undo the dismissal. The end result is
a stagnating economy and high unemployment, which is not in the interest of employees. The danger
of a policy paradox is lurking anytime. Protection is important, but overprotection should be avoided.
Policy development is indeed about finding the „middle road‟.
A positive example is the separation of household waste in different sections. It was first introduced in
Switzerland. It was of course a citizens‟ initiative, as most policies in Switzerland. The idea is that
citizens will put organic waste, glass, plastics and the rest in separate dustbins. This help to recycle
materials efficiently. The policy is heavily dependent on a positive response pattern by citizens. In
actual fact it requires full compliance. And in actual fact the Swiss did respond the way they were
expected to.
Point of attention: The importance of embedment.
Before we compared policies with plants and trees in a garden. They do not grow alone. They need one
another anyway. We are inclined to describe, analyze and assess policies as individual entities. In fact
271
we did so in this chapter. That is why we have to remind ourselves that there is another dimension that
should not be overlooked: embedment. All policies, explicit and implicit, common and public, interact
with one another. All policies have an impact on patterns in the different spheres of society. Some
support each other. Some appear to be obstacles to one or more related policies.
In practice this means we should draw a policy map that shows how policies interact positively and
negatively. How some policies are causes of problems that require new policies to solve them. And how
some policies play a crucial role in that they render several other policies redundant. Plus attention for
stakeholders who benefit from policies or who get harmed by policies. This, as we know by now, is the
origin of response policies, as common policies of stakeholders who naturally need to respond to
official policies that affect their lives.
In other words, each single policy is like a small element in a big picture. The meaning of that small
element is given by the picture, more than by the element itself.
General conclusion
Each team of policy experts should have a clear picture:
of the entire policy environment of the policy domain for which it is responsible (educational,
infrastructural etc), including the relevant sphere with it distinctive framework pattern
of the problems perceived by different actors, as well as they way they are interpreted
of all implicit and explicit policies that are at work
of the assumptions on which the policies are based
of the values and/or ideologies/ patterns in which the policies are embedded
of their relative effectiveness
of its possible and actual response patterns or policies
of their relative value in relation to comparable policies in other countries/cities etc
of as much data as possible to substantiate the findings listed above.
272
3.How to assess the workability or feasibility of policies?
James Clarke: „bad policies deal with today, good policies with tomorrow‟
By way of summary TABLE OF CONTENTS II: Q.A.3.
Question/
paragraph
Issues Page
Q. A.3.1. Why so many public policies fail 272
Q. A.3.2 What does it mean that a policy is effective? 273
Q. A.3.3 How to be sure a policy works? 274
Q. A.3.4 Quality criteria for public policies 275
Q.A.3.1. Why are so many public policies failures?
Let us start with listing some common failures. The failures flow from what has been written before.
Here is a list with main reasons that occur frequently:
lack of synergy with policies in related policy domains and/or relevant common policies
too big ambitions: often on the basis of rigid assumptions and/or great ideologies, especially
with the rational-comprehensive model
poor understanding of the environment and sphere (often a complete ignorance about
spheres, patterns and framework patterns)
as a result: poor anticipation on environmental changes and/or long term effects of policy
implementation and possible negative response policies
poor policy instrumentation: choice of instrumentation not well considered;
little cooperation with stakeholders to carry out the policy
poor monitoring and sometimes absence of regular evaluations: so no use of feedback to adapt
the policy to new circumstances
organization of the implementation is weak, or is too centralized with little feed back
weak social support basis: co-operation with stakeholders is weak or non-existent.
Absence of a legal basis: some governments develop policies that cause friction with existing
national or international laws
The last two issues need some additional attention.
A weak social support basis is an indication that other patterns are at work, that do not fit the public
policy. New circumstances may also stimulate new patterns to unfold which are contrary to the public
273
policy. For instance, a policy of dialogue and consultation may be disrupted when suddenly one of the
partners in dialogue snaps his fingers at it and is just going its own way. People get angry, conclude
that such a policy or strategy does not work and demand a more decisive attitude from the government
and similar policy.
In other words, like in organizations, the baseline is that everything works if people put their shoulders
to the wheel and nothing works if people do not enthusiastically cooperate. This implies that
deliberation and communication are of crucial importance during all phases of the policy.
Friction with the law does occur regularly. In The Netherlands several governments have attempted to
develop policies and laws to send problematic youth from the Netherlands Antilles (until 2010 part of
the Kingdom of The Netherlands) back to the island where they were born. All these attempts turned
out to be in contradiction with the law that forbids discrimination. All citizens of the Kingdom of the
Netherlands have equal rights to travel and to choose their domicile freely. In general policies to limit
immigration quickly cause friction with basic human rights. Likewise there are policies in the realm of
infrastructure that impinge on town and country plans which were officially approved and legalized.
Other policies or policy instruments may impinge on basic rights of privacy. The tapping of telephones
might be a useful instrument in policies to combat terrorism, but the policy instrument might also be
contrary to the law. Once an investigative journalist reports on what is happening, the entire policy
might have to be revised.
Q.A.3.2.What does it mean that a policy is effective?
“A good policy may satisfy millions of citizens convinced of the perfections of technological civilization,
until they realize the imperfect cannot design the perfect.....”. (combining Roland Barthes, L‟Empire de
signes, 1982, and Jacques Ellul, L‟Empire du non-sens, 1980)
To say that a policy „works‟ is another way of saying that a policy is effective. This is a simple and
practical way of looking at effectiveness. OK, but we are not talking about machinery. We are talking
about human societies and although it is sometimes forgotten, but human societies consist of human
beings who are, unlike ants and bees, reflective beings. In the long run, only those policies work which
are carried out in collaboration with the „target group‟, the human beings for which the policy was
intended. In other words, policies that stimulate people to think and to respond accordingly. In other
words, policies that incite supportive response patterns, or replace dysfunctional patterns for a new
patterns which are more beneficial.
During the last 2 decennia there were lots of green campaigns to raise public awareness about the
importance of green consciousness and green consumption. However with poor results. Neither
educational programs nor the introduction of eco-labels with information and television spots were
effective. Lots of research projects in different countries came to similar conclusions which were
depressing for green-fanatics. Until somebody discovered that the use of simple stars on products did
have an effect. No information. Just a few stars. One star indicating that the product was not made by
274
slaves in notorious sweatshops. A second one indicating the product is ecological friendly and a third
star indicating the product is not causing health problems. The star system apparently did have an
effect in combination with a star-awareness campaign. Just this ***. Which by the way is not the same
as: xxx. But maybe people feel that *** deserves xxx and therefore buy the product. Or....the *** work
as a signal to start thinking or reflecting..... Interesting campaign.
See D. Coleman, Ecological Intelligence, 2009
Interesting is the comparison with policies to reduce smoking. According to laws in many European
countries producers of cigarettes and other tobacco products have to print slogans like “Smoking kills”
on all their products. And not in small letters, but in large black letters on a white background that
slaps you in the face. Maybe a simple black spot, indicating that smoking is harmful to health, might be
more effective than these fearful texts. At least that is what research seems to indicate: subtlety is more
efficient that emphasis. Or as common sense would tell us: „to stress your point is to lose your point‟.
Anyway, the obligation to print these stars or these slogans on packages of cigarettes is a policy
instrument. The goal of this policy instrument is to increase the consumption of health food and
discourage people to use unhealthy food or get addicted to smoking. The part of the population
unaware of health risks is called the target group of this policy.
This star-policy and the anti-smoking policy works if the implementation of the policy has the effect
that at least a part of the population actually starts buying healthy food and stops smoking.
The larger the percentage of positive respondents, the better the policy works, or the more effective the
policy is.
Both instruments are unlikely to have any effect if they do not quietly suggest that an old pattern of
thinking about health and behaving unhealthily are not really conducive to well-being. Once people
become aware of the benefits of health food, organic food, non-processed food etc, such policy
instruments will simply „nudge‟ people into another type of behavior. This shows that a simple policy
instrument like stars or slogans is unlikely to have any effect at all, if other instruments (awareness
campaigns) are not moving people into an alternative pattern. That means that much attention should
be given to „health food patterns and life style‟. This is indeed the case. And we may expect some effects
before long.
Q.A.3.3. How can we be sure a policy works?
It is tempting to just declare after a while the policy proved to be successful. Good examples can always
be found. To evade subjectivism, policies should include clear, and preferably, measurable indicators
for success. So, it should state for instance that the number of smokers decreased by x% during the
policy implementation period and the increase of turn-over of healthy food products. An indicator is: a
275
quantitative or qualitative factor that provides an indication regarding the actual results of a particular
policy activity.
But how can we be sure the number of smokers is affected by the policy? Maybe smoking is no longer
trendy. Maybe the number of non-smoking people who dare to protest when somebody is smoking,
has increased and has reached the so-called „tipping point‟. Maybe some medical facts that were
published on internet had a strong impact. Maybe another habit (gambling or heavy eating) has
replaced the habit of smoking. Or maybe the interest in health foods has an interesting side effect,
namely a decrease in smoking appetite.
That is why policy research is crucial. It is similar to opinion research before and after elections to find
out which part of the electorate changed its political color, when and why.
Now we are going to put this in more general terms and draw some general conclusions:
A policy works, or is effective if it succeeds in changing the behavior of the target group in the direction
of the policy‟s goals during a long period of time. Bad policies spark response patterns which are at
loggerheads with the policy‟s intention, as might be the case with the „smoking kills‟ policy.
By the way the „policy paradox‟ might be at work here as well. Strong policy elements might generate
an adverse effect. The big black letters „smoking this cigarette will kill you‟, may also be read as a
stimulus to enjoy an adventure with the „forbidden fruit‟. Campaigns that are too explicit might indeed
have an adverse effect and spark a destructive response pattern. To stress your point is to lose your
point. That is one of the reasons why the simple star policy appeared to be more effective.
Good policies spark a response policy which is in harmony with the policy‟s intentions and supports it.
Like in the „star-policy‟. Good policies are policies that manage to spark response patterns or policies
that are in harmony with the policy and are hence supportive and constructive. A „nudge‟ might be
sufficient.
Before we drew attention to Roman philosopher Cicero, who, inspired by Aristotle, emphasized that
public governance should be characterized by „ prudentia‟, which is the art of foreseeing the effects of
policy decisions and anticipating desirable responses. We stressed the need for policies to increase the
coherency patterns (assuming they are not destructive), arguing that coherence leads to sustainability
and effectiveness. We also argued that policies in related domains should also be in harmony with one
another and create synergy. The same applies to response policies. Inter-coherence and intra-
coherence are crucial to effectiveness and sustainability of policies.
Q.A.3.4. Which are possible quality criteria for public policies?
276
From the above we can derive some general criteria for the quality of public policies. As I have notice
again and again, people attending workshops or lectures on policy development, are eager to find out
what the quality criteria for policies are. Though they are clearly implied in what has been written
above, I will list some in bold summary statements:
At least a good policy serves the „common good‟ or „public good‟. Big question is who defines
the common good. So this brings us to the basics of inclusiveness. Doe the policy take into
account the interests of all stakeholders, rather than the interests of some stakeholders. Doe
the policy fit the framework pattern of the relevant sphere(s)? In practice this means good
policies are in harmony with core values like freedom, human rights, sanctity of life, equality,
democracy, transparency, mutual responsibility, co-operation, care and so on. It serves the
„common good‟, respecting minority rights, and what is more, is the result of an open
communication process about these issues.
The „common good‟ involves innumerable issues. Some have more priority than others. Good
policies deal with priority issues. If not the public will react with surprise: why all this
attention to an issue which is not that important and neglect the priority issues. Often urgency
is mistaken for priority though. The difference has to be explained. In other words, a good
policy deals with a situation that is widely seen as problematic. And if so, is this a problem that
requires action by the (national, regional or local) government, or is the solution of this
problem a responsibility of individual citizens or private actors?
A good policy always has a legal basis. It is either in harmony with existing law and/or it
requires additional laws. We may call this „policy legitimation‟: the acceptance of a policy by
the legitimate authority (government, backed by parliament and based on a legal foundation)
n some countries (USA) policies will be tested by the High Court of Justice whether there is no
conflict with the constitution. In other countries there is an advisory body to test (Raad van
State in the Netherlands) or a Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht in Germany)
A good policy has a solid social support basis, by taking existing patterns (characteristic for the
target group) into full account, and is therefore likely to spark positive response policies. And
it does not appear to be a dictate that should be swallowed, but rather something „important to
me‟ and therefore something to take seriously and think about.
A good policy is not harmful to other actors in society, other than the target group. Or rather, a
good policy has minimal negative effects. In other words, a good policy is inclusive, i.e. it takes
into account the interests and values of all stakeholders. The implementation of a policy
should as much as possible make use of contributions from stakeholders (public private
partnerships)
A good policy is based on thorough research:
o on the nature, causes and frequency of the problem;
o on evidence regarding the effectiveness of the suggested instrumentation and of
possible response policies;
o on the interests and values of all possible stakeholders; in such a way that possible
solutions can be derived from it.
277
o on experiences with similar policies in similar situations elsewhere
A good policy interacts synergetically with related policies and the so-called common policies,
is well-embedded and characterized by inter-coherence and intra-coherence; this means the
policy design is the result of well-carried out policy imagination;
A good policy contains an effective implementation plan. The instrumentation is effective and
is in relative harmony with other, related policies, i.e policies should not conflict with one
another. Even better is if synergy between policies is created. If applicable consider also the
methodology that is used to carry out particular activities.
Moreover a good policy is efficient, minimizing costs in terms of money, people and time and
maximizing effectiveness. So it is in need coordination with other policies on related policy
domains.
A good policy takes into account its ecological impact and is sustainable. This means that
envisaging possible future impact on nature (as well as on society) is needed. Policies have
effects over long periods of time.
A good policy is convincing for (at least) the majority of the political body that has to decide on
it. The technicalities of the policy as an action plan are normally not the main issues in the
parliamentary discussion on a policy paper.
A good policy, and notably its means and instruments, is acceptable form the point of view of
the restriction of freedom of individuals it may imply.
A good policy takes into account the „policy paradox‟? Some policies have notorious negative
side effects. For instance, it is great to protect tenants by law so that they cannot just be told by
the landlord to leave the home they are living in. But a very protective law, leaving no room for
a landlord to end a contract, will discourage any potential landlord to let. The end result is a
serious lack of houses to let, which is not in the interest of tenants.
A good policy is monitored with the help of concrete indicators and regularly evaluated
according to the short and long cycle. (see chapter on evaluation) Monitoring and evaluation
are considered to be useful tools to improve quality.
It is the aim of this course to provide the methods and means to write policy papers that take into
account these criteria.
Conclusion
Though policies may be elaborated designs, well-presented in policy papers, a policy paper is not a
research report. Therefore a policy paper will not give a complete description of the research and its
results. An overview of its conclusions with a clear reference to the sources is normally sufficient.
A policy paper is not only an action plan. It is also a political document, at least in the sense that it
needs the approval, direct or indirect, of a political body: Parliament, the local council etc. Good
policies are elaborations as well as instrumentations of a political agreement between governing
parties and civil society organizations.
278
See: McCool, D., Public Policy Theories, Models and Concepts, New York, 1995
279
B. Policy deliberation
The Dutch entertainer Wim Kan once remarked: “democracy is the will of the people. Each morning,
reading my newspaper, I am surprised by what I want today”.
1 Two faces of democracy
By way of summary TABLE OF CONTENTS II: Q.B.1.
Question/
paragraph
Issues page
Q. B.1.1. Origins of democracy 279
Q. B.1.2 2 faces of democracy or dual democracy 282
Q. B.1.3 Assumptions of deliberative democracy 286
Q. B. 1.1. About the origins of democracy. Where does the idea of democracy come from and how did
the original democracy look like? Is there something we can learn from that for today?
political system perspective
Democracy can be described as „the art to deal with different, sometimes conflicting interests in such a
way that a majority of people agree with the final result‟. Basically there are 3 ways to deal with
conflicting interests. Citizens face one another in a straight and direct way, or they face one another
mediated by an institutional arrangement. The arrangement can be a purely supportive one, or the
arrangement gets heavy and will inevitably impose its own logic on dealing with conflicting interests.
The first way of democracy is how the ancient Greeks originally saw it. And, incidentally, how many
other ancient societies that we consider „primitive‟, saw it. Citizens get together, discuss an urgent or
important issue, looking for different solutions by viewing it from different angles. The idea is to try to
find a consensus on a solution.
Some anthropologists assume that small scale egalitarian human societies were originally without any
form of institutionalized government or „king‟. By means of „direct democracy‟ urgent issues were
discussed and decisions taken by adult men, as we still see today in some Papua, African (Bushmen,
Igbo) and Amerindian societies as well as some remnants of this in a few Swiss Cantons and Indian
villages in the America‟s, both North and South. Men regularly get together, discuss matters and
appoint someone to carry out what has been decided or monitor and overlook joint activities.
280
Sometimes a chief is appointed, but only with a limited and heavily conditioned mandate. If he fails to
account for what he does, he loses his mandate. In actual fact the „citizens‟ are the „boss‟ and also feel
they are, whereas the „executives‟ are the servants of the people.
This is exactly the point that Joan van der Capellen was making in his famous Letter to the People of
the Netherlands. He reminds his countrymen of the days of old, prior to the Roman invasion, when
people were still getting together to discuss issues of public interest democratically, appointing
someone to take action on behalf of them. After completing the task they would thank him. Did he not
perform well, they would dismiss him. They bravely refused listen to foreign powers and princes.
The old Germanic tribes were organized exactly this way. The king as just an executive. Somewhere in
the 10th century in interesting incident occurred in the Swedish tribe. The speaker, Thorgnyr, showed
the arrogant king Olof his place: we the people have power, not you! Without our consent you are
nothing. The king realized he could not do anything without consulting the ting.
John Keane has argued that before and after ancient Greek democracy, democracy was alive and
several other parts of the world, including SubSaharan Africa and the Muslim world. His observation
that different types of democracy have popped up during history in different parts of the world, is an
important correction the everyday opinion on democracy. Unfortunately many ancient forms of
democracy were unstable.
Once an important democratically elected leader started to see himself as chief managing to make
himself indispensable and to sit tight, he evolved into a BIG MAN. This usually happens in times of
crisis, often in times of war. He starts behaving like a warlord and later an institutionalized baron or
king with servants, soldiers, slaves and later with civilized professional civil servants. The story of
power and governance is widely known.
Today, original „acephalous societies‟ (headless societies with a direct democracy) are rare. But do
note, this is not the same as anarchism (with all its negative connotations), for acephalous societies do
have rules to govern themselves. Individuals are not free to do whatever they want. Everybody is
under the obligation to consult with others in all matters that concern others. Democratic deliberation
is part and parcel of culture. Leaders function ad hoc for specific tasks (related to the public good) and
will be hold accountable for fulfilling that task. This we can call „basic democracy‟.
See Pierre Clastres, Society Against the State (La Société contre l'État), 1974; David Graeber, Fragments of an anarchist
anthropology. Chicago, 2004; See for Skandinavia democracy: Ingvar Anderson, Early Democratic Traditions in Scandinavia, in
J.A.Lauwers (ed) Scandinavian Democracy: Development of Democratic Though and Institutions in Denmark, Norway, and
Sweden, 1958, p 69ff; John Keane, The Life and Death of Democracy, London, 2009; and of course for The Netherlands, Joan
Derk van der Capellen tot den Pol, J.D., Aan het Volk van Nederland, 1781 (ed 1966, Amsterdam), p 44.
The opposite is the „heavy headed society‟ in which governments have a strong, though lightly
conditioned mandate, i.e. governments have much freedom to act during the period of mandate.
Theoretically the parliament is the place where representatives of citizens discuss conflicting interests
and decide how the government, the executive, should work things out. In actual fact the government
is given a strong mandate with few conditions. This implies a powerful government. Sometimes the
mandate is for a period of 4 years, as in most representative democracies, sometimes it is for a lifetime
281
as in some undemocratic monarchies and dictatorships. Participative or deliberative arrangements are
not easily accepted by the official government as they seem to be at loggerheads with the governmental
mandate to rule. Yet, lots of „heavy headed‟ democratic societies have started to experiment with
deliberative arrangements. Once they become habit and even get institutionalized they become more
„light-headed societies, with the result that citizens see themselves as „owners‟ of the government and
the governing executives as „servants‟ or ministers in the true sense of the word. Scandinavian and
Swiss democracies tend to be rather „light headed‟. A typical characteristic of a light-headed society is
that citizens are not looking up to fellow-citizens who fulfill a public function like cabinet minister or
mayor, for they are seen to be servants commissioned by citizens. The difference in attitude has a deep
impact on political culture. Public executives are viewed as normal human beings, rather than as
demigods.
Point of attention: relative size of public administration
Although light headed democracies will tend to have a relatively small public administration (for civic
society organizations may be charged with public responsibilities and individual citizens will also
assume quite a few responsibilities themselves) it is not necessarily so. The essential characteristic is
indeed the attitude of citizens towards the government. They may decide it is useful to put lots of
responsibilities in the hand of public administration, as they do in Sweden. Or they may decide to limit
the responsibilities of public administration and encourage more civic society initiative, mostly by
means of CSO‟s, platforms and agencies.
Back to the democratic process in light headed societies. Governance , including modern governance,
is essentially seen to be the process of public decision making. Citizens discuss public matters directly
or by means of their spokespersons in parliament or local council. The government is appointed to
carry out decisions. The mandate is heavily conditioned. The power of the government is relatively
weak. Here democracy is basically participatory and decision making is the result of some type of
public deliberation among equal citizens. The executive is in the service of the public. If it starts acting
on its own behalf, citizens will get upset and take action to replace it quickly. Big question is of course
whether modern heavy headed societies can move towards light headed societies. Narayan is
convinced that „a deliberate and bold process of devolution and decentralization‟ is a possibility,
provided the work „begins at all levels simultaneously‟. He works it out for the hugely complicated
Indian society, but the model of reconstruction that he has in mind, might be applied in other societies
as well.
In his critical analysis of democracy John Dunn concluded that in our present „disenchanted and
demoralized world‟ where lives seem to be organized around the struggle to maximize personal
income‟ there is a permanent quest for re-enchantment. We should not romanticize democracy and
we should not underestimate the destructive forces of inequality, resulting in all types of power play.
Also we should realize that democracy „has won is global near-monopoly as basis for legitimate rule in
a setting which largely contradicts its own pretensions‟. So, the big question is how to revive
282
democracy. According to Dunn‟s there appear to be 3 main conditions. The first is transparency.
Governments have a tendency to restrict and withhold information to the public, shying away from
accountability. „Governmental seclusion is the most direct and deepest subversion of the democratic
claim‟. In fact this is power. The second is equality, which also is a matter of power. Without basic
equality some will always have more to say than others. And thirdly, participation of citizens in
decision making. „Deliberative democracy, democracy which embodies and realizes democracy at its
best, attempts to prescribe how a community of human beings should wish for its public decisions to
be taken‟. Give this power in the hands of some members of a distant parliament and there is no
guarantee that they will think and act in the interest of citizens. There is formal democracy as a form of
government and there is „democratization as a social, cultural, economic and political process‟. The two
have different rhythms. How to combine the two? The only answer can be: make sure that citizens can
participate in decision making.
Conclusion: it is likely that the original form of public or collective government is a form of „direct
democracy‟. Traces of it are still to be found in some modern democracies. A good measure of
participatory democracy is probably the only way to limit power and to ensure power does not get
derailed into absolute power and become corrupt. The challenge is to restore participatory democracy
within the framework of modern representative democracy. By means of the introduction of public
policy deliberation this restoration becomes feasible.
See: Narayan, J. A Plea for the Reconstruction of the Indian Polity, 1959, p 92 ff.; John Dunn, Democracy, A History, 2005, p
177 ff.
Q. B.1.2. What do we mean when we say democracy has 2 faces and what do these 2 faces tell us about
the basis of legitimacy? And why we need dual democracy.
political system perspective
So democracy is indeed about handling public issues and conflicts and getting to a public decision
which the majority of citizens support. Sometimes this is called the „first face of democracy‟. Namely
public decision making.
The second face of democracy is that of public governance as public control. Citizens assume this role
in all 3 types of societies. In headless societies they control the people who carry out particular tasks.
In light headed societies they control a governmental body that has a strongly conditioned mandate. In
heavy headed societies one need to be shrewd to exercise a little control over the lightly conditioned
governmental body. Or just use some type of power.
When citizens put matters of governance into the hands of the parliament, it is called representative or
indirect democracy. If the role of the public is reduced to a matter of control, by means of a parliament,
political parties and elections, the public tends to be rather quiescent. Because of distance and the
force of propaganda, control is not necessarily effective. In between elections citizens get informed but
rarely consulted.
283
In both cases democracy is the basis of legitimacy. In the first case power is widely shared and never
concentrated in one person. Citizens consider matters of governance as their own business. It is the
citizenry that is actively engaged in matters of governance. If some sort of government is installed
citizens still foster a sense of ownership. Like the Swiss today. Swiss citizens are proud of the fact that
they govern themselves. The government is mostly considered to be an executive body to put into
practice what citizens want. Sense of ownership is strong: „the government is mine‟ is what citizens
would say.
In the second case power is controlled and might be concentrated. Sense of ownership tends to be
weak or fading out. The mandate of the governing body rests on legitimate election results, which are
seen to be the expression of the public will to charge the parliament to look after their interests and to
appoint and install of governing body. In moments of economic crisis and (relative) hardship citizens
will start resent the fact that actual decision-making was taken out of their hands and seek refuge in
populist opposition parties. This will eventually lead to an erosion of democracy, as João Carlos
Espada pointed out recently.
However both models have weak spots. In the first case governance might be ineffective. If citizens are
ill-informed (which of course is often the case) the results of policy deliberation and final decision
making may turn out to be disastrous. And worse, the majority may be tempted to impose its
shortsighted will on minorities. Whereas in the second case the government might get detached from
the public and lose credibility and legitimacy. As citizens lose their interest, the government might be
tempted to pursue private ends, lose integrity and get corrupted, with loss of trust as a result.
See: A. de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2000 (transl. of De la Democratie en Amerique, Paris, 1835)
Legitimacy is problematic in most democracies. Trust in governments tends to be consistently low and
to get slowly and consistently even lower in most countries. This is one of the main reasons why in
many countries governments try not just to inform citizens and communicate with them, but they also
try to find ways to consult them and to develop policies together with citizens in general and
stakeholders in particular. If this trend continues, we may observe an interesting reversal: less and less
will „political communities seek political representation in order to influence policy making „, and more
and more we will see that the deliberative policy making process will „create political communities‟.
(M.A.Hajer). And, Robert Dahl, in line with de Tocqueville, states that involving citizens will
(eventually) teach them „to act rightly and responsibly‟. It is learning by doing. If governments do not
let citizens „ do‟ they will never learn.
See: Crick, B. Democracy, a very short Introduction, Oxford 2002; Dahl. R.A., Democracy and its Critics, London, 1989, p 192 ff;
Espada, J.C. European Disintegration? The Sources of Extremism. In: Journal of democracy, oct. 2012. Hajer, M.A., A
Frame in the Fields: Policy Making and the Reinvention of Politics, p 89; in Hajer, M.A. and Wagenaar, H, Deliberative Policy
Analysis, Understanding Governance in the network Society, Cambridge 2004. For a good analysis why so many do not trust
politicians anymore: Hay, C. Why we hate Politics, Cambridge, 2007; and specifically about the Greek origins of democratic
thinking: Farrar, C. The origins of Democratic Thinking: The Invention of Politics in Classical Athens, Cambridge, 1988 and
Naerebout, F. Griekse Democratie, Democratische politiek in het klassieke Athene, Amsterdam, 2005
284
Policy deliberation gets much attention today. It is about serious and careful discussions with citizens
and stakeholders, to consider all the pros and cons of a policy and have a substantial impact on
governance. It is about addressing an issue thoroughly from different stakeholder perspectives, taking
into account the possible consequences of a policy solution. The old Roman law stated: „what affects
all must be decided by all‟. This principle is often seen to be the basis of republicanism. Abraham
Lincoln phrased it as follows: government of the people, by the people and for the people. Robert Dahl,
who spent a lifetime studying democracies, stated that a democracy not just needs to respect citizens‟
votes, but also effective participation, enlightened understanding of policies and grant citizens a say on
the agenda. If these conditions are favorable, stability is likely, if not „no constitution will save
democracy‟.
One and a half century before John Stuart Mill correctly noted that „the rights and interests of every
person are only secure from being disregarded when the person interested is himself able, and
habitually disposed to stand up for them‟.
See: Robert Dahl, On Democracy, 2000; Mill, J.S. Consideration on Representative Government, 1861.
The Romans were not so keen on consulting citizens: one critical difference between Athenian and
Roman approaches of freedom is that the former “practiced a form of unfiltered direct democracy that
the Romans considered to be a recipe for chaos; the Romans gave ordinary free and male persons a
role in politics, but a carefully structured and controlled one.” writes Alan Ryan. The dilemma is so
typical for modern day politics. All too often we are on the side of the Romans, lacking the courage of
the Greeks. The result is a practice of politics in the grip of power and a practice of politics that turns a
blind eye to some stakeholders, with serious policy conflict as a result. Put differently: make sure
policies are not at odds with the reality of citizens and stakeholders.
Interestingly the ancient Greeks were fully aware of the dilemma. In the „ekklesia‟ all citizens were
permitted to speak their mind and participate in the discussion. But it was in the „boulè‟, the council of
500 representatives that decisions were taken. The Germanic tribes were examples of „ headless
societies‟ where the people decided together at a particular agreed time: the thing, or ting or ding. All
people able to participate in discussion, and therefore called „alting‟, as a „ thing for all‟. In practice this
meant that decisions about policies and laws were taken at the „thing‟ and the laws were uphold,
interpreted and, if need be, reinterpreted. The speaker of the thing, was the law-speaker who was
expected to know what had been decided. Disputes were also settled. In some areas this evolved into a
somewhat elitist thing and the members the gentry so to speak became aware of that. So at a later
stage in history in some of the tribes the gentry decided that just the council of the gentry as the organ
to make public decisions is a tricky thing. Much better is to let individual citizens speak their minds,
discuss issues, find workable policy solutions and present these solutions to the council of the gentry.
So the „ law-things‟ evolved that officially decided about laws. That council would usually follow the
advice from the public council. This is the origin of the two-chamber system. At a later stage the
285
Scandinavian countries, tired of aristocracy, merged the two chambers into one big chamber, the
„storting‟.
See: Alan Ryan, On Politics, II, 2012.
Democratic liberty should be considered a positive liberty that is linked to the right to participate in
policy deliberation and take decisions on matters that are of its own concern. In original republican
theory liberty is more fundamental and is both positive and negative. It is positive in the democratic
sense, and it is negative in that it should protect individuals against the dangers of domination by a
particular elite, party or person. In other words the governing body has the duty to consult individual
citizens and civic society organizations, to check whether their interests will not be violated. This can
be called the principle of inclusiveness. Likewise if freedom needs to be limited, the governing body
should check with all citizens that they agree the limitation of freedom serves a higher and common
interest.
See M.Viroli, Republicanism (transl. Republicanesimo, 1999), 2002, p4.
Main principle should be clear: the people destined to use the system play a critical role in designing it.
Back in 1861 Mill came to the conclusion that “it is evident that the only government which can fully
satisfy all the exigencies of the social state is one in which the whole people participate; that any
participation, even in the smallest public function, is useful; that the participation should everywhere
be as great as the general degree of improvement of the community will allow; and that nothing less
can be ultimately desirable than the admission of all to a share in the sovereign power of the state”. To
this statement can be added that civic inclusion leads to respect to citizens and, what is more, to „civil
behavior „or „civility‟. It evokes civility, like disrespect will evoke incivility and in the long run violence
as the expression of people who are frustrated of being ignored and even excluded.
J.S.Mill, Representative Government, 1861, p24. And John Keane, Violence and Democracy, Cambridge, 2004, p91 ff
Meanwhile we have touched a sensitive issue: the difference between democracy and republicanism.
Surely we see clearer and clearer that democracy is dependent on citizen‟s participation. If citizens are
not aware of their duty to participate, what is left over for democracy? This is what people like Viroly
and Crick brought to our attention. See what Bernhardt Crick had to say on the matter. He was asked
to chair an advisory committee to the Education secretary on education for good citizenship. This is
how the committee saw its mission: „for people to think of themselves as active citizens, willing, able,
and equipped to have an influence in public life and with critical capacities to weigh evidence before
speaking and acting; to build on and to extend radically to young people the best in existing traditions
of community involvement and public service, and to make them individually confident in finding new
forms of involvement‟. Having stated that he realizes this is republicanism, rather than democracy.
286
In the formal sense of the word this is indeed the case. But the big question is whether a functioning
democracy can do without such republican principles of citizen‟s involvement. Personally I believe
these principles to be conditional to democracy.
Conclusion: if the term democracy has any meaning and legitimacy, it should be that the people
have a crucial say in their government. Indeed, it should be their government. The basis of legitimacy
is 2-fold: the citizens choose their own representatives in bodies of public council (notably the
parliament); and secondly, citizens have a direct say in public policy development and accept their
duty to participate. In other words: we need dual democracy.
See: B.Crick, Democracy, A Very Short introduction, Oxford, 2002, p114; and Crick, B. (ed) Citizens: Towards a Citizenship
Culture, Oxford, 2001
Q.B.1.3. On which assumptions is the deliberative democracy process based and which are its positive
and negative characteristics?
political system perspective
Deliberative democracy process is based on a number of assumptions. There is remarkable consensus
about these assumptions. The main ones are:
Participants/citizens:
Expect to be informed or let themselves be informed
are willing to be sincere, conscientious and committed to a serious outcome to the discussion,
if taken seriously by the executive
are in principle willing to listen to, accept and respect a plurality of opinions and interests; at
least in principle
if confronted with opinions and interests of others are willing to commit themselves to
inclusiveness if their own interests are equally taken into account
are willing to be open to substantial and critical argumentation, including their own position
Surely, this is the ideal situation. It does not mean that deliberation is impossible if these conditions
are not fulfilled. Situations, attitudes, relations and opinions are dynamic. During the process they
may change, to the good or for worse. The more conscientious the body politic is in conducting the
deliberation process, the more likely citizens will participate conscientiously and openly.
The deliberation process implies that discussions focus on:
Arguments which are supported by appropriate and reasonably accurate factual claims.
Arguments which are met by contrary arguments.
Comprehensiveness: all points of view held by significant portions of the population should
receive attention, including expert opinions.
287
And….obstacles like misunderstandings and preconceived ideas (as soon as they pop up)
See: Fishkin,J. When the People Speak. ; Graaf, van de H. and Bulaj A. (ed), Cine se teme de democratie? A manual for
praticipatory policy development, Bucharest 2005.
Advantages of consulting citizens are numerous. Most of these advantages are connected to what is
sometimes called „local knowledge‟:
Citizens like to be consulted and consider it a sign of respect and acknowledgement. Nowadays
most citizens are well-educated and really deserve to be included.
Citizens may help government to get more „down to earth‟ and to realize what actually is at
stake in society. So they can play a crucial role in problem finding and formulation
Citizens often have practical ideas and some have specific expertise that might be relevant in
finding solutions. Many citizens contribute to CSO‟s in different policy domains, which the
government cannot afford to ignore. Their „local‟ knowledge is important s well as the expert
knowledge that many citizens have. Back in antique times Aristotle stated that one of the
dotages of democracy is „its capacity to reach out to, and bring into play, the full breadth of
knowledge and awareness of the entire citizen body‟.
Diversity is connected to creativity, whereas uniformity is connected with repetition. So if
diverse groups of citizens get included in policy development process there is an increased
chance that creative ideas are generated. Tom Atlee is speaking of „public wisdom‟ (which he
defines as „the taking into account what needs to be taken into account in order to create broad
and long-term benefits‟)
Citizens are needed as partners in the implementation process. Consulting citizens is creating
a much needed social support basis for implementing policies
Citizens may offer feedback regarding the effects of policy implementation and hence
stimulate learning.
The disadvantages are obvious too:
It takes time to consult with citizens and other entities, at least on the short run it means a
time-investment.
Facilitating the process is complicated and often the voice of the policy expert is ignored,
decision making can be troublesome and the end result of dubious quality.
Consulting citizens and in the end deciding not to use their advise may lead to disappointment
Members of parliament may feel left out
Personal and private interests might get too prominent and obstruct sound decision making.
Citizens have to be well-prepared to participate, which takes time as well. And it only works if
participating citizens are sensitive to the public interest.
Citizens and different entities with their local knowledge will not necessarily develop good and
workable policies. Expectations should not be too high
See for a practical discussion: Gregory, J. Scandinavian Approaches to Participatory Design, Tempus, 2003; ; and a very easy to
read, sharply formulated and very helpful ‟dictionary‟ of essential democratic terms: Fernando Savater, Diccionario del
288
Ciudadano sin Miedo a Saber, Barcelona, 2007; and also: E.Tonkens, Mondige Burgers, Getemde Professionals, herziene versie
Amsterdam, 2009, p77 ff; Woerkum, C.M. J. Communicatie en Interactive Beleidsvorming, Alphen, 2000; Aristotle, Politeia,
VII, 12, transl B.Jowett, Oxford, 1905, p 220 ff.
In his famous „The public and its Problems‟, John Dewey concluded that the essence of legitimate
governance is “healthy interaction between public and government”. Paying ample attention to public
matters in education is crucial, for the younger you learn and understand, the wiser you get as a policy
attentive citizen. Practicing different models of interaction and consulting citizens is also crucial.
Dewey is pointing out that the practice of „inquiry‟ has a transformative effect, both on citizens and the
governing body. Together they engage in a process of understanding issues, interests, fears, goals,
conditions and ideals. This will enlarge or even transform their understanding of the environment and
how this environment might be transformed to create more favorable living conditions for both the
individual and the public good.
Likewise but more concretely Miller was pointing to the „moralizing effect of public deliberation‟,
which tends „to eliminate irrational preferences based on false empirical beliefs, morally repugnant
preferences which no one is willing to advance in the public arena and narrowly self-interested
preferences‟. The deliberation process can be seen as a kind of challenge to review and rethink your
own position, including your preconceived ideas, interests and fears and consider the views and
perspectives of others.
Point of attention: deliberation and fear
One of the characteristics of large scale modern societies is fear. There are many speculations and
theories regarding the causes of the present omnipresence of fear. Is it because of secularization and
decreasing credibility of religion? Do we deep down in our souls fear existence after passing away,
especially because there is no certainty regarding an after-existence? Is it because modern weaponry
and international tension? Is it because of threat of crime and terror? Are we afraid of ecological
revenge after committing ecocide? This may all be at work, but I would suggest there is something else
that is the most important factor causing fear and anxiety. It is the feeling that the passenger next to
the driver of a car has. He doesn‟t have any control. He knows he is at the mercy of the driver. This is
fine as long as things on the road are clear and the driver seems to be an able driver. But if the
situation of the road gets risky and the driver appears to be lacking experience, the passenger will start
feeling ill at ease. And worse. Without any means of control feelings of fear will emerge. The situation
on the road is indeed getting risky, because of rapid technological development, dazzling information
and communication trends and international power structures that are like plates of spaghetti: you
pull one of these spaghetti-strings and in different and unexpected parts of the plate you witness
movements.
This seems characteristic of contemporary societies and their often, all too often struggling
governments. Our spontaneous reflex is to look for a „strong man‟ and to welcome the „caudillo‟ from
the mountainous planes who came down to the city to rescue the country. We embrace him as a near
messiah, only to discover he is making things worse and fear gets aggravated. Many seek refuge in all
289
sorts of anesthesia, varying from money to pleasure, from drugs to keeping aloof. Against this
background inviting citizens to actively take part on policy development, seems an adequate „therapy‟.
Suddenly citizens have a say in developing policies that will shape and hopefully improve their
environment, making it a bit safer and more habitable. If communication is the best way to overcome
personal and individual fear, public communication and deliberation regarding matters of collective
concern is the best way to overcome collective fear.
Communication means: meeting the other face to face. Face to face meetings challenge the partners to
be open, to show colors, to resp0nd directly, not to hide anymore. In face to face meetings questions
can be asked as well. The result is decrease of secrecy and the result of decrease of secrecy is decrease
of fear. We may also put it the other way round. It is fear that calls up secrecy and secrecy that calls up
fear. It is a vicious circle. The only way out is to face each other and discuss what is at stake.
Communication, proper communication as dialogue, means facing each other. Policies deal with issues
that are at stake. This is what policy deliberation is all about.
See Paul Virilio, The Administration of Fear, 2012
Conclusion: participatory democracy is based on the assumption that it has a „moralizing and
positively transformative effect on citizens who will be more likely to act responsibly on the public
sphere and will start viewing the government is „theirs‟. It is also based on the assumption that citizens
living in the same territory will understand the need to live peacefully together, which means they have
to communicate and discuss issues of mutual interest.
See Dewey, J., The public and its Problems, Ohio 1927; and see Atlee, T, Empowering Public Wisdom, A practical vision of
citizen-led politics, Berkeley, 2012; Miller D., Deliberative Democracy and Social Choice. Political Studies (Special Issue:
Prospects for Democracy) 1992 , p 54ff
290
2 Deliberation and communication: neurotransmitters of society
Alexander Hamilton: “man is a reasoning being rather than a reasonable being”.
By way of summary TABLE OF BONTENTS II: Q.B.2.
Question/
paragraph
Issues Page
Q. B.2.1. The need of 2-way communication 290
Q. B.2.2 Methods: agogical, maieutical and elenctic 291
Q. B.2.3 Conditions for open communication 292
Q. B.2.4 Main characteristics of an effective facilitator 293
Q.B.2.1. Why is two-way communication essential for a healthy society?
society perspective
Ignorance about others harbors extremes: a culture of adoration or a culture of fear. Sometimes a
strange combination is developed, as is in some dictatorships, in which the people of the nation is
considered to be an almost holy entity, and, strangely enough in combination with an incredible
disdain of the common people as if they are just a bunch of stupid sheep. (Trujillo, Stalin, Ceausescu,
Mugabe are just a few examples) When it comes to governing the holy people most dictatorial
governments turn out to be ignorant of needs and full of distrust. The democratic ideal is of course one
of open communication, i.e. dialogue, discussion, inspiration, correction. Open and two-way
communication is a condition to create and maintain a healthy society in the true sense of the word.
Societies can be compared to brains. Brain cells need to communicate with one another and they do so
by means of neurotransmitters. A shortage of neurotransmitters leads to depression and ill-
functioning of the brain.
Societies without communication do not exist. Society is communication. A healthy society is
characterized by healthy and open forms of communication, directed toward development.
All governments and all executives assert they communicate well. However this is seldom the case.
Most public, governmental communication is one-way traffic. It is reduced to information and even
dictation. Sometimes worse: intimidation. Few politicians and few executives manage to listen to
stakeholders and citizens who do not appear to be completely loyal to their cause. If communication
remains indirect, it leaves all partners in doubt regarding the intentions of the other. In actual fact that
is power play, making sure the other will have to guess about your intentions. Without healthy
communication is downward spiral becomes visible. The result is a growing and mutual ignorance
about others, accompanied by fear or adoration to overcome fear.
291
Conclusion: Society is communication. A healthy society is characterized by the fact that all entities
are somehow free to express themselves and respond to what others have to say. Unhealthy societies
are societies were some exclusive club of entities will dictate how other entities should respond.
Naturally and open forms of 2-way communication will favor development.
Q.B.2.2. What do we mean by agogical method and why is this method crucial for the deliberation
process? And how can we make use of the maieutical method and elenctic method?
It is a word not often used in English. But many European continental languages have accepted it as a
useful term. It comes from Greek agōgos "leading", from the verb agein "to lead". In my terminology
„agogical‟ means: working methodically with people taking into consideration that, unlike things and
animals, human beings are essentially free to contribute, to discover themselves and to make up their
own mind about the truth of their discoveries. In other words: to lead or facilitate the process of
dialogue in order to discover some truth, to analyze a situation, to orientate, to set a goal and to find a
strategy to reach that goal. Exactly as Socrates did it. “The art of teaching is the art of assisting
discovery and orientation”, he said. The emphasis is on argumentation and questioning, rather than
on sharing of information and persuasion. This is the art of agogics. We are in need of a term. An
agogical process and agogical methods are especially used in social work. Crucial to agogics is a sphere
of openness, trust and safety. Without these people will dig themselves in, play games, fight battles,
lead others around the bush, intimidate or even dictate and blackmail. This will all lead to indirect
communication, which in the long run is tiresome and dysfunctional. So much better is to attempt
direct communication. If communication is more or less direct (it never totally is) it may make use of 2
methods.
I suggest that agogics make use of the following 2 methods: the maieutical and the elenctic method.
The „maieutical‟ method of using questions to help the partner in dialogue discover knowledge is a
main method. It is the method of the midwife, to give birth to an insight that already exists deep down
in our being, but of which we are not aware. It restores the link between our personal existence and
unfathomable reality around us. If we start becoming aware of some truth, we also start becoming
aware how little we know. The more insight we get the more we become aware how limited that insight
is.
The „elenctic‟ method is useful as well. By means of a critical dialogue in which partners permit each
other to ask critical question, convictions and theories will be questioned and possible refuted. Both
methods are important in policy deliberation, lest all partners just stick to their preconceived ideas.
But it is not just a technical method. A high degree of concentration and focus is needed, as well as
sincerity in the sense that partners should refrain from indirect communication. For a critical dialogue
to be effective the right atmosphere needs to be there.
292
In social work agogics refers to communication techniques in dealing with problematic people. I
suggest we use the term in the following way : to facilitate a direct communication process so that
partners in dialogue are free to suggest their own interpretations of situation, to criticize the
interpretations of others and to consider the non-rational dimension of any interpretation. The
agogical method will next focus on what people „really‟ or „reasonably‟ want. The use of the term „really‟
is justified here. Lots of things that we desire, we just desire because others desire it. Most of our
desires are imitated desires. This is not the place to criticize imitated desires, but it is important to
distinguish between imitated desires and real desires, for that is conditional to make a true choice and
commit oneself to it. The agogical method is based on the ability of people to reflect on their own
behavior and is focused on freedom to decide, or, to put it in dramatic terms, to free people from the
„terror of expectations‟, which is the source of imitation, or worse, of the subtleties of intimidation and
indoctrination. Looking at communication and dialogue this way, we will note the agogical method is
meant to have an emancipating effect. As a result of a successful process all partners will be taken
seriously and be able to contribute substantially.
How can this be achieved? By raising awareness regarding all things that we want to achieve and the „
why‟s‟ of it, followed be raising awareness of all things that we need and raising awareness regarding
the discrepancies of desire and need. Next awareness should be raised regarding the needs of others,
standing next to us, and to review one‟s own desires and needs in the perspective of needs of others.
Now the moment has come to make an authentic choice.
During the entire deliberation process, every now and then there will be moments of choice. That is
why the agogical method is the appropriate method for the entire policy deliberation process.
Conclusion: The agogical process and the 2 main agogical methods (maieutical and elenctic) are
especially useful to conduct the policy deliberation process with various stakeholders. Crucial to
agogics is a sphere of openness, trust and safety. Without these people will not be in the position to
contribute to the policy development process. Agogical process is geared to direct communication as
well as to emancipation in the sense of being taken seriously.
See: W.F. van Stegeren, Welzijn en emancipatie: ontwerp van een emancipatorische andragologie, Meppel, 1982 en vooral
E.Verbiest, Andragogie: dialoog en verhaal, Lisse, 1984
Q.B.2.3. How to create the conditions for open and direct communication?
The policy deliberation process must take into account that many stakeholders find it frightfully
difficult to communicate openly with the government and vice versa. Preconceived ideas regarding the
other party flourish and are difficult to correct. Lack of trust is characteristic for many relationships
including those between citizens and the state. The only way to correct preconceived ideas and restore
trust is by means of open communication.
The question is how to get to open communication, how to pull down all the barriers between partners.
From my own practice, I can say the following:
293
Use facilitators. If political executives communicate directly to people or institutions they are
almost always considered to be dishonest, whether this is true or not. To a lesser extent this
applies to civil servants as well, for they are often perceived as servants of the executive.
Facilitators should prepare meticulously with the executive to find out what they really want
and what not. It should be made clear to the political executive that open dialogue will only
work if the executive is prepared to listen and to take good suggestions into account. So it has
to be made clear for which policy area this is the case. Only if the facilitator is convinced the
executive is willing to listen, can partners in dialogue be invited to speak their mind openly
Next step is for facilitators to convince the potential partners in dialogue that the executive is
honest in its desire for open communication or at least to give it the benefit of the doubt.
The dialogue should be about issues. It is like an upward cycle: the more discussions get
focused on issues (rather than political positions and interests), the more open the
communication will be and the more parties will understand one another and probably start
respecting and appreciating one another.
Don‟t mix representatives from different spheres in dialogue. It makes it more complicated.
Policies that need to be discussed with representatives from different spheres should be
invited for dialogue separately first. If need be they can get together at a later stage,
Indirect communication, based on preconceived ideas, leads to a downward cycle of miss-approaches,
tension and fear. In one word: collective depression.
Open and direct communication is communication without intimidation in an atmosphere that is felt
to be safe and non-threatening (to use the expression that Carl Rogers used so often to describe the
ideal therapeutic atmosphere in which a client dares to express himself). Open communication
stimulates feedback (even critical feedback) and as a result of improved feedback it also stimulates
self-understanding, mutual understanding and learning.
See below for the practice of dialogue.
Conclusion: open and direct communication can be achieved if all partners are willing to listen what
others have to say and if they are willing to say what they should say directly. Without facilitators this
is difficult to achieve
Q.B.2.4. Which are the main characteristics of an effective facilitator?
To answer this question I refer to the excellent book n the subject, written by Jon and Maureen
Jenkins, who both have more than 40 years of experience in facilitation and training in different
continents. They point to the following features (they mention 9, but I have combined 2 to one)
Detachment: before starting you have to make sure you are not one-sidedly committed to a
particular actor in the process. This may lead to some sort of favoring that actor above others.
294
Also it is important to observe the various positions, interests and patterns they adhere to,
before embarking on facilitation. We can say that detachment is needed to analyze the starting
positions of actors and preparing yourself.
Engagement. However the detached attitude should be complemented by engagement. The
group should note that you are committed to each of them individually, as well as a „group‟ and
to the process of dialogue in general. All actors should feel the environment of dialogue is safe
and they are taken seriously, at least by the facilitator.
Focus: there is always a need to discuss 1001 issues that appear to be relevant and important
to some or more actors, but they divert attention to the issue at stake. Thee facilitator should
keep track and make sure the dialogue will always be directed to that one issue
Interior council: especially when it comes to policy matters the facilitator may regularly seek
external advice. The big question is how to select the right advisors. Regarding policy matters I
suggest to ask advice from 4 different groups of advisors: First a group of advisors who
represent the parties which are involved in dialogue. Second a groups of advisors who are
experts regarding the issue. Third a group of advisors who represent the political executive
(and possibly parliament) who have the last word. And fourth one or two advisors in the field
of facilitation. This sounds enormous. But if the issue at stake is of substantial importance it is
better to get well-advised as a facilitator.
Intentionality: aligning the will to succeed. This is a matter of motivation. First of all,
facilitation is not just a job. Nor is it just a matter of estimating whether the actors are
motivated to success. Much rather it is a matter of personal commitment to success.
Motivation needs to be aroused and the facilitator needs to be committed to arousing
motivation of the different actors and committed to deal with obstacles that block motivation.
Jenkins also mentions „presence‟ as a factor. But I prefer to attach it to intentionality. For it is
about inspiring and evoking spirit in the actors who are present, by means of your own
positive presence.
Sense of wonder: without a sense of wonder there cannot be any change. If actors exclude the
possibility of surprise they will let themselves be surprised. So they will be confirmed in their
preconceived ideas about other actors. The first person to show he or she does have a sense of
wonder and is open for surprise is the facilitator. By being positively surprised, the facilitator
is setting an example and a model to be followed.
Awareness: knowing what is really going on in the group of actors, and especially among the
different factions or parties. I have observed myself that gradually as a facilitator one is
running the risk of so eagerly wanting to get somewhere, taking away obstacles and
formulating oneself creatively, that one the road to get there becomes an end in itself.
Suddenly the facilitator realizes the others are looking at him or her. The facilitator is now in
the centre, rather than the actors in dialogue. This happens when the facilitator focuses more
on the process than on the actors. Extremely important is awareness of „kairos‟ the right
moment for change, for getting a message through, for suggesting a new insight which is
synthesizing different opinions and so on.
295
Action: effectiveness. At a particular moment the dialogue must be concluded in a practical
way. Effectiveness depends on kairos. The facilitator should be aware of the right moment and
utilize the moment creatively. This is the moment that maieusis (maieutical method, often the
result of applying the elenctic method!) is possible. Such moment do not last long. The
effective facilitator is aware of the moment and has the courage to act.
Often a process of dialogue goes well and actors leave with a good feeling. However, a day or so
later they realize that it did not produce much. This of course must be avoided. What should
also be avoided that the facilitator draws the practical conclusions. This is the responsibility of
the actors and the facilitator should see to it they do.
See: Jon and Maureen Jenkins, The 9 Disciplines of Facilitation, San Francisco, 2006
296
3 Means of consultation
Q. B.3.1. How should the deliberation process be organized? What tools are available and which are the
positive and negative characteristics of these tools? Why these tools should be called „facilitators‟ in the
real sense of the word?
political system perspective
We focus on the process of policy development. The following types of interaction can be considered by
policy designers. Please note that not all arrangements or means of consultation are suitable to
conduct the entire policy deliberation process. Consultation, participation, interaction, collaboration
and so on are not wonder-words and no panacea for good governance. One needs to know when and
how to apply which.
I will sum up a number of instruments and elaborate very briefly on the way to use them and what to
expect from these instruments. There is plenty of literature available which provides much more useful
information, even on internet.
One way information:
This is not really deliberation. It is about public administration getting informed about public opinion
or the opinion of particular groups of stakeholders. As a start for the deliberation process this can be
very useful. Results obtained from opinion research can be used in the deliberation process.
Instruments include:
Opinion polls and surveys: are quantitative methods to gather information which is statistically
relevant. Correlations may be discovered between different Public opinion polls are based on random
By way of summary TABLE OF BONTENTS II: Q.B.3.
Question/
paragraph
Issues page
Q. B.3.1. Tools to organize the deliberation process 296
Q. B.3.2 Negotiation and the transition to dialogue 305
Q. B.3.3 How to take patterns en frames into account during
deliberation process
306
Q. B.3.4 How to facilitate dialogue 307
Q.B.3.5. Methodological comments on deliberation 316
297
selection of individuals representing a particular category of people. They provide us with general
information regarding the viewpoints of people on an issue and give an indication how strongly people
agree or disagree with certain opinions. But the information is limited. It rarely gives insight about the
reasons why people have an opinion, nor how their opinion may change if additional information is
conveyed to them. Nor does it give insight in who contributed in opinion formation.
By means of statistic correlations between apparently independent variables may help do discover
relationships of dependence between these variables. For instance people with low income are likely to
vote for political party Y. However such a statistical correlation does not necessarily reveal of causal
relationship. Causality in society is always based on definitions of situations (a clarified above) and
contains an element of logic of finality.
Petitions: an activity initiated by citizens, usually bearing names, signatures, sometimes with id-
numbers, to submit a specific request to the public government or a particular governmental officer or
president or king to consider a particular hot issue, sometimes for the repeal of a law considered
unfair. With many signatures a petition implies a powerful moral voice that the government cannot
easily ignore. In some countries petitions with a minimum number of signatures are supposed to be
discussed in parliament of local council. By means of petitions they may put issues on the political
agenda.
Petitions ay also suggest to hold a citizens convention on some important issue, even constitutional
change as Graham Smith is arguing: “The solution lies with the citizen initiative process. That is,
citizens should be empowered to call for a constitutional convention. If a petition on an issue
pertaining to the constitution collects a specified number of signatures from citizens (or those
authorized) within a specified time period, the petition launches a constitutional convention. Citizens
would thus be in control of the agenda-setting process for constitutional change.”
See Graham Smith, Citizens should have the power to call constitutional conventions, Our Kingdom, January 2015
Focus group method: some 10 – maximum 20 participants (often homogenous) get together for a
guided in-depth interview, intended to explore a particular policy issue. It is very useful to find out
how and how strongly people feel about the issue and which response pattern might be expected. It is
also an excellent way to find out how people might respond to new information. Problem is always
groups pressure to answer questions in ways that appear desirable in the group or in society, whereas
in actual fact the hold on to a very different opinion. However when the facilitator manages to create
an atmosphere of trust, people tend to give honest answers.
Of course statistical relevance is nil. Numbers are very small.
Service level monitoring: simple questionnaires to hand out to clients/customers of public
administration. Results of regular feedback from clients can be used to improve quality of service and
improved client-friendliness. Such questionnaires need to be handed out at random and in sufficient
quantity. Usually this kind of monitoring is outsourced to an independent consultant, who regularly
298
reports to the „client‟, the public service directorate to discuss the implications of the outcome and
suggest improvements.
Evaluation studies in which citizens (target group) are invited to give information as well as to give
their opinion about the effects of the policy. May contain in-depth information about the impact of a
policy. However, all too often evaluation studies are carried out in an unprofessional way. Sometimes
pressure is put on the evaluator to serve the executive. Such evaluation studies are of a „participatory
quality‟, i.e. participants evaluate themselves and provide the evaluator with information. Such studies
make use of surveys, focus groups and in depth interviews with stakeholders. Often a mix.
Two way information and communication:
Two way information is a necessary condition for starting a policy dialogue, but not a sufficient one.
Modern citizens, especially the well-educated, want to be to be active choosers. At least as much as
they can be. Commands to change behavior are hardly acceptable and unlikely to be effective.
The deliberation process is about dialogue: that means that information from the partner in dialogue is
not just accepted as a piece of information, but to be reflected upon. As reflection means change,
dialogue is about change, getting new insights and using these new insights to. Revise viewpoints and
ideas that are relevant for the policy issue at stake. Modern citizens, especially the well-educated, want
to be to be active choosers. At least as much as they can be. Commands to change behavior are hardly
acceptable and unlikely to be effective.
Instruments include:
Deliberative polling. A 2-stage type of opinion poll: this actually means that citizens do not just
express an opinion, but first receive information about the issue, express their opinion, receive
information about different policy measures including possible effects policy measures and express an
opinion again. As they have to compare 2 or max 3 policy alternatives, this type of polling provides
insight in the dynamics of opinion formation. It may reveal that adherence to a particular policy is
extremely strong and stable, or weak and ambivalent. It may also reveal that a particular category of
citizens is willing to consider other options, provided there are some good arguments.
Sounding groups: an informal group of citizens and/or stakeholders with or without experts, who
get together to respond to some new policy ideas, sometimes followed by discussion. Regulations
concerning the selection process are often lacking. Because it is an informal arrangement, it is
relatively easy to organize. Often such meetings are sometimes called „round table‟ meetings. A round
table meeting however suggests a more serious meeting geared to coming up with a binding advise or
decision. It is useful to discern between the relatively low-key sounding group and the rather high-
profile „round table‟.
299
Round tables: Though many so-called round tables function as sounding groups (meetings) or
advisory groups (meetings) to provide feedback on policies, the original meaning of a round table is
that stakeholders get together without a powerful chairman who sets the agenda and draws the
conclusions. On the basis of equality, the participants discuss a policy issue and attempt to decide
together which way to proceed to tackle the issue. Round tables are never meant to develop a policy. It
is just meant to agree on problem definition and main strategy. Round tables might be one event or a
series of events. A well-intended round table may raise expectation and finally result in frustration that
the desired results appear impossible. Round Tables might be useful and easy to organize, a binding
advice or decision is rarely the outcome. They quickly „degenerate‟ into a sounding board.
Citizens‟ consulting committees or panels: an official committee consisting of ca 15 or many
more citizens reflecting the population, which is regularly consulted by the executive or team
responsible for a policy in a particular policy domain. The committee may give advice, feedback, as
well as come up with new ideas. The committee may also function as a monitor agency to monitor the
implementation of the policy and suggest ideas to take away obstacles. The committee may even
prepare evaluative reports on the policy.
In order to participate in the committee citizens are invited to apply. Preferably a political neutral
selection committee will be in charge of selection process
Public hearings: policy ideas can be presented to the public at an open public hearing and citizens
are invited first to receive information regarding an intended policy or public issues and next to ask
questions and suggest ideas and give feedback. Public hearings can be organized by region or district.
Important is that the hearing is chaired or facilitated by a politically neutral person, so as to focus on
content and avoid attacks on a politician or the executive who of course will be present at the hearing
and explain and defend the policy idea.
Institutional councils: Fixed number of stakeholders are represented in an institutionalized and
legally established organization and regularly consulted for advise or approval. Most countries have a
council to advise on socio-economic policies, on health policy, educational policy or pension policy
issues, or whatever policy domain. Often the executive must consult the council before making
decisions on the domain. Advice is in some cases binding. The other way round such councils may
suggest new policy measures or request evaluation or adaptation of an existing policy. Institutional
councils usually have statutes that regulate its functioning, including the selection of new members.
Media discussions: Public discussion can be boosted by radio, newspaper, television, telephone and
internet. Increasingly the social media are being used as a means of discussion. The initiative is usually
taken by journalists of just some active individual citizens, rarely by the executive. Often the executive
is not even included in the (social) media discussion. But the information obtained might be very
useful. In any case we have to realize that the (social) media will soon be the main platform for any
public policy discourse.
300
Green papers: In the Commonwealth and increasingly in the EU a green paper is a tentative
consultation document of policy proposals, issued by the government for debate and discussion,
without any commitment to action. Green papers are meant to invite individual citizens and CSO‟s to
contribute to the policy discussion. Green paper are seen to be very useful facilitators or catalysts in
participatory democracy. A green paper maybe developed into a white paper, which is more
definitive and can be presented to Parliament for approval. However white Papers are often used to
test public opinion about a controversial issue. Feedback may enable the government to gauge possible
response patterns and, if need be, take mitigating measures.
Deliberation and co-operation
Next step is not just deliberation but also co-operation in deciding and sometimes elaborating policies
and possibly in carrying out policies.
Instruments include:
Public policy partnerships: A governmental policy team is actively working together with CSO‟s to
develop, elaborate, implement and evaluate a policy in a particular area together. A very promising
arrangement both for the deliberation process and the co-operation with implementation. During the
deliberation process other deliberation tools can be used. As a method still in its infancy, but with
promising results in Eastern Europe. Practicing public policy partnerships implies the promotion of
social capital and empowerment of stakeholders. It also contributes to democratic legitimacy. As we
elaborated above, we will not elaborate further
Consensus conferences: Series of events to discuss a hot policy issue and reach consensus
regarding the approach and sometimes the methodology by the end. Binding or unbinding advice
prepared by a relatively small multiform group of people meeting (reflecting the population) at a
conference by the end of the process. Can be combined with other instruments like media, hearings. As
the consensus conference often advises about the methodology of the policy, it should be considered as
both a deliberation and a co-operation arrangement.
In order to participate in the conference citizens are invited to apply. A political neutral selection
committee will be in charge of selection process.
There are many variations:
- citizens jury: in which citizens express their judgment on a moral policy
issue;
- consensus council: charged to come up with unanimous advice on a policy
issue;
- creative policy council: to brainstorm on a difficult issue and come up with
several creative policy solutions
301
Referendum: Citizens express their opinion on a particular issue. Prior to the referendum citizens
may gather together for public discussions. In some cases the (political) executive organizes public
discussions to make propaganda for their point of view. In that case the referendum has become a
„political referendum‟ and can hardly be considered to be a „deliberation instrument‟. John Dunn has
extensively criticized the referendum as a means of deliberation if the political executive takes the lead.
He strongly argued that citizens have „a right to take the initiative in placing issues on the ballot‟. That
is what makes it an instrument of democracy. The outcome of a referendum is either binding or
advisory. A particular number of citizens may take the initiative for a referendum. A referendum can
result into a binding advice or just an advice. As a referendum is of crucial importance to the decision
process it can be concluded that a referendum belongs in this category.
See: Mark Bevir, Democratic governance, 2010; Dryzek, John (2010). Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance,
Oxford, 2010; Elster, Jon (ed) Deliberative Democracy Cambridge, 1998; Dunn, J., Democracy, A History, 2005, p 177 ff
Smith G., Democratic Innovations : Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge, 2009; Graaf, van de H. and
Bulaj A. (ed), Cine se teme de democratie? A manual for participatory policy development, Bucharest 2005;
Heating systems in 2001
The City of Buzias is a typical case for most of the Romanian small cities. It inherited an obsolete
system of public services – such as the heating system, based on old Soviet technology. One of the
critical problems which the City Hall had to face is whether it should persist in supporting a
centralized heating system or if they should start thinking (and being funded!) for a decentralized one.
The city is a very poor one.
As the technical and economic aspects of such an endeavor are of utmost importance – the City Hall
can't decide, for example, to support a centralized scheme if most of its beneficiaries disconnect
themselves regularly from the system – a preliminary survey focusing on the best solution for the city
and its inhabitants was suggested, as a starting point. Two experts were hired to advise the local
council, an economist and an engineer.
After completing the survey, a public meeting was organized. The aim of the public meetings was to
inform the public about the heating situation, the technical problems and possible solutions, as well
the economic and financial aspects. Citizens were invited to ask questions and express opinions.
The local council did not know how to make up its mind. Consulting our project committee (to
introduce participatory democracy) it is decided to arrange a consensus conference: citizens and
experts get together and are expected to conclude with an advice to the local council: for the time being
repair the old fashioned central system, and start planning and financing new central heating systems
per bloc of apartments, as well introduce a subsidy system to help individual households to improve
their own often very old fashioned heating system or install a modern central heating system.
Duration: 10 years. A special heating tax needs to be raised, with 3 levels according to income. It takes
302
the local council nearly 2 years to decide to follow the advice. However, in the end the process proved
to be helpful.
Let me present an overview of all instruments:
Type of
interaction
Elaboration Positive Negative
Predominantly info
Opinion polls,
surveys
Citizens and stakeholders get
(regularly) interviewed on
various issues, thus
providing the executive with
useful information about
likes, dislikes, ideas, fears
and whatever
If carried out well it provides
the government with
relatively neutral information
The information obtained is
superficial. Fresh ideas will
not be elaborated.
There is no two-way
communication and it does
not result in stronger
involvement off individual
citizens or stakeholders.
Focus groups Like opinion polls the focus
group method is a research
method. Excellent means to
get in-depth information
about a issues. With groups
(often homogenous) of 10-20
people a particular issues is
discussed. This can be a
policy still to be introduced
Very useful to get in-depth
information and feedback.
Provides insight in the way
people might respond to a
policy intention.
Not so very representative.
It does not stimulate
involvement, nor does it
build a social support basis
for a policy.
Service level
monitoring
simple questionnaires to
hand out to
clients/customers of public
administration.
Results of regular feedback
from clients can easily be
used to improve quality of
service and improved client-
friendliness. If taken
seriously by the service team.
Useful and (if carried out
professionally)
representative.
Petitions A citizens‟ initiative to
request attention for a
particular issue. Often
accompanied by a number of
names and signatures
An excellent and easy way for
citizens to draw attention to
an issue that is neglected by
the governing body.
No guarantee that the
governing body will pay due
attention
303
Evaluation studies Some evaluation studies
citizens (target group) are
invited to give information
as well as to give their
opinion about the effects of
the policy
May contain in-depth
information about the impact
of a policy
All too often evaluation
studies are carried out in an
unprofessional way.
Sometimes written to serve
the executive.
Predominantly
deliberation, but
also in formation
Deliberative polling Citizens express an opinions
first , receive information
about different policy
measures including possible
effects policy measures and
express an opinion again
May provide a relatively high
quantity of opinions and gives
a good insight in how citizens
may respond to policy
measures if taken
Difficult to reduce the
number of people who
refuse to participate (no-
response) to an acceptable
level
Sounding groups informal groups of citizens
and/or stakeholders who get
together to respond to some
new policy ideas, sometimes
followed by discussion.
Because it is an informal
arrangement, it is relatively
easy to organize.
May support entire
deliberation process
Not so representative.
Regulations concerning the
selection process are often
lacking. So the sounding
group may put the executive
on the wrong leg
Round tables Attempts of stakeholders to
come to a common problem
definition and choice of
strategy meetings on the
basis of equality
Easy to organize. Often
participants enthusiastically
participate, expecting a great
outcome. Might be a useful
start for a consensus
conference, PPP or
referendum
Rarely with desired result.
With high expectations,
participants may get
frustrated. Most round
tables appear to be just
sounding groups. Impossible
to develop a full-fledged
policy
Public hearing policy ideas can be presented
to the public at an open
public hearing and citizens
are invited to ask questions
and suggest ideas and give
feedback
Easy to organize, also
regionally.
Large number of people can
be reached
Many suggestions. Often
highly appreciated by
participants
Superficial consultation.
Fresh ideas will not be
elaborated. Suggestions will
rarely be used
Risk of misunderstanding
No obligation to organize
304
Citizens Consulting
Committee
Ad hoc or permanent
committees of citizens for a
particular policy domain.
Highly motivated citizens (or
representatives of
stakeholders + experts) who
actively contribute to policy
development, or evaluation.
All ministries and
departments may make use of
such committees and receive
useful feedback. Stimulating
to learning.
Will in principle support the
entire deliberation process
Committees are relatively
small, so only a few
participate, who may not be
representative. Unclear
whether a social support
basis exists
Institutional
councils
Like Social-
Economic councils
Councils for public
Health
Etc
Fixed number of
stakeholders are represented
and regularly consulted for
either advice or approval or
both.
Government cannot ignore an
institutionalized council.
Expert advice will be given
Members maintain large
network, so information will
be conveyed to the rank and
file.
May support entire
deliberation process
Often not really
representative
Councils can be drawn into
political dynamics and focus
entirely on negotiate to the
detriment of dialogue
(social) Media
discussion
Public discussion can be
boosted by radio, newspaper,
television, telephone and
internet. Will soon be the
main platform for the public
policy discourse.
Very useful as a source of
information. Useful for
citizens to express opinions
and contribute to a
nationwide debate.
May contribute to
deliberation process
Often unstructured
discussions, not so useful for
policy development. And
difficult to handle.
Green paper A tentative consultation
document of policy
proposals, issued by the
government for debate and
discussion, without any
commitment to action.
Green papers contain detailed
information and are meant
for serious discussion. Useful
in combination with other
consultative arrangements
Not many people will take
the effort to study a green
paper. Usefulness of green
papers is dependent on the
working of other
arrangements.
Predominantly
deliberation and co-
operation
305
Consensus
Conference
Series of events to discuss a
hot policy issue and reach
consensus by the end. Can be
combined with other
instruments like media,
hearings.
Great instrument to discuss
an issue publicly in a non-
political way, as well as in a
structured way that is very
useful for policy
development.
Will support entire
deliberation process
Requires special skills to
organize and to facilitate
discussions in order to reach
consensus. Works only if not
politicized. Political parties
may feel left out.
Public Policy
Deliberation
Partnership (PDP)
A governmental policy team
is actively working together
with CSO‟s to develop,
implement and evaluate a
policy in a particular area
together.
Probably the most useful way
to involve CSO‟s (and if need
be individual citizens) in
policy development.
Relatively easy to organize
successfully
Will support entire
deliberation process
Selected CSO‟s may not be
representative. Others may
feel left out, including
political parties.
Requires intensive training.
Referendum Citizens express their
opinion on a particular issue.
The outcome is either
binding or advisory. A
particular number of citizens
may take the initiative for a
referendum.
It is a very democratic way of
deciding about a policy issue.
Often it is combined with
intensive public discussions
about all pros and cons of a
policy choice
Once a referendum gets
politicized, it becomes the
extension of a political
discussion. Discussions
about pro and con tend to be
unstructured and less useful
for sound policy
development.
Point of attention: internal consultation
Sometimes policy designers within the government are so busy consulting external stakeholders, that
they forget to consult with colleagues responsible for policy design in other policy domains or with
colleagues carrying out policies. In order to harmonize policies in different domains it is important to
consult with all people responsible for policies on related policy domains and make sure policies
support one another.
In modern governmental structures where policy design and policy implementation is separated, as a
rule the policy design department must consult with the implementation department. For in this
department you can find the people who will be able to assess a policy idea and advise whether an idea
is workable.
By now it will be clear that any deliberation tool is meant to work as a catalyst between citizens
(stakeholders) and the governing body, encouraging communication and dialogue resulting in policy
solutions that include all relevant groups, categories of people and stakeholders. That is why we say
that these tools are meant to have a facilitating function.
306
Q.B.3.2. When do we need negotiation and is a transition from negotiation into dialogue possible?
Above, when discussing public policy mediation, we already pointed to the difference between dialogue
and negotiation. Here we will just focus on the transition from negotiation to dialogue.
Many actors and stakeholders will try to influence the policy development, the formulation and/or
identification of problems and goals, as well as its instruments, to gear it to their wishes and interests.
Discussions may take the form of dialogue when partners are open and transparent, respecting one
another fully. Otherwise discussions will have the character of negotiations, which is often the case.
After a first round of discussions, the design will be adapted, etc. Or break down into fighting.
Excellent facilitators are continuously trying to move „upward‟ from fighting to negotiation and on to
or up to dialogue, or trying to maintain the pattern of dialogue. Excellent facilitators do manage, but
never without ups and downs. Policy dialogue is a matter of finding at least a minimum of common
ground.
The book on negotiation by Fisher and Ury, we mentioned before, is indeed about negotiation.
However they propose to move from taking power and position as the starting point, to taking issues,
interests, common principles and criteria as a starting point. They suggest exploring the issue and the
common interest in the issue first. Once the focus is on the issue, the negotiation climate is changing
already. So the next thing to do is focus on more aspects of the issue and to explore common ground as
well as points of difference. The best agogical way of doing this is to ask each of the parties in
negotiation (on the way to dialogue) to formulate and defend the viewpoint of the other. The challenge
of dialogue is in essence the willingness and the ability to put yourself in the position of the other. This
exercise usually (not necessarily) has the effect of a discovery. You dis-cover how the other party is
viewing the situation. Once you have discovered that viewpoint a dialogue gets started.
In actual fact Fisher and Ury propose to move upward from power and imposing measures to
negotiation to dialogue by means of exploring and finally „discovering‟ the viewpoint of the other. It is
about getting matters straight and detach issues from positions. Getting into dialogue is very difficult,
but also very rewarding.
Rawls‟ „difference principle‟ is exactly that: a minimum of common ground between otherwise
antagonistic parties. The haves realize they cannot exist without the have-nots, so it is in their interest
that they get decently paid and cared for. The have-nots realize they cannot exist without the haves
who know how to run an organization and provide work, so it in their interest to make sure they get
paid more lest they lose their interest in running the organization. In other words the „difference‟
should be functional and useful to both parties, which is their minimal common ground. Realizing that
the „parties‟ become „partners‟.
Point of attention: role of the expert
307
Lots of critics of the usefulness of the policy deliberation process put forward there is absolutely no
guarantee that the best policy solution will be found. On the contrary, the chances are small, as most
participants in the process either „know nothing or just know their own exclusive interests‟, to put it
bluntly. The conclusion is not to discard the deliberation method. It is wiser to make sure the voice of
the expert is taken seriously by all stakeholders in the process.
Here we have to come up with an important remark. Negotiation is not conducive to listening to the
expert. Expert knowledge does not lend itself for negotiations. Just interests do. This is very different
with dialogue. Partners in dialogue listen to one another, including the expert and take the other
seriously, considering their viewpoints. In dialogue stakeholders will confront the expert with their
interests and values that might be difficult to combine with the expert solution. But that may lead to an
excellent discussion issue. All partners will be challenged to weigh and assess different points of view.
The chance to get to quite a reasonable outcome is high.
See for an excellent discussion but very different conclusion: Krešimir Petkovic, Interpretive Policy Analysis and Deliberative
Democracy: must we politicize analysis?, Zagreb, without year (from internet)
Conclusion: as long as actors in negotiation, discussion or dialogue view themselves as (conflicting or
even warring) „parties‟, there is no prospect for dialogue nor for taking the expert opinion seriously
into account. Once they realize they need one another, they may start viewing themselves as partners.
That might be that start of dialogue. Once they are „partners‟ they are more eager to understand the
position of the other partner, so they start exploring that position and dis-cover how the other is
viewing the situation
See R.Fisher and W.Uri, Getting to Yes, ibid; and J.Rawls, A Theory of Justice, 2005
Q.B.3.4. Should patterns and frames be taken into account during the deliberation process?
Let us focus on differences between partners in deliberation. All partners enter the deliberation
process with their specific interests, assumptions, preconceived ideas, value hierarchies or priorities,
norms, expectations, ideals, taboos, preferences and so on, all with their own peculiar interpretations
of situations, of others and not to forget of the rules of the game. And what is more, they may represent
different spheres (oikos, market, civil society) each with their specific framework pattern.
Together these elements constitute a specific mental patterns. Differences between people have to do
with different mental patterns they are tuned into. People share patterns with others who they live and
work together with, or who they highly respect. As we are interacting and communicating with others
we compare elements, change elements, add elements, color elements. Patterns are far from static.
They are in a continuous flux as a result of continuous observation, communication and experience.
308
Objectivity does not exist. The „real world‟ around us is part of the pattern. All so-called „facts‟ are
colored by our mental pattern. Some „facts‟ we do not see at all. Others we highlight immediately as
significant, meaningful or dreadful.
Mediocre communicators are just vague aware of underlying patterns, but their awareness remains
tacit. Patterns will be at work nevertheless, but without awareness the opinions expressed by partners
in dialogue may now sound unreasonable, strange, incoherent and maybe even awkward. The dialogue
just does not get started up. The result is ill-understanding of partners, even misunderstanding and no
communis opinio.
Good communicators and facilitators get quickly aware of the characteristics and relevant elements of
the mental patterns of partners in a dialogue. And they manage to get people to reflect on some
individual elements or on the patters as a whole. This will helps to develop a new and critical look at
ones‟ own pattern and it will also help others to understand the position of a partner in dialogue better.
Martin Rein is using Goffman‟s idea of frames that we use. (see Q.A.2.5.) Like putting a painting in a
frame, so we put situations and problems in a frame. Bare situations do not exist. He is right. We are
framing indeed and in policy deliberation it is important to be aware of the type of frames that people
use and to discuss such frames and to try to conceive of a common frame. Policy deliberation is a way
of reframing problems and trying to find a common frame. But frames are not identical to patterns as I
understand them here. Frames refer to behavioral styles (like making jokes, being serious, negotiating,
fighting, flirting etc) as well as to verbal styles (like putting accents, playing with sequence, syntax and
semantics) When it comes to semantics, the meaning of words, we get very close to patterns. For
without patterns there is no such thing as meaning.
I am somewhat suspicious regarding the term „frame‟. In practice it may function as a superior way of
„spinning‟ a message. You frame the message in such a way that citizens consider it as credible. What
happens is that a particular relevant pattern element is singled out and used to „frame‟ a message that
is otherwise contrary to the pattern people adhere to.
A miserable example
The Bush administration wants to make war with Iraq. The real reason is that Iraq has great oil fields.
What a great idea to create a democratic stronghold in the Middle East, a partner of the USA in
business and foreign policy. Now we have a good reason to topple Sadam Hussein, install a friendly
regime and start doing profitable business. The events of 9/11 provide us with an alibi to invade Iraq.
And on top of it are all the dangerous weapons of mass destruction.
OK, the pattern is business and power. The frame is human rights which tell us that Sadam‟s regime is
an immoral and unacceptable anomaly. So with the help of some European nations he set off to work,
leaving the people in waiting for the big revelation of weapons of mass destruction.
But it is useful to consider a frame as part of a larger mental pattern and to be aware that pattern is the
larger and more encompassing „frame‟. See paragraph on patterns Q.A.2.5.
309
As our patterns change, so will our frames change. Patterns rest on basic assumptions about life. Most
of these assumptions belong to the category of tacit knowledge. So we „tend to argue from our tacit
frames to explicit policy positions‟. Assumptions like: „ you have to take things as they are‟ , „ all
politicians are....‟ or egalitarian assumptions like „ too much inequality will create serious problems‟ ,
or active technological position like, „ every problem can be solved‟ and so on. Patterns contain frames
to define situations.
See about framing and reframing: Donald A. Schön and Martin Rein, Frame Reflection, Toward the Resolution of Intractable
Policy Controversies, 1995 and Goffman,E. Frame Analysis, New York, 1974.
How to facilitate a dialogue, keeping in mind patterns and frames? What should be kept in mind is
“that dialogue is the joined effort to make relevant tacit knowledge explicit”. Any discussion may be
about issues which are explicit. Negotiation is about issues that partners know about but for strategic
and tactical reasons do not want to discuss explicit, even though both partners know the other partner
is well-aware of it. So it is a somewhat shadowy discussion. Dialogue emerges when the real tacit
knowledge gets explicit and partners are willing to discuss the validity of it.
Have a look at an example:
Oil spill again
You remember the example of the oil spill in the Curacao lagoon, destroying flora and fauna, and the 3
main partners discussing the situation together: oil refinery, environmental CSO‟s/citizens and
governmental officials. They „framed‟ the problem each in their own specific way: a technical failure,
an environmental disaster, societal unrest. How to get these stakeholders into dialogue?
The first main step towards a fruitful dialogue is getting tacit knowledge on the table, in other words to
discuss basic assumptions and the definitions of the situation that follow from these assumptions.
Once that is done, partners may ask questions concerning the assumptions. The result of „question
time‟ in most cases is more sympathy for the point of view of other partners which is the beginning of a
willingness to take other points of view into account.
Conclusion: the question was whether patterns and frames should be taken into account. Ideally yes.
For patterns and frames, though often tacit, determine the interests and viewpoints of partners. So if
you really want to get somewhere together, frames need to be taken into account. If you don‟t take
them into account, they will do their work anyway, but they are likely to block good communication.
Q.B.3.5. How to facilitate a dialogue? We may discern 7 phases in the dialogue:
310
The 1st to the 4th phase may be called: „basic dialogue‟. It starts with a ‟basic dialogue proper and goes
on with other features of dialogue which are in some way or another also basic. But let me make a
preliminary remark on paying attention and focusing.
Dialogue is about paying attention to the issue at stake and paying attention to the partner in dialogue
and his or her view of the issue. What does „attention‟ mean? Literally it means: „stretching the mind to
the other‟ or „to a particular issue‟. The idea is indeed that the mind is no longer preoccupied with
itself, but with its environment. Before we discussed the working of patterns and we pointed to the fact
that patterns direct the attention in a particular way. We may say that adhering to a pattern (there is
no escape) naturally means „biased awareness‟ and „biased attention‟. One of the preconditions of
dialogue is to neutralize bias, to open the mind to other perspectives, to break through „linguistic
determinism‟ and aim at synthesis. One of the best ways to break through linguistic determinism is to
invite all parties to „redefine‟ words and concepts used by the other party and be challenged to
summarize the viewpoint of the opposite party. This is the goal of the so-called „basic dialogue‟.
Before exploring the idea of basic dialogue we pay attention to the interesting and important viewpoint
of Isaiah Berlin.
Isaiah Berlin‟s point of view.
Berlin, who was born in Riga in 1909, was one of the millions of European citizens who witnessed the
widening gap between different people with different world views and political views in Europe, still
wanting to live together. Or not? He settled in England and had some words with famous poet
T.S.Eliot who desired a revival of European Christian civilization and who apparently was afraid of
Jewish free critical voice. 'Am I profoundly mistaken', he wrote to Eliot, 'that you thought it a pity that
large groups of "free thinking Jews" should complicate the lives of otherwise fairly homogenous Anglo-
Saxon Christian communities? And that it were better otherwise? And that if this could be done by
humane means, and persuasion and without coercion, it would be better for such communities if their
Jewish neighbors, or a sufficiently large proportion of them, were put "beyond the borders of the
city?". Later, when interviewed by his biographer Ignatieff, he commented on that discussion: 'When
you have two peoples of different origins and cultures, it is difficult for them to live together in peace...
it is quite natural that each side should think that they cannot lead free lives in an integrated society if
the others are there in quantity.' Berlin had the courage to take the bull by the horns. It is no good to
assume that everything will be fine and comfortable, whereas in actual fact deep cracks exist. Berlin
was a keen defender of cultural liberalism and at the same time acknowledged the need of people to
have a „place to live and experience identity and solidarity‟. For instance, the Jewish people were in
need of such a place. This is the continuous tension between two great values: freedom and solidarity.
Berlin would call it a contradiction that is part of the human condition. This is what we have to face:
we all have to live in a non-harmonious environment that is continuously confronting us with
impossible moral choices. Indeed, this is what morality is all about: making impossible choices. I am
not sure if Isaiah Berlin managed to get or wanted to get to a synthesis, as you would find in Taoism.
He would not agree with something mystical and superreal as the TAO.He believed values are human
constructions. However he did formulate a number of practical conflicts that we need to face. To sum
311
up some of his viewpoint that are relevant here: Human beings all pursue ends and all are endowed
with some power of choice, which means that they inevitably shape their own life, and, even more
important, the lives of many others. However human beings are also able to understand one another
and have a capacity of empathy, and, as a result, the capacity of imagination and thus of anticipating
responses. But in spite of the fact that we have this capacity we can easily be blinded by wrong
concepts and categories. This will inevitably lead to misunderstandings, suffering and self-inflicted
“evil ”. A major assumption that is wrong is the idea of a „pure society‟ or community, or rather the idea
that such a community can be built.
The conclusion is that we have got to live with multiform societies and have to come to an
understanding of „value-pluralism‟.
See: Michael Ignatieff, Isaiah Berlin , 1998; and I.Berlin himself in his Four Essays on Liberty, Oxford, 1969.
I tried to work out Berlin‟s conclusion. First I suggest the concept of roomification is helpful here. Let
me explain by means of a personal example. I live in the countryside and I am fond of total silence in
the night. This is impossible anyway. Even the countryside is producing noise at night. But some time
ago a restaurant opened close to my home. The restaurant is organizing parties during the weekend
and the people attending the parties like loud music until 3 am. The tropical trade winds blow straight
from the restaurant into my home, taking the noise with them. Looking at it from the perspective of
roomification, the restaurant is invading my space by means of noise. This I do not find acceptable. At
this moment the parliament is preparing a law to limit the nuisance of noise in the space of others. I
have suggested they also prepare a policy to enforce the law. Maybe they will. Some stakeholders
protested, but have agreed to accept the conditions of the law. There was some policy dialogue, with
some stakeholders turning up, about the issue. The result was a compromise.
Imagine the famous Swiss doctor Paul Tournier was still alive and imagine he was invited to deliver
some lectures in Curacao about the effects of late night music and dancing, as well as noise and light
on our physical and mental well-being. Imagine also that lots of people from my little village, including
the owners of the restaurant would attend these lectures and be persuaded that too much light and
noise in the night has a negative effect on our mental and physical well-being. It may even cause
depression. The restaurant spontaneously decides to lower the noise level and limit the parties till
midnight. Now it is no longer perceived as a compromise. It is more a kind of „synthesis‟. People would
now say: we like parties, but for reasons of health we stop exaggerating, for in the course of the evening
we need to slow down, stop being exposed to light and noise.
And how about me? Not really a synthesis. But still an agreeable compromise. Plus something else that
I would like to draw attention to: internalization of conflict. This is what Isaiah Berlin was looking for.
He realized being in the world means facing conflict. People around us make choices that affect others,
including me. Different actors, different spheres have different points of view and that means conflict.
For sure, talking and discussing is to be preferred to fighting. If we are clever we work out a
compromise. Behind the compromise are the different actors with their conflicting viewpoints.
External to me. I will continue to look at these actors as bearers of a particular point of view,who will
continue to be a cause of irritation. So suggest that we take a step forward and adopt the values
conflict in our own mind, internalizing it, so to speak, and taking full responsibility for it, rather than
312
be n the alert and blame external actors. Put differently: living together in a plural society full of
conflict and unsatisfactory compromises is our fate. There is a chronic lack of communication between
different categories of people adhering to different patterns. This leads to polarization and conflicts,
misunderstandings and preconceived ideas about others. It certainly does not lead to a „communis
opinio‟ on basic issues. We also see that people from different categories enjoy criticizing and blaming
people from other categories. This is tearing societies apart. The next step is to blame a particular
category of people for that. They become scape goats, ideally suited to externalize and project
frustrations we cannot cope with. This is quite childish. Is it not a sign of maturity and solidarity to
embrace a pluralist situation and internalize it. By internalizing external conflicts we are forced to
think about the implications, to reflect, and to discover the relative value of contradictory viewpoints
and try to come to terms with it at an individual level. We will then be better suited for living together
with a variety of people, seeking a modus vivendi.
Point of attention
Berlin‟s point is more important than it seems to be at first sight. We forgot that the French
philosopher Gabriel Marcel who has written an entire book about the matter: Les hommes contre
l‟humain .(„Humans against humanness‟) In this study he analyses the ramifications of an atomistic
world view (see Q.7.1.), focusing on the concept of values. The idea of individual disconnected values to
be ordered by us, to prioritize, to take serious or to disregard, is the result of this atomistic world view.
Atomism, so he puts forward, implies choice. And choice implies a person who is in the position to
choose, to consider and assess everything form a more or less detached point of view. The person who
assesses and chooses is considering himself able to do so. He is considering himself able because he
considers himself an elevated judge. This is not just an arrogant attitude, it is, so he concludes, an
„inhuman attitude‟. With this attitude we reveal a deep rift between me and all the rest of people
around me. At best we may identify with others and, some way or another care for others. But any
moment we may decide to take a step backwards, to stop identifying ourselves with others.
Vice versa we are aware that others adopt a similar attitude towards us or me. So, how do we respond?
The other is a potential judge, or friend, or traitor or adversary,or nobody. The result is that we are
collectively on our guard, we are continuously on the watch, and, naturally, we try to control. Marcel is
pointing to the strong tendency towards individual and collective obsession with control. Put simply,
we are control freaks.
How to get out of this vicious circle? The only way out is to embrace „unity‟, to accept the existential
condition that we are all part of mankind and that all the suffering, conflict, misery and joy is part of us
and me. To „embody‟ it. To accept the universal and the amazing fact that the universal is „me‟ as well,
a micro cosmos as a reflection of the macro cosmos. If so, we are in the position to enter into honest
dialogue with others, geared to understanding our way of existence in the present.
I do not think there is any modern thinker who has so passionately argued for an attitude of
inclusiveness and policies of inclusiveness as Gabriel Marcel.
Rudyard Kipling expressed the same in this little poem:
313
All good people agree / and all good people say / all good people are like US and WE / and everyone
else is THEY / but if you cross the sea / instead of over the way / you may end…..by looking at We s a
sort of THEY.
That is also why David Cannadine drew attention to the fact of our „undivided past‟, which is not
merely a historic fact, but an existential fact.
See Gabriel Marcel, Les hommes contre l‟humain , 1951, réédition Fayard, Paris 1968; and Jacques Ellul, Fausse présence au
monde moderne, Paris, 1964; D. Cannadine, The Undivided Past, Humanity beyond our differences, New York,2013
Now on to the 7 phases of dialogue (which is a sequence to the „9 disciplines‟ of Jon Jenkins)
First phase: The best way is to ask all partners to share their way of seeing things first. This we
may call a „basic dialogue‟. Others are just listening. A basic dialogue first focuses on what
everybody „sees‟ and is therefore about „facts‟ only. I like the word „basic dialogue‟ or „ basic
conversation‟ for it is basic in 2 different respects. First the focus is indeed on basic facts and
feelings, nothing else. Different partners in dialogue just share the facts that they see and the
feelings that they experience while seeing. No interpretation, no judgments, no solutions. All
that is forbidden. This in itself, when carried out dogmatically correct, is a big step forward to
mutual understanding. Secondly it is basic in that it provides the basis for further dialogue. My
personal experience shows that basic dialogue is an extremely effective way to start a real
dialogue. Partners are „forced‟ to listen to one another, before commenting, interpreting and
judging.
Second phase: Next all partners share the way they interpret what they see and what type of
meaning they bestow on what they see and how define the situation as more or less
problematic. It is important that all parties have a clear view of their own argumentation and
the argumentation of others. It is important that all partners are aware which „sphere‟ they
represent and which implications that sphere has for the issue at stake. Important is also that
all actors focus on interests, values and visions for the future. That is why they see particular
situation as problematic. It should be avoided to focus on statements and positions. Partners
in dialogue may ask questions to one another for clarification. That is the second phase of a
basic dialogue.
In the third phase the facilitator is inviting partners to share what motivates them to do
something to solve the problem as they see it. So all partners in dialogue indicate why the
situation is problematic for them. Naturally the sphere they represent is of importance here.
Again the partners may ask questions for clarification. The idea is that partners become aware
of the fact that other partners do have a problem with the situation as it is.
Now comes the fourth phase, which is the most tricky and decisive one. We call it the
„argumentative dialogue‟: partners may now share their opinion about the interpretation and
314
argumentation of another partner, provided they explain why they have that opinion. So you
cannot just say: rubbish! You have to explain by means of arguments why you believe this is
rubbish and you must permit the other partner to respond to your arguments. The arguments
will reveal different types of frames and patterns behind the frames and the sphere
(framework pattern) they belong to. The more partners agree to respond to arguments (rather
than the resulting opinion or judgment) the more they will learn from one another. The idea is
that nobody should try to convince others. It is just a matter of trying to understand one
another. Questions of clarification are permitted. By the way, this also applies to policy
experts! (see also the paragraph on managing deliberation below).
The 5th to the 7th phase is the final phase and we call it the „concluding dialogue‟.
Fifth phase: During this phase the facilitator must try to move upwards from positions and
positional argumentation with or without fighting, to common ground and inclusive
argumentation, i.e. stimulating all partners to take positions and arguments from other
partners into account. Sometimes this is called „ braiding‟ the weaving of different story lines
and problem definitions into one tapestry. In my own experience the best way is to break up in
small groups of 3 to 4 participants (holding different positions) with the purpose of
brainstorming about a common solution and coming up with a creative solution that is
agreeable to all partners. The groups present their solution plenary, comment on solutions of
others. The breaking up in small groups and insert some healthy competition to the groups,
almost always works out incredibly well.
Sixth phase: followed by the facilitator who will ask some additional questions and tries to get
into a „consensus solution‟ of all stakeholders, including policy experts of the relevant field.
The facilitator must make sure whether the ideas proposed indeed cover the viewpoints of all
partners; if no consensus solution is proposed, negotiation is needed. Again, this can best be
done in small groups, each of which will discuss and negotiate and propose a new solution in
the plenary session. So in the case of negotiation, we go back to phase 5. Please note: breaking
up in small heterogeneous groups to negotiate works well if and only if participants desire
dialogue. If they desire fighting it will not work. In that case I recommend to split up in
homogenous groups, according to positions and challenge them to suggest a solution that they
suppose might be acceptable to other stakeholders. So the facilitator is forcing them to be as
inclusive as possible. Solutions that will then be presented plenary are unlikely to be
immediately acceptable to other parties, but may contain some interesting elements on the
basis of which the discussion can be continued until consensus is reached. Why is groups work
so effective? Because no groups really wants to be laughed at during a plenary session. Each
group wants to be seen as serious and as creative and willing to pay attention to others. Even if
at first they feel like fighting.
315
Seventh phase: selecting the most agreeable problem definition and solution. The facilitator
will finally make a summary of the discussions so far and suggest the solution that seems to be
the most agreeable, leading to a modus Vivendi.
As you can see in the table above, not all arrangements are suitable to conduct the entire deliberation
process.
There are some pitfalls to avoid. The most common pitfall is that one or more actors get obsessed with
wanting to be right. This is killing for any dialogue and negotiation as well.
The second pitfall is manipulation. The facilitator should be able to show why a particular type of
behavior is in fact a type of manipulation. And all participants should agree from the beginning that
dialogue (like negotiation) and manipulation do not like one another.
Thirdly, the partners in dialogue may feel unfree to participate openly because of fixed standpoint
among their rank and file. This is a pitfall that is difficult and sometimes impossible to avoid. The rank
and file is present by definition. The problem is that the rank-and-file-opinion is often used in
negotiation by the official or unofficial representative to emphasize the importance and power of an
opinion. As if the opinions of the rank and file or static. Indeed it happens frequently that negotiators
get criticized and dismissed by the rank and file after informing them about a decision that they do not
agree with. It happens frequently with trade unions. An easy solution is not available. But once we
realize that even if we represent a particular group we should not forget that no group or category of
people has the right of any exclusive privileges. In other words, representing a group of people involves
the challenge to „help integrate that group of people in our planet‟, to use the words of Theodore
Roszak.
For an elaboration see the Training for Trainers Manual, issued by transFORMA Romania, 2002 and written by B. Kristensen
and T. Veen; see also the interesting collection of essays in Dutch to explore the partnership between dialogue and synthesis, in
which the authors argue that they need one another J.H.M.M.Loenen and J.K.M.Gevers (ed) Synthese als aktiemodel, een
interdisciplinaire bezinning, Assen, 1972; and Theodore Roszak, Person and Planet, 1978, p 314 ff
Conclusion: by keeping the 7 phases of dialogue in mind, the chances that a real dialogue will emerge
are high. Starting with basic dialogue, it continues as „concluding dialogue‟. There are many more
„schemes and ways‟ to facilitate a dialogue.
See D.Laws and M.Rein, Reframing practice; in Deliberative Policy Analysis, ibid, p 172 ff; See also J. Forester, Dealing with
Differences, 2009; James Fishkin, When the People Speak, Oxford, 2011; and see about „ braiding‟ Sara Cobb, Narrative „
Braiding‟ and the role of Public Officials in Transforming the Public‟s Conflicts, from Narrative and Conflict: Explorations of
Theory and Practice, Vol 1,1, December 2013.
316
Q.B.3.5. Above we discussed how to facilitate a dialogue in general. The deliberation process to
develop ideas in the public domain, involves more than just a dialogue. Which specific methodical
principles need to be observed to facilitate deliberation process?
Managing a deliberation process is difficult and crucial. In case of success it is also very rewarding.
Facilitation is helpful and often indispensible. As a rule politicians are unable to lead discussions with
a diverse group of citizens. Almost by definition they will be seen as partial. There might be some
talent among civil servants, but it is worth looking for a good facilitator among television or radio
journalists with much expertise in his field.
There are 10 points of attention:
1. Crystal clear agreement with the executive: the executive must be convinced a deliberation
process is important. This means the executive should be aware of the ins and outs of the
deliberation process, its impact, its limits, its consequences. They should realize a deliberation
process is not a facade-process, it should be not fake, lest the participants will understandably
be disappointed and worse.
2. The importance of information about the issue at stake: all future partners in dialogue should
be informed about the issue. Lots of misunderstandings arise as a result of misinformation
and misunderstanding. This also includes information about what is to be expected from the
participants in the deliberation process.
3. The importance of selection of participants: as much as possible participants should
legitimately represent stakeholders, coming from the spheres that are at stake. It is not
desirable that some would-be representatives who claim to speak on behalf of people who
never agreed to represent them, get invited to speak on their behalf. So make sure you talk to
the right people. Selection should be carried out on the basis of profiles of participants and
according to some selection rules. People selected should not just represent a constituency.
They should also be motivated for agreement. Sometimes it helps if people realize that if they
do not agree, it does not mean they cannot agree. At least they should agree to put their
shoulders to the agreeing-process.
Sometimes some parties will skeptically declare: „we are willing to talk and discuss, but they
always refuse. We know how they are‟. Here they need to be challenged, lest the process will
not even start.
4. The importance of open and non-violent dialogue. Often the main opponents find it hard
communicate with one another, due to a past history of enmity, preconceived ideas,
misperceptions, polarization and „politization‟ or because they are in the habit of playing
games. If they agree to sit together listening to arguments much has been achieved. The main
challenge is to create an atmosphere of dialogue without tricks, intimidation or fear for
intimidation in which all parties realize there is a diversity of interests as well as some
interdependence of interests. The ideal is non-violent communication. In other words an open
type of communication is needed in which the communicating actors refrain from putting
317
pressure on one another or from any type of covert or overt intimidation or from taking
particular assumptions for granted. Realizing there is common ground and reciprocity is
conditional. That implies that rationality of inclusiveness should be dominating the dialogue.
Inclusiveness does not mean there is no room for specific interests and specific value-
orientations, but these should be subordinated to the rationality of inclusiveness. The
facilitator should be aware of this and to draw the attention to it if need be.
5. The importance of focus of attention. The process of deliberation with different discussion
partners easily goes off track, both during consultations with individual citizens and with
institutional stakeholders. Attention may easily shift to other (related) issues, sometimes
unwittingly, and often be because the issue is on their hidden agenda. Or another issue that
divides is popping up, demanding attention, like language or religion or political ideology,
whereas the issue at stake simply is how to deal with waste. So the issues that divide are
irrelevant here. It is the duty of the process manager not just to keep the discussion track, but
also to continuously seek „common ground‟, interdependence and reciprocity. It can also be
that the discussion gets confusing because partners in the discussion use different „frames‟. In
that case it might be useful to first focus on frames and presuppositions, inviting partners to
make them explicit, before focusing on the issue at stake. If handles well, this can b a very
illuminating experience to all partners. (see note on „attention‟)
6. Moderation and the importance of content selection. First, partners in discussion often tend to
stress their point (and unnecessarily lose it) or exaggerate the argumentation, sparking fierce
opposition. So the facilitator should also be a moderator and moderate arguments, rewording
them and putting them in a realistic perspective. This will create an atmosphere of
reasonability and willingness to listen. Next, tot all input can be used. It is important to warn
participants that ideas are welcome and will be considered in the process, but it does not mean
that all ideas will be worked out in the policy paper. However, selection should be in the
interest of all, usually in a „give and take‟ manner. The deliberation process even if carried out
perfectly, is no guarantee whatsoever for quality of policy. But is may contribute to finding
creative and workable policy solutions and it is very likely to contribute to building the needed
social support basis.
7. The importance of keeping the executive informed about the progress of the process: it is not
impossible that the executive will feel that the direction of the process is not what they want.
This needs to be discussed in a timely manner and maybe the direction of the process needs to
be adapted.
8. The importance of sticking to the rules of the game and mediation. All arrangements
mentioned work according to rules. Rules have to be established and obeyed, including rules
about the selection of participants; See the 7 phases in the paragraph above, which generally
speaking apply to most of the arrangements.
9. The importance of putting things in writing: a good discussion is one thing. Remembering the
ins and outs of the discussion and building on agreements made during discussions is quite
another thing. Sometimes partners forget that particular issues were discussed before, or they
forget what agreements were made. That is why it is so useful to write minutes or to draw a list
318
of all conclusions that were drawn during the discussion. It is to be recommended strongly to
read the conclusion by the end of the meeting and make sure all participants agree with the
conclusions. Later all participants may receive the list by mail. By the end a proper report has
to be written.
10. The importance of continuation. The deliberation process should not have an ad hoc character.
Partners in dialogue appreciate to get informed about the continuation of the process, and, if
possible, to be consulted at a later stage again. Only then will they feel the government really
takes them seriously. The result will be a learning process with new shared meanings, rules
and goals, as well as new networks. Actually, it is advisable to get clarity about continuation of
the process before embarking on it.
It goes without saying that a crucial role is played by the chairman, who should be excellent in
communication, summarizing discussions, in drawing conclusions and giving room to all participants
to express themselves without domination and manipulation.
Schematically:
The deliberation process:
In some cases apart from communication with stakeholders, communication with the public is crucial
as well. Independent media and independent journalists, not suffering from any type of self-
censorship, are of great importance. A government that decides to develop a culture of policy
deliberation should also pay attention to the training of journalists and assure them that independence
is what the government appreciates most.
For an interesting collection of essays on deliberation in the political sphere: Parkinson, J. and Mansbridge, J. (eds) Deliberative
Systems, 2012, Cambridge University Press.
Point of attention: An additional note on the Scandinavian experience:
Diversity of stakeholder interests
Awareness of diversity and reciprocity
Deliberation process
New policy solutions
New shared meanings and functioning networks
319
The Scandinavian countries have a long tradition of participation. David Arter studied it. One of the
main questions he was interested in, was of course the „secret of the Scandinavian success”. Part of it is
tradition. But this is a very discouraging argument. It implies that countries without such a tradition
(the large majority) will not manage to achieve any success for centuries. And that is exactly what is
put forward as an argument against introducing such arrangements. I myself have heard this too often,
all over the world. An argumentum ad nauseam. There is no other word for it. It is something like a
little boy, who, looking at the older boys swimming like dolphins, refuses to learn to swim, assuming
that is takes a lifetime to learn. According to Arter it mostly is the determination to get together with
„opposing actors‟, get them round the table, get them to face one another, to listen rather than kill one
another, to discuss rather than play games with one another, to be determined to find a joint solution
rather than to win. Personally I have hardly ever witnessed a failed dialogue. What I have witnessed is
that after a fruitful dialogue politicians remain unwilling to build on the results.
Conclusion: a policy deliberation process is far from easy. It requires commitment of several
partners, notably the executive. Also it requires skills to manage the process. However, without trying
one never learns. It is worth trying, so my own experience indicates.
See David Arter, Democracy in Scandinavia, Consensual, Majoritarian or mixed, Manchester 2006; J.E.Innes and D.E.Booher,
Planning with Complexity, An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy, 2010. They stress the need for diversity,
interdependence and authentic dialogue (DIAD), see p 35. Also. T.Atlee, Empowering Public Wisdom; a practical vision of
citizens-led politics, 2012.
320
4. Advocacy, lobbying, protest and policy development
By way of summary TABLE OF CONTENTS II: Q.B.4.:
Just one issue
Question/
paragraph
Issues Page
Q. B.4. What is the difference between advocacy, lobbying,
protesting and how do they relate to the practice of
policy development?
Q.B.4. Which are the distinctive features of advocacy, lobbying, protest and how do they relate to the
practice of policy development?
Some people confuse policy development with advocacy. They are very different. Advocacy is an
attempt made by an individual or a groups of citizens or CSO‟s to influence public decision making and
public policy development, including the use of financial means, or to get an issue on the agenda.
Advocacy may be geared to the implementation of a policy, may propose a different policy solution or
request policy mediation. So it is much more limited than policy development. It just deals with a
particular aspect of the policy process. Often advocacy is carried out by a groups of people, called an
„advocacy group‟.
Lobbying is even more specific. It is the attempt to influence decision making by members o of
parliament of local council or specific entities within public administration. Often advocacy groups get
engaged in lobbying.
Many action groups and CSO‟s focus on advocacy. In case of an urgent issue this might be the only
thing to do, but in the long run it is so much better to try to get a say in policy development. Imagine a
monumental city. The owner of a beautiful house prefers to replace it by a more modern comfortable
house. So he asks permission to pull it down. The action group concerned with preservation of
monuments is alarmed and starts an advocacy campaign to save the house. They succeed. Two months
later a similar case and sometime later again. The advocacy group is busy. But isn‟t it much more
clever to try to get the local council to adopt a law to preserve old monuments? Like so many countries
and cities have. Any CSO trying to make a difference and to realize some idealistic goals, should
seriously consider getting involved in the policy process. Here I have suggested the idea of „public
policy partnerships‟ as an instrument that is more effective and certainly more sustainable than mere
advocacy. Advocacy is part of it.
See: Young, L. and Everitt, J. Advocacy groups. Vancouver, 2004; and Smith, G., Democratic Innovations : Designing
Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge, 2009
321
Lobbying, advocacy and the Civil Rights Act in the USA
The US historian Harding studied the policy discourse regarding segregation in the USA. In his book
There is a River he presents a picture of this dramatic discourse of efforts made by black Americans, at
times joined by white Americans, to engage in advocacy, lobbying and downright protest. This black
protest he likened to a river, flowing through the centuries or American history. Then suddenly in the
early sixties when John F. Kennedy was president advocacy, lobbying and protest reached a climax.
Kennedy was forced to face the situation and to start seriously thinking of a civil rights law. However it
was his successor Lyndon Johnson, the master manipulator with a‟ good heart‟, who managed to get
the Civil Rights Act approved in 1964. The policy decision process was strongly influenced by all sorts
of white and black advocacy groups and lobbyists. The pro‟s formed a „coalition of conscience‟.
Inspired by the charismatic dr. Martin Luther King.
Interesting is the story of the conservative senator Roman Hruska, flying home from Washgington
weekly. At the Omaha Airport he was regularly approached by people who wanted him to change his
opinion. He agreed to discuss matters at the airport and when the final; vote came on June 10,1964, he
indeed voted in favor of the act.
Once the act was passed, it was time for policy development. Based in the new act all over the US
policies needed to be developed to make sure desegregation of public space was realized and
discrimination of any sort annihilated.
After 1964 Harding‟s „River‟ widened considerably and flowed into the more slowly streaming phase of
policy development.
If policies are not supported by laws or if laws are not supported by policies, society will not function
well. Aristotle pointed out that democracy needs a basic measure of equality and inclusiveness, lest it
does not work. All sorts of exclusive informal policies will be the result, sooner or later leading to „civil
disobedience‟. Better we call this „civil duty‟. For it is the duty of citizens in a democratic society to see
to it that no group is claiming exclusive privileges, excluding others. Advocacy, demonstration and
lobbying are useful instruments to protest against exclusive policies, as existing in the USA before
1964. However, such instruments get a cynically twisted and undemocratic meaning when applied to
boost the interests of exclusive groups.
People lobby by means of argumentation, persuasion or intimidation. If public governance is supposed
to be based on policies, argumentation will appear to be the only legitimate way of lobbying. In such a
framework, persuasion and intimidation are likely to be viewed as undesirable and unacceptable. Not
that lobbyists will no longer be tempted to make use of such dubious means, they will, but the chance
that such behavior gets deterred is higher.
322
Conclusion: a well-conducted policy development process is indeed of such crucial importance to the
functioning of a democratic society. Within the framework of a proper deliberation process, advocacy,
demonstration and lobbying may all play a positive role.
See: V.Harding, There Is a River: The Black Struggle for Freedom in America” ,1981; and for the policy discourse and decision
process leading to the Civil Rights Act: T.S.Purdum, An Idea whose Time has come, Two Presidents, Two Parties and the Battle
for the Civil Rights Act, 1964, 2014; C. Risen, The Bill of the Century, The Epic Battle for the Civil Rights Act, 2014.
323
5. Policy House: the institutionalization of deliberation
By way of summary TABLE OF CONTENTS II: Q.B.5.
Question/
paragraph
Issues Page
Q. B.5.1. Why a policy house is useful for deliberation process 323
Q. B.5.2 Policy house as the political agora 328
Q. B.5.3 Policy house and federalism 331
Q. B.5.4 Policy house and centralized democracy 331
Q. B.5.5 Organizational set-up of policy house 333
Q.B.5.1. Why a policy House might be a solution for some nasty democracy problems
political system perspective
We have already noted that policy development is a characteristic of modern active or even hyperactive
societies. Public policies are quickly becoming a jungle, full of plants and animals, some beautiful and
harmless, other risky and dangerous. Few politicians manage to orientate themselves in this jungle, let
alone converting it into a nice people-friendly garden. Most policies need legal foundation for which
approval of the legislative, the parliament is needed. Vice versa, the parliament will take initiative with
new laws in order to solve some problematic issues. However, members of parliament often have little
insight into the impact of measures and laws that they suggest. The area has become extremely
complicated. And what is more, numerous powerful lobbies endeavor to put pressure on members of
parliament to take a particular initiative or support a particular initiative which is in their benefit, but
which may be at the expense of other stakeholders. All too often inclusiveness lets much to wish and
the implementation of the policy may lead to serious and expensive conflicts with stakeholders who
suffer from the policy measures. People like Noreena Hertz, Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway have
tried to demonstrate that big companies, active in the energy sector, food production, pharmacy etc,
have slowly increased their influence in parliaments all over the world, that the contours of a „silent
takeover‟ become visible. The practice of lobbying, trying to influence the votes and actions of
members of a legislative body, the members of parliament, has become widespread. In actual fact
lobbying means that a stakeholder gets exclusive attention by members of the legislative. The
stakeholder hopes the attention will focus on his special interests and result in favorable policies, to
the detriment of others. „Small numbers of people can have large, negative impacts, especially if they
are organized, determined, and have access to power‟. Oreskes and Conway point to the importance of
being well-organized and be pretty united in the joint pursuit. Once you are, you get very far. However
324
you get even farther if you manage to get the support of scientists who agree to grant an academic
blessing to a policy proposal.
Nowadays lobbies abound. Notably the „quango‟s‟ (quasi-autonomous non-governmental
organizations, like the Central Bank, utility organizations, airports, statistical and planning
organizations and so on) excel in lobbying. Quango‟s fulfill a public service but are more or less exempt
from democratic control. As their function often is crucial to economic development and social welfare,
their increasingly impressive power should somehow be more effectively balanced.
Historian Gabriel Kolko stated that alliances between the US government, rather than alliances with
the people, have been shaping policies, regarding railways, utilities, wars etc. Business was pressing for
regulation in order to escape populist legislation, in order to impose its own needs for order and
rationalize that order. The business world realized too some protection from „the unpredictability of
too much competition‟ was needed. Government was thus lured into a type of business, which was not
transparent and escaped from democratic control. Sometimes governments boast that they pay ample
attention to the public cause, whereas in actual fact they just listen to corporation. All too often, so
Ralph Nader asserts, „administration leaders don‟t see the distinction between public power and
corporate power‟. It is high time that public values, represented by workers, consumers, taxpayers and
communities be reasserted.
A special case is scientific development, increasingly linked with technology and the business world.
Developments in this policy area all have a deep impact on our life world. At the same time it shirks
public and democratic control. The argument is of course that normal people have no insight in
scientific research and hence democratic discussions would be of no value at all. They may block
scientific progress. In essence the message to the public is: keep your mouth and just trust that
technological development is going to bless you. We have already mentioned a number of critics like
Jacques Ellul and Ulrich Beck. Lots of others might be mentioned as well. Back in 1973 Leslie Sklair
attempted to come up with suggestions to involve the public in discussions about the implications of
technological innovation. „Bringing people into Science‟ is the project he suggests. It starts with
education.
Sklair stresses the inherent moral implications of science and technology. You know you are changing
the environment and you deny any responsibility? Existence implies public responsibility and the
wider and deeper the ramifications of you action, the higher your public responsibility. So we must
create institutions or platforms where this responsibility can be practiced. Also, we, citizens, should be
prepared to respond to the challenges of science and technology. This can only be achieved by means
of education. In the past in many countries part of the curriculum was or still is a „traffic education‟. I
vividly remember the exam that was taken by the end of the course. There was a theoretical part that
tested our knowledge of traffic and there was the practical part. By bike we had to make a trip through
the town traffic and show we knew how to obey all rules and be „gentlemen and ladies‟ in the traffic.
Something like this is needed in realm of science and technology, so Sklair is suggesting. It is needed in
order to assume our democratic responsibility. But let us turn from the solution to the problem again.
325
See: G.M.Kolko, Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916, New York, 1962. And for Ralph
Nader: C.Hedges, The World as it is, Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress, New York, 2009, p56; Naomi Oreskes, Erik
M.Conway, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global
Warming, 2010, p 212;and Leslie Sklair, Organized Knowledge, St Albans, 1973, p 232ff
So, in modern states a multitude of stakeholders compete to influence the legislative. This is what
Robert Dahl has called a „polyarchy‟: a political system in which power is dispersed among a multitude
of stakeholders with competing interests. Success depends on network, communication and advocacy
skills and financial means of lobbyists, less on arguments. Later Jonathan Rauch coined the critical
term "demosclerosis", which he defined as "government's progressive loss of the ability to adapt". He
too is pointing to the “dramatic rise of interest-groups coupled with the public's increasing demands
on government….have produced in an escalating game of beggar-thy-neighbor that damages the
economy and chokes the government."
And there is the opposite movement. Politicians, once in power, are obliged to serve friends and
supporters. They voted for them, they financed their campaigns and now they should be rewarded.
This may lead to a pattern of „clientelism‟, which is a widespread phenomenon: the clientelist
relationship is one of dependence, linking two actors in an exchange system. The dependence may
have a personal character, but all too often it is of a structural kind. A particular section of the
population or a particular group of stakeholders is taking advantage of exclusive access to the political
powerful who are now in government. It inevitably leads to exclusiveness. In actual fact voters are
eager to trade political support for various benefits of the public decision-making process. Often there
is asymmetry of power. When a category of citizens or weak stakeholders are in the position of the
„client‟ their power is limited. But in the case of strong stakeholders, it is the other way round. Today
positions are less stable or less fixed then in the past and parties are continuously negotiating
exchange. In practice all too often the two parties have high jacked one another though.
Thanks to more open and more frequent communication between politicians and the public, we
witness the rise of spontaneous ad hoc clientelism.
An incident.
Recently an interesting incident occurred in the US. Linda Feldman is reporting in the Christian
Science Monitor (Jan 2014): Ju Hong's voice rang out loud and clear, interrupting the most powerful
man in the world. "You have a power to stop deportation for all undocumented immigrants in this
country!" the young South Korean man yelled at President Obama during a speech on immigration
reform last November in San Francisco. Waving away security guards, Mr. Obama turned and
addressed Mr. Hong, himself undocumented. "Actually, I don't," the president said. "And that's why
we're here. We've got this Constitution, we've got this whole thing about separation of powers," Obama
continued. "So there is no shortcut to politics, and there's no shortcut to democracy."….
However, Obama's frequent use of executive action, ignoring the Congress, has only wetted activists'
appetite for more…so she comments. Her comment shows she is aware of a new pattern that is
unfolding itself!
326
For individual citizens all this can be puzzling. They voted for a member of parliament, expecting that
member to guard the public interest and instead the Member of Parliament lends his ear to lots of
exclusive interest groups that knock on his door to lobby and so does the executive, sometimes
ignoring or misleading the parliament. This is an inherent flaw of modern democracies, leading to
demosclerosis. The challenge is how to manage and organize the deliberation process fairly and see to
it that citizens have equal rights to participate in an orderly and preferably institutionalized way. And
not just citizens, but also civic society organizations and companies. They represent different spheres
with different interests and core values. A policy house should provide room for representatives from
all spheres and make sure their interests are taken into account. Several rather obvious success factors
have been mentioned. The less obvious one is education. Citizens have to be educated in order to
assume their responsibility.
See: Crick, B. (ed) Citizens: Towards a Citizenship Culture, Oxford, 2001; David Held, D. Models of Democracy (1987), fully
revised 3rd edition (2006); Jonathan Rauch, Demosclerosis, The Silent Killer of American Government, 1994See for clientelism
also: Uwe Becker, Europese Democratieen, vrijheid, gelijkheid en soevereiniteit in prakijk, Amsterdam 1999, 0138 ff; J.Hopkin,
Conceptualising Political Clientelism, Political exchange and Democratic Theory, London 206; B.Kristensen, Een kwestie van
grenzen, over integriteit in openbaar bestuur, 2008; ; Stokes, S. C., Dunning,T. Marcelo Nazareno M., and Brusco V.. Brokers,
Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics, Cambridge 2013; and Uhr, J. Deliberative Democracy in Australia:
The Changing Place of Parliament, Cambridge, 1998
There is another flaw in the deliberation process, that poses a threat to democracy as well. Some
political parties ask civil servants who they trust and who are experts in the field to advise them. This
may blur the distinction between the executive and legislative bodies. Some political parties will
attempt to influence the executive by appointing political friends in high positions within public
administration. By acting this way they kill 2 flies in one stroke. They reward a friend with a nice
position and they guarantee that a desired policy measure will be taken by the public administration.
In the end the dualism between government and parliament is disappearing and a thorough and
inclusive deliberation process is impossible.
And several sociologists have pointed to the increased power of public administration, of bureaucracy
(literally: power to the bureau). The public administration, full of executive civil servants with inside
knowledge of all ins and outs of the administration and its service to the public, of its policies and
(lack) of effects, takes a powerful position. The number of people working in the administration far
outnumbers the members of Parliament and their advisors. As a result the public administration does
indeed tend to become a „bureaucracy‟, or a fourth power, without any democratic control. Sure, there
are different ministries, different departments, different teams. It is not a strong unified entity. Rather
a fragmented one. And a detached one also, for the civil servants work in ivory governmental towers
that are hardly accessible to the public. But don‟t underestimate the power of bureaucratic culture and
habits. The end result is a somewhat amorphous whole, with power that is difficult to control exactly
because it is amorphous.
Civil servants working within the bureaucracy fall into several categories. There are the obedient
servants who carry out the tasks assigned to them. There are the classical bureaucrats who
327
methodically and technically prepare policies and carry them out. Nowadays you also find „political
bureaucrats‟ who attempt to exert some (ideological) influence on the political executive or try to carry
out their own agenda. And last but not least there is the emergence of the entrepreneurial civil servant,
who works happily together with the private sector or who is setting up his or her own „toko‟ within the
administration. The tendency we see everywhere is that public administration is gaining power and
influence. Sometimes it is called the 4th power. As a result the trias politica is encountering a major
challenge. How to cope with this challenge?
See: Colin Hay, C. Why we hate Politics, Cambridge, 2007; and Noreena Hertz, The Silent Takeover; Global Capitalism nd the
Death of Democracy, New York 2001; Robert Dahl, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, 1971; Philip Coggan, The Last Vote,
The Threats of Western Democracy, 2013; Krešimir Petkovic, Interpretive Policy Analysis and Deliberative Democracy: must we
politicize analysis?, Zagreb, without date;
See on the 4th power: Crince le Roy, C. De vierde macht, Den Haag 1976; and Dogan, M. (ed) The mandarins of Western Europe,
The Political Role of Top Civil Servants, New York, 1975; and again Ellul, J., L'illusion politique. Paris, 1965
Point of attention: the stability of a tetrahedron
Let us reflect a bit on systems thinking, which is thinking in terms of interdependency between
elements. Neither people nor organizational entities, nor processes, nor problems can and should be
studied on their own. The context as a field of infinite interdependencies is crucial. Buckminster Fuller
suggested the term „synergetics‟ to refer to the study of interdependency. This study is based on
elements of geometry. Oneness does not exist. Individualism is an illusion. The minimum is two. Basic
elements are „trajectories‟( lines and movements between 2 points); „crossings‟(crossing lines and
movements); „openings‟ (relative closed spaces within a triangle‟) and „tetrahedrons‟. The four-
cornered tetrahedron is the minimum "system" in Universe, a four-faced triangular shape, with six
connecting vectors.
It is the smallest mathematical structure comprising an "inside" and an "outside". With its minimum
of 4 corner points it is the most stable system that exists. If any one of the four points or six vectors is
328
removed, the tetrahedron (the tetrahedral system) collapses. And, under pressure, all other systems
within a tetrahedron collapse as well, or lose the contact with the framework. So if we want to build a
strong organizational system, we should consider a tetrahedron.
Geometrically, the tetrahedron represents an effective and efficient use of resources, because
additional vectors or points are not required for stability. It is a simple and elegant model. Interesting
is the use of mathematics for understanding social dynamics, viewing it as a holistic system.
According to Buckminster Fuller „our models for building better social structures in organizations
should be based on the tetrahedron‟. This implies a new way of looking at structural problems in the
organizational systems that we have. "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To
change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete”, he said.
The tetrahedron creates space and space is needed for resonance, for ideas to go around, to be
processed in communication between people and within our individual brains, to get unfolded. It is an
instrument of roomification.
Let me put it sharply: with three powers each combination means dominance. Two against one. Space
goes flat. With four three combinations of two are possible and may get opposed by other the other
combination. The space still holds. The likelihood of three against one is of course real, but is relatively
small.
Georg Simmel wrote extensively about the „ triade‟ and described the complicated and often not so
healthy and functional dynamics between 3 partners. Individual people, Simmel was writing about.
Not institutions as we do. But there is a parallel. One of them (can be any of the three) is running the
risk of being put in the position of the „ outcast‟ or of a „mediator‟ or of a „tertius gaudens‟ (the laughing
third party) or of the „dividing person‟ (practicing „divide et impera‟). All this is very different in the
tetrahedron structure with four partners. The organizational and deliberational implications are
significant when applied to institutional entities.
See: R.Buckmunster Fuller, Critical Path, New York, 1981; Georg Simmel, Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der
Vergesellschaftung. 1908 (5th ed; 1968), p 72ff
Q.B.5.2.: May we consider the policy house as a political agora?
political system perspective
Several political scientists and activists have suggested establishing organizational systems for
democracy to function well by means of secure or institutionalized public deliberation. In my
viewpoint this should be done in combination with policy development as a separate entity on top of
the trias politica. Policies have become so important to modern societies that a specific entity within
the constitution geared to policy development seems justified.
329
Sweden: A long tradition of institutionalized policy deliberation and participation exists in Sweden.
The institution of Royal Commissions (utredningar) are installed by the government to study a
controversial policy issue or legislation. Representatives of interest groups are appointed to sit on the
commission with voting right. Groups which are not represented may participate with „non-voting
experts.
Once the advise is ready individuals and stakeholders are invited to comment. And the government is
supposed to take such comments seriously. This is called the „remiss system‟. It is highly appreciated in
Sweden.
And what is more, Sweden is providing the so-called "lay-person councils" (lekmannastyrelser),
charged with overseeing the implementation of policies and laws. They can be considered as
monitoring agencies. Apparently they do their work well as they these agencies consists of members
who represent stakeholders.
See: Elvander, N. Intresseorganizationer I Dagens Sverige, Lund, 1969; and Heclo, H. & Madsen, H. , Policy and politics in
Sweden: Principled pragmatism, Philadelphia 1987
Republic of Moldova: A substantial step forward in this direction was made in the Republic of Moldova
with the installment of a council of participation and the obligation from the part of the government to
seek advice from this council in all public policy matters (see paragraph on „public policy partnerships‟
Q.C.2.4.).
In modern public administration a distinction is often made between development and
implementation of policies. Departments of policy development could be extended into „policy
chambers‟. The policy chamber will then be the place where the deliberation process is organized,
where stakeholders, including the relevant quango‟s, as well as citizens get together, meet one another
and meet with civil servants charged with the policy domain.
Governments might consider to establish a „policy house‟ with „policy chambers‟, including a number
of rules and procedures. For instance, individual citizens or stakeholders with policy suggestions or
requests must address the policy chamber first. That is the place to make the request known and to
discuss with other stakeholders what type of policy is needed to deal with the issue. That is also the
place where powerful stakeholders, who at present are tempted to exert pressure on governments en
parliaments, are forced to sit together with other stakeholders and listen what they have to say on the
issue, where they are challenged to take their interests into serious account. The policy chamber is
responsible for the inclusiveness of policies. Each policy chamber should see to it that the three main
spheres of society are included. The market and the middle field (with relevant sub-spheres) might be
represented by means of their institutions. The oikos by individual citizens who may apply according
to profiles.
The policy chambers may take a policy initiative (perhaps instigated by stakeholders or the public),
develop the policy and make a proposal for the government. The government takes a decision and if a
new law is required or an old law needs to be adapted it should be put to the parliament first. Vice
330
versa, a governmental ministry will not develop any policy without the advice of the policy chamber.
And if the parliament takes the initiative for a new law, it must seek the advice of the policy house or a
particular chamber. Here a deliberation process is started and all relevant stakeholders are invited to
give their opinion and discuss together the implications. If the policy chambers are well-organized and
know how to reach out to stakeholders and once the public gets familiar with the deliberation process,
the deliberation process does not take too much time. Also the time for deliberation should be
restricted, lest the parliament gets paralyzed. The big advantage is that the public and all its
stakeholders are invited to study the proposal, investigate its implications and see together how the
policy can be organized in such a way that possible negative implications get minimized. Hence a social
support basis is created and the need for policy mediation in case of conflicts reduced.
In some cases the government may charge the policy house to come up with a binding advice, just like
it may ask the public to express itself in a binding referendum. In actual fact, the policy house may
decide to invite the public to express itself in a referendum. However, in most cases the policy
chambers will make use any of the other deliberative arrangements mentioned before.
This may mark the end of lobbying. Powerful stakeholders, like big companies and quango‟s, will be
considered as stakeholders and be invited to take part in the policy dialogue. Here they will encounter
other, less powerful stakeholders and be challenged to listen and consider other points of view and
work together towards am agreeable compromise. Unsolicited lobbying will not be appreciated
anymore, like offering unsolicited taxi services at international airports.
Finally the policy house will advise the government on policy coordination and how to create synergy
between policies from different domains.
Conclusion: The parliament is the embodiment of representative democracy, the policy house is the
embodiment of participatory democracy, the place where stakeholders meet, make their needs and
interests known and listen to those of others and advise the government on policies. In short: a
political agora. It ensures the institutionalization of different deliberation arrangements. Eventually
the policy house and its chambers might be adopted by the constitution as a fourth power, next to the
legislative, executive and judicial powers. By way of conclusion I suggest we replace the model of trias
politica for a model based on the tetrahedron, a „quatro politica‟, in which all basic functions to control
a social system are represented by four points. The fourth „power‟ , the policy house will enable the
public and its manifold stakeholders to express their interests and visions and come up with viable
policy solutions. By applying this model, society will become more „self-governing‟ without running the
risk of chaos.
see: Michelle Micheletti, Civil Society and Sate Relations in Sweden, Avebury, 1995; and also Arter, D. Scandinavian Politics
Today, Manchester 1999
331
Q.B.5.3. Does a policy house fit federalism?
political system perspective
Let us first define federalism. In my understanding it is a public governmental structure consisting of
several regional or lower scale governments with their own executive branch (and often a legislative
branch as well) that have agreed to assign a number of governmental functions to a central or federal
government. Functions can be maximized or minimized. In Switzerland the cantons have a high degree
of autonomy and authority. More than the states in the USA. In a federalist structure power is divided
and lower scale governments are more than representative bodies of the central government. They can
respond directly to local (policy) needs. That is why it is often argued that federalism and democracy
go together well. Especially in big countries like the USA. It is clear that the closer a governmental
body is to the people, the more likely it is attentive to local needs.What is more, policy deliberation is
easier to practice. It is very frustrating if the outcome of a policy deliberation process is not
automatically put into practice because the local governmental agency has no power to do so. If it may
just convey a message to the central government in a unitary nation. That it also the reason why a local
or regional policy house is unlikely to work well in a unitary nation. Unitary nations may just have a
central policy house.
Federal states with decentralized responsibilities may indeed practice policy deliberation more
effectively. The institution of a policy house may strongly support the deliberation process.
Conclusion: at local or regional level a policy house functions more easily than on the central level.
Policy discussions are more concrete and policy imagination can be practiced more easily than on the
central level. An advantage is also that the regional level does have its own responsibilities and is in the
position to make actual policy decisions. So participants in the deliberation process know that their
input is going to make a difference. The central policy house is of course still responsible for national
policy development. But the policy issues are more limited as some have been delegated to a lower
level. That is why also the central policy house in a federal state is easier to organize.
Q.B.5.4. And does a policy house fit a centralized democracy?
political system perspective
And would it work in a „centralized democracy‟ or in a „managed democracy‟ as democratic centralism
is sometimes called? Democratic centralism is characteristic for communist countries like Cuba or
some former communist countries, notably Russia and China. . The division of functions,
responsibilities and powers between central and local state organs is guided by the conviction that all
people naturally pursue the public good. Usually the one political party is responsible for organizing
332
discussions on urgent issues and a central congress is charged with the responsibility of formulating
common ground. In actual fact that common ground is all too often defined by the leadership of the
party. But that is considered to be incidental, not essential.
Centralized democracies are generally attractive for countries with a deeply divided or non-existent
civil society. Such countries feel the need for a strong state. It might be that democracy is not the first
priority in such countries. Stability and safety, a minimum level of welfare and fairness might be top
priorities in such countries. They surely are in Russia. At least at present. Andrei Tsygankov does have
a point when he argues that a small number of very powerful and wealthy people, the oligarchs, will
quickly take advantage of democratic freedom to establish themselves even firmer in the nation,
exploiting people and natural resources and undermining the foundation of democracy. Democracy
cannot exist without a minimum of equality. Elsewhere and above I have argued that too high a level
of inequality in liberal democratic systems, will hamper the functioning of democracy. It could very
well be that modern liberal democratic systems, as in the USA and some EU-countries, may also need
some „central management‟ in order to survive as a democracy. However, a policy house as an
institutionalized form of democratic dialogue between stakeholders and between stakeholders and the
government, might be a solution. In countries like Cuba and Russia a policy house might be a workable
and useful instrument for the government to mobilize the public and consult the public and all
relevant stakeholders about current issues. Vice versa, the policy house may also function as a
feedback system to provide the government with feedback information about public responses to
policies. Including responses expressed in the social media. My point is that in centralized
democracies a policy house might be a better, more workable way to improve the functioning of
democracy substantially, than introducing the more formalistic representative democracy. That may
come later. For sure people will argue that a strong government may manipulate and use the policy
house as a means to seek formal approval for its policies. No doubt this is a danger, but dangers are
everywhere. Liberal democracies are not free from similar dangers.
This brings me to another matter. We can shift emphasis in the quatro politica. From a fundamental
democratic point of view the parliament and/or the policy house as institutions of policy deliberation
should have a strong weight. Because of problems of size and complexity parliaments appear to be
weak vis a vis the government with its numerous experts and civil servants. To split the government
into an executive „power‟ to implement policies and a „power‟ to develop and design policies, the policy
house, is a step forward. In a managed democracy the State is excessively powerful. This might be
needed for a while. In such countries the parliament often functions as a mere rubber stamp. Which
might also be the case in liberal democracies! With a strong state and governing body a split between a
mere executive power and a policy house might be a step forward towards a better balance. It may
somewhat limit the power of the state. Once institutionalized it may function as an instrument of
feedback to the powerful state and/or president.
Centralized states with weak parliaments and often fake elections encounter serious obstacles when
trying to introduce more (representative) democracy. Open and fair elections with open and fair
discussions are extremely difficult to realize. Here I would suggest it is more realistic to introduce step
333
by step participatory arrangements, involving stakeholders in the policy process and even to set up a
„policy house‟. This is much easier to manage than election. It does not need to frighten the people in
power. By doing so they can show they do want to be „democratic‟, as most rulers say they do but do
not practice, because of fear to lose control. Thinking of democracy we trust blindly on representative
democracy, which is a formal or even formalistic arrangement. We can just as well think of deliberative
or participatory democracy which is a much more substantial arrangement. In any case it is useful to
keep this distinction in mind: formal versus substantial democracy, i.e. representative versus
deliberative democracy.
Thinking of liberal democracies with societies characterized by high measures of inequality, a policy
house might also be a solution. Substantial inequality is a major threat or even an obstacle to
representative democracy, for the financially powerful will naturally exert disproportionate influence.
Often by means of media that they own. In such cases a well-organized policy house may compensate
for that.
See Andrei Tsygankov, The Strong State in Russia, Development and Crisis, Oxford, 2014, p 130 ff; and see also Alena
V.Ledeneva, Can Russia modernise? Sistema, Power Networks and Inofrmal Governance, Cambridge, 2013
Conclusion: what I have argued here is that in some central democracies arrangements for policy
deliberation are already in existence, even though they may not function well. It still is a big advantage.
Such institutional arrangements should be adapted and elaborated. If combined with some
regionalization such nations might become interesting examples of good practice of participatory
democracy
Q. B.5.5. How should the organizational structure or organizational set-up of a policy house look like?
How would its structure look like ?
political system perspective
This is not the place to present an elaborated institutional development plan for a policy house. I just
offer a brief sketch. But basically the policy house consists of a number of policy chambers according
to the governmental ministries or main policy domains. It is not a good idea to have one big policy
house for the entire government. My personal experience with policy deliberation processes that a
central institution, responsible for organizing such processes, is bound to fail. A central unit is too
distant from individual ministries and too distant from the field. Ministries that already maintain
contacts with the field are in a much better position to organize a deliberation process. It is more
natural for them to do so. Practice also shows that a central institution that start organizing a
deliberation process for a ministry often does not quite understand what is at stake. The result is
misunderstanding and a failed process. S0 it is better to decentralize according to ministries. That is
why I suggest to set up „deliberation platforms‟ or „chambers‟ per ministry.
334
However, on the local level in small and medium sized cities, up to around a million inhabitants, one
policy „house‟ might do.
Each policy chamber has:
a department of civil servants charged with the organization of consultation and deliberation,
making use of several deliberation arrangements, including institutionalized advisory
councils; this department should also see to it that the oikos, as well as the market and civic
society are represented; a specific responsibility of this department is to keep track on the
relevant policy discourse going on in the social media. The best would be if the policy chamber
makes itself known in the social media so that it can be addressed and participate in
discussions.
a department with civil servants charged with elaborating policy proposals, preferably in joint
ventures with stakeholders (by means of public policy partnerships) these are the policy
designers or „policy architects‟; naturally the policy chamber should take into account existing
domain or sector development plans developed by external agents
a department with civil servants charged with evaluation of existing policies preferably in joint
ventures with stakeholders (by means of public policy partnerships); that is why I suggest a
policy house is an interesting arrangement to contribute what is sometimes called a „monitory
democracy‟. Though it will not monitor the decision process, it does monitor the way policy
works or does not work.
there should be a strong department in charge of law-making and legislative lawyers
acquainted with the policy domain
The policy house in general should be in charge with
the policy house is responsible for coordination of the policy design (including the setting of
priorities, according to guidelines provided by parliament)
procedures and protocols to report to parliament (to initiate and approve policies),
to develop legislation in general and as part of policies in particular,
to start consultation and deliberation trajectories (choice of methods), including the
cooperation with the executive
budgetary planning of policies
In this framework the executive will be responsible for:
implementing public policies, according to budget and reporting to parliament
monitoring policies (including the introduction of new policies) and adapting implementation
of policies
communication with the public
coordination of policies-in-practice
335
policy mediation
Schematically:
CITIZENS STAKEHOLDERS
PARLIAMENT
(LEGISLATURE)
JUDICIARY
POLICY HOUSE
policy devolopment, policy
coordination; approval
procedures; legislation
deliberation;budget planning
EXECUTIIVE
implementation policies
coordination implementation
monitoring policies
communication, mediation
VE
336
The idea is that civil servants in Policy Chambers see to it that for each policy request the relevant
stakeholders and citizens get consulted and enter into policy deliberation. Like the parliament, the
policy house is a people‟s house. Also, it should function independently from the executive
government and parliament. But the government may always consult with the policy house or any of
its councils on matters of policy implementation or change.
So far there are no countries where a policy house as an independent institutional power got
established, though some countries got close to it. The „quatro politica‟ is proposed here as an idea to
consider.
Who should preside over the policy house? Bearing in mind there are 2 types of cabinet ministers, we
suggest one type suits the policy house and the other type suits the public administration, the
executive. One type of minister is focused on policies and change: the policy minister. The other type is
focused on running the administration smoothly. That is the reason why I suggest the policy house will
be the traditional cabinet minister interested in policy development and implementation. Whereas the
public administration will be led by a professional manager, the administrative minister, or state
secretary, appointed by a parliamentary coalition for a period of 4 years, with the possibility of
extension. Together they form the government, with one prime minister as the head of the
government. Why should these 2 powers be together in one government? Because they should work
closely together. To merge the 2 functions in one organization, as it is now in most countries, is
confusing for reasons already explained above. (Q.D.2.2.) To separate the 2 powers completely may
impede the work progress. A balance should to be found. So the 2 powers are to be organized
independently. But on the leadership level they come together in one cabinet, chaired by one prime
minister.
In this structure, the parliament will play a very crucial role, checking both the executive and the policy
house, setting the agenda for new policies, approving policies and legislation as well as monitoring the
executive.
What will be the implication? This type of double-government will be a more sober-minded, more
business-like approach. There will be less glamour, a bit as we see in Switzerland. Cabinet ministers
just do their work, i.e. implementing what has been decided by the people by means a referendum. Is a
minister does not agree with the outcome of the referendum and fears that implementation may lead
to disaster, he or she will step back. If a decision is taken by the policy house and is approved by the
parliament and the public administration minister does not see how the policy can ever be successfully
implemented, he should step back. But before this happens, much discussion has taken place between
the policy house and the public administration, which naturally is a stakeholder to be heard by the
policy house. If public administration comes with valid arguments the policy house cannot afford
ignoring these arguments.
A policy house will not be established in a day or two. Better is to start a tradition of regular policy
deliberation. After some time deliberation arrangement can be institutionalized, like regular councils
or citizens consulting committees or public policy partnerships. These institutional arrangements may
finally be developed into a policy house and chambers. Naturally a policy house need a legal basis and
337
even the constitution will have to be adapted so as to include the policy house as „a fourth power‟. In
order to really install a policy house the constitution has to be adapted, which is a complicated matter.
Inevitably the question will be raised of a country with a policy house need a two-chamber parliament.
Off hand it seems that a policy house and a two-chamber parliament will be too much. Moreover, the
idea of a lower chamber comes from old Scandinavian tradition. The aristocracy decided or agreed that
a lower chamber was useful to invite the „common man‟ to discuss issues of common interest and
suggest „common policies‟ to decided upon by the upper house. The lower chamber in actual fact was a
sort of policy chamber, whereas the upper house was charged with taking decisions. In practice the
aristocracy could do very little, if not nothing without the consent of the lower chamber. A famous
law-speaker of the house of commons, Torgny, once reminded the King of Sweden of the fact that
without the support and advise from the house of commons he would not have any power at all: “if you
do not desire to do so, we shall assault you and kill you and not brook any more of your warmongering
and obstinacy. Our ancestors have done so, who at Mula Ting five kings in a well, kings who were too
arrogant as you are against us”.
Conclusion: to introduce a policy house is a step by step matter. Starting with serious policy
deliberation and institutionalizing arrangement may after some time result in a policy house and the
installment of a natural fourth power in a constitutional democracy
Nota Bene: below we will pay attention to the organization of the policy department: See E
338
6. Symbiotic model of governance
By way of summary TABLE OF CONTENTS II: Q.B.6.
Just one issue
Question/
paragraph
Issues Page
Q. B.6 Symbiosis as a model for public governance
Q.B.6. What might be the usefulness of the symbiotic model for society and public governance?
political system perspective
Often this entire process of getting stakeholders institutionally involved in policy development is called
„corporatism. Corporatism is usually defined as: the socio-political organization of a society by
institutionalized interest groups (sometimes called corporate groups) the business world, trade-
unions, farmer organizations, ecclesiastical organizations or just one state-church, the academic world
etc, act together with the government on the basis of their common interests and needs to co-operate.
The term corporatism is derived from the Latin „corpus‟, meaning body. It suggests society is a kind of
body, which is hardly true. Most societies are pluralistic and continuously changing entities, full of
conflict and misunderstanding. Historically speaking the term corporatism is too often associated with
fascist ideology. The alternative terms like ‟deliberation model‟, „polder model‟, „Rheinland model‟ etc,
just suggest a particular decision method. This is too narrow. That is why I prefer the term „symbiotic
model‟, which suggests that entities within the state, whether institutionalized or not and including
individual citizens, are all intertwined, forming a network. Entities may work together, ignore one
another, compete, play games, fight and even try to liquidate one another. Basically they may choose a
parasitic course or a symbiotic course. Naturally a symbiotic course is in the public interest. The
parasitic course is destructive. The government, focusing on the public interest, should favor the
symbiotic course. Roomification is crucial, as it prevents actors and their activities to colonize other
areas of societal life. Involving all relevant stakeholders in policy deliberation is one way of pursuing
the symbiotic course. Stimulating diversity and combating the tendency to colonize, extract and
behave like a parasite, is creating syntropy.
Back in 1923 Italo Svevo published his magnificent novel La Coszienza di Zeno (Confessions of Zeno)
Here he observes: “Present-day life is polluted at the roots. Man has put himself in the place of trees
and animals and has polluted the air, has blocked free space. Worse can happen. The sad and active
animal could discover other forces and press them into his service. There is a threat of this kind in the
air. It will be followed by a great gain…in the number of humans. Every square meter will be occupied
by a man. Who will cure us of the lack of air and of space” (p435) Svevo was very sensitive to the
339
destructive behavior of human beings. He realized that life is impossible without respectful co-
operation. The biologist Edward Wilson is setting forth the hypothesis that many problems and
ailments, like stress, of our present-day society is the result of disconnection with the bio-sphere.
Worse we have become „serial killers of the bio-sphere‟. By being mentally disconnected, we naively
colonize the biosphere physically, which in fact means cheating ourselves. For we can‟t. We ourselves „
are a rainforest of a kind‟ , so he puts forward. We need to be reconnected and „incorporate the
biosphere in our policies‟ that affect it.
I like the symbiotic model ever since the biologist Lynn Margulis showed that the health of our planet
is basically dependent on the ability of all entities to behave symbiotically, rather than parasitically. In
her words: newly evolved beings may grow and expand rapidly by exploiting the energy and food
supplies of others….‟, but population expansion always ceases because none can eat or breathe its own
waste‟. Half a century ago Theodore Roszak insisted that „reciprocity is absolutely vital‟ to healthy
development and survival. His view of person and society is thoroughly symbiotic. Margulis‟
symbiotic model is an excellent model to characterize human societies as well, with its near infinite
small and large patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving, continuously in flux, always interfering,
opposing, trying to dominate, defending against domination, dying and re-emerging, and tightly
intertwined and reciprocally dependent. All these patterns are embodied in individual people and
collective or societal entities and organizations. It is within such entities and individual beings that
symbiotic or parasitic behavior manifests itself, maintaining a status quo, creating a new and better
order or destroying social and physical life altogether.
To go back to Buckminster Fuller, it is interesting how he describes the working of „syntropic
importing loci‟ in the universe. The planet Earth is a kind of syntropic energy-importing place in the
universe, where the entropic sun-radiation is constantly being impounded by the syntropic
photosynthesis of vegetation and converted from random radiation receipts into beautiful, orderly
molecular structures‟. From there the process goes on, on to higher levels of organism and
organization, on to human kind and society.
In archaic times societies functioned without a formal government. These were „acephalous societies‟,
headless societies. Because of small scale and relative isolation they managed to maintain themselves.
Increase of scale and interaction between societies forced them to accept some type of central
authority. In some cases central authority just played a facilitating role to ease interaction with
minimal coordination and control. In other cases, especially in times of crisis the coordinating and
controlling role became vital for continued existence of society. Modern societies cannot do without a
relatively strong central authority, lest they become „failed societies‟. The central authority is always
tempted to cut all „Gordian knots‟ by issuing and imposing laws, rules and policies. Rarely does it take
into account the needs and interests of all stakeholders. Autocratic regimes are rarely inclusive. As
long as such societies manage to be relatively isolated they may maintain themselves with the help of
an elaborate information and/or propaganda service, supported by an intelligence service. The
communist countries of the 20th century excelled in this type of governance. However violent force is
340
inevitable. Some Islamic countries manage mostly by means of strong religious propaganda forcing all
rival patterns to conform.
Such societies face an impossible dilemma. The more they try to keep internal matters under control,
the more they fear the influence from the outside world as a potentially contaminating and dangerous
influence. So they are compelled to define the outside world as a threat and the more they see it as a
threat, they close borders and start viewing outsiders as „uncivilized barbarians‟. „When trouble comes
ranks close‟, is the opening sentence of Jean Rhys‟ Wide Sargasso Sea (1966). And the more ranks
close, the less critical self-reflection is practiced, and the more barbaric tendencies manifest
themselves among the closed ranks. There is only one way out of this vicious and often nationalistic
circle: meet the strangers, discover they are not dangerous aliens, but much rather human beings as all
of us. This leads us to an important insight: strong governments are not governments strong in
keeping things under control, but strong in responding creatively to influences from the outside world
and motivating people to respond creatively as well, rather than panicking or rejecting everything that
is new from the outset. The Dutch historian Huizinga, who viewed political trends from a historic point
of view, noticed this tendency to close ranks, to create fearful nations that harbor ill-feelings towards
the outside world. This, he suggested, is the difference between civilization and barbarism: civilization
is open and respects different world views and cultural patterns, whereas barbarism is based on the
conviction that ‟we are right and others are wrong and dangerous‟.
What is very interesting is that the more open „western democratic‟ societies still have powerful
governments, with traditions of coordination inherited from the past. They try to coordinate and
control by means of policies. Often they justify their authoritarian style (of course the term „legitimate
authority‟ is always preferred to the more gloomy term „power‟) by referring to the „natural national
interests‟ of the nation state. As long as nation states hide themselves behind their borders, the
executive may keep it all under control and enjoy popular support. But as soon as borders get
perforated as people cross them more frequently and can afford ignoring them altogether while using
phone and internet, they quickly lose their capacity to keep people separate. On top of that cultural
expressions, whether music, fashion, literature, visual arts and industrial products are now shared by
most people all over the world, ignoring borders altogether. In actual fact there is no such thing as a
distinguished nation anymore. If governments continue to act as if nations still exist and as if they are
still entitled to exercise central authority introducing rules, laws and policies they will lose touch with
(social) reality. That is exactly what is happening and why there is so little trust in politicians anymore.
The symbiotic model suggests there is no central co-coordinating entity and there should not be. Such
entity would quickly blow itself up and impose itself, exploiting other entities and reduce human
diversity. Margulis writes: “ Gaian patterns appear to be planned but occur in the absence of any
head“….Gaia as the interweaving network of all life, is alive, aware and conscious to various degrees in
all its cells, bodies, and societies”. That is what symbiosis is about. The parts all attempt to live
meaningfully together. That does not mean we all need a full understanding of the other. That is
impossible and unnecessary. To some extent we need to trust each other. If not the only way to
cooperate is by means of control. Continuously checking on others. People with a tendency to become
341
control freaks will feel well. But this will not last long, for it ruins working relationships as well as
other types of relationship. Healthy societies cannot develop on the basis of control. Cooperation is
most of all a matter of trust. Control is needed but should play the second violin.
Luhman wrote a long essay on „Vertrauen‟, Trust. He considers it as a‟mechanism to reduce
complexity‟. Without a minimum of trust, life would be too complicated and intricate. This is no doubt
true, as a very positive side effect. But it still is missing the point regarding trust. Trust is above all a
way to build relationships. It is like a catalyst. The result of trust is that two or more people, a team,
work together as a natural unity. Trust respects diversity and directs the minds to a shared goal
whereas it develops sensitivity to needs and ideas of others.
See: R. Buckminster Fuller, Critical Path, 1981, p 275; Huizingea, J. De mensch en de beschaving, Den Haag,1946; for a detailed
analyses of democracy, civilisation and violence see John Keane, Violence and Democracy, Cambridge, 2004, p42 ff; Theodore
Roszak, Person and Planet, 1978; Richard Sennett, Together, The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation, London 2012.;
Luhmann, Niklas, Vertrauen. Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität, Stuttgart 1973. E.O.Wilson, The Future of
Life, 2002; as well his more pessimistic „The Diversity of Life‟ , 1992, which puts the reader in a realistic and sober-minded
mood.
It is better when the government realizes it is one of the four corners of the tetrahedron that we call
political system. The four corners are of equal importance. The policy house is responsible for the
policy deliberation process, facilitating symbiotic relations between numerous entities, all with their
own interests, needs, hang-ups, dislikes and preconceived ideas. They may like or dislike one another,
they may be ready to cooperate or ready to fight, seeking their own interests if need be at the expense
of others. The patterns they embody harmonize or be in disharmony. Yet they interfere. That is how it
is. Symbiosis requires full respect of human diversity (like nature is based on biodiversity) and is
directed to some kind of synergetic harmony and fairness. Why is diversity (of patterns) of vital
importance? The answer is: because we do not know the future and therefore we do not know if
existing patterns will be adequate to deal with tomorrow‟s challenges. If we permit diversity of patterns
the chances that a particular pattern is ideally suited to deal with a new challenge are higher.
Uniformity may sound worthwhile for the time being, but may turn out disastrous tomorrow. We
should also not that the desire for uniformity may quickly develop a downward spiral. For the people
who are in charge of uniformity, always the powerful, will try to continue to keep things under control
by combating dissent. The tendency is especially strong in times of crisis. In fact it shows the system is
unable to cope with new situations and eventually it will collapse.
How does all this relate to the goal-seeking characteristic of human beings, which is so basic for policy
development? Here too we come across symbiotic principles connected to patterns. Let me start with a
simple story to clarify.
In the USA a Baptist pastor decides to commit himself to equal rights of Afro-Americans. One of
Martin Luther King‟s sermons can be heard at Dutch radio. Somewhere in Holland a lady is listening
and is deeply moved. She decides to raise money to support the civil rights movement in the USA. She
encourages publishing houses to publish his sermons. Lots of people start reading these sermons and
quite a few realize the Dutch link with the South African apartheid regime deserves some critical
342
second thoughts. She maintains friendships with many Reformed pastors in Holland. They discuss
what is going on in the USA and they start realizing that inclusive politics are needed in Holland too.
They connect with politicians, urging them to revise some social policies. And so it goes. The lady has a
grandson and shares with him her admiration for pastor King and what he is aiming to achieve. I
happen to be her grandson and so I know the story.
We may call this ‟ a stream of influence‟. Human culture is like an immense ocean, continuously in
flux, caused by infinite types of streams of influence, moving in different directions. There are different
„main streams‟, pushing in different directions. Never forever though. It is a metaphor of course that I
use to clarify the process of enfolding and unfolding patterns of thinking in the minds of people all
over the world and setting goals to improve situations and realize desired goals. Policy development as
an art starts with combining some of these streams of influence to the benefit of the public or part of
the public, within a particular geographic area. Policy development is an attempt to create some
harmonious order in our manifold human ambitions, harmonize and crystallize them into feasible
policies and have them carried out by public governance.
Once the partners agree on policy objectives and once the parliament gives a green light, it is the
executive‟s role to carry out the policies. Here a government must still assume a coordinating task and,
of course, be hold responsible for doing it correctly, making sure that parasites who pursue their own
exclusive interest do not have a chance. Preferably by education, dialogue and persuasion. If soft
measures fail it is the judiciary‟s turn to curb parasitism. Should the executive monitor its own
activities? Preferably not. The Swedish model is better. Let stakeholders monitor, or oversee the
monitoring. For it is in their interest that policies be carried out appropriately.
To sum up the symbiotic model for good governance involves: a government respecting human
diversity, facilitating policy development with all relevant stakeholders and individual citizens within
the area that functions as an administrative unity (the post-modern state) , being responsible for
coordination of policy implementation once policies are approved by parliament, whereas monitoring
and evaluation of policies are in the hands of stakeholders and parliament.
The policy house as the fourth power in the state, seems to be an appropriate instrument to facilitate
this process.
See: Lynn Margulis, The Symbiotic Planet, A new Look at Evolution, Amherst, 1998, p 121- 127; on the need for a different type
of political structure where individual citizens and societal entities can exchange needs and ideas, see Th. Roszak,
Person/Planet, the Creative Disintegration of Industrial Society, 1979.
343
C.Roles of policy experts
C.1. Professional roles of policy experts
By way of summary TACLE OF CONTENTS II: Q.C.1
Question/
paragraph
Issues Page
Q. C.1.1. How policy makers view their role 343
Q. C.1.2 Types of policy papers 346
It is useful top „produce‟ a workable policy paper during the course, as it will help to find out how
things can be put into practice and what bottleneck may occur. The idea is to put together the different
elements (problem definitions, goals and instruments) in such a way that it results in an efficient and
effective action plan and a strong social support basis.
Before we proceed further we will focus on the organization of the process of making such an action
plan. In order to do so, we will first deal with five different professional roles for policymakers, as
found in research among Dutch civil servants. Then we will discuss four different types of policy
product, or policy papers. Which type of policy paper should be written depends on the specific
situation.
We will use these roles and types to discus then organization of the policy making process, and the
selection of a team of policymakers for writing a policy paper on a given topic.
(The Questionnaire we use to discuss the five professional roles and types of papers is reprinted at the
end of this syllabus.)
Q.C.1. 1.How do policy makers view their role as policy maker?
The professional roles can be ordered along several dimensions which indicate a measure of inner
conflict that policy makers experience:
a. subject oriented versus process oriented
Some policymakers consider expertise with regard to the subject matter of a certain policy more
important than expertise on the policy process itself. Other policymakers think the other way around.
In any team charged with developing a policy it is crucial to have a member familiar with the subject
matter and to have someone who knows how to facilitate a process, a catalyst. Both orientations are
useful. Process orientation is crucial, lest there is no facilitation of policy dialogue. Some stakeholders
344
will argue that their input gets ignored, their interests plaid down and they start obstructing. Subject
orientation is crucial as policy design needs professional expertise and comparative policy analysis.
b. professional loyalty versus loyalty towards political executives or stakeholders
Some policymakers consider loyalty to professional standards to be of more importance than loyalty to
the policy aims and goals of the political leadership and/or stakeholders. Other policy makers think the
other way around. There is a tension here. Many policy makers are consultants who are hired by the
executive to develop an effective policy and preferably one that will increase the number of fans or
votes. In most cases the executive will give them much freedom to design the best possible policy, but
when it comes to decision making, the consultant will often find that the executive has some
objections. Sometimes they will put pressure on the consultant to change the policy, sometimes they
drop the project altogether. The position of a civil servant can be awkward. He knows this is the best
way to proceed and his minister is expecting a very different policy that he knows is going to be
problematic. Experienced policy designers manage to cope with this tension. But the tension is always
there.
c. idealism versus realism
The difference is clear and almost universal. Almost everybody feels the tension between the two.
Some people decide to focus on the ideal. They view policies as expressions of values and ideals. Others
prefer to be realists and come up with a policy that has at least some modest effect. They surely need
one another. Often the policy designer is fighting an internal battle with himself.
On basis of these three dimensions we find five professional roles of policymakers, as depicted in the
scheme above:
Process managers are typically inclined to some sort of deliberational rationality. They have
expertise to direct and manage the policy (deliberation) process from the start until the end, from
agenda setting to implementation. This expertise is rare and very much needed as can be concluded
from the paragraph above. Lots of experts with basic communication skills belief they can facilitate a
deliberation process. Many are mistaken. The required expertise is listed in the „note on deliberation
management‟ (above). Sometimes excellent facilitators ignore the input from other experts or the
practical problems of implementation or the political acceptability.
Policy philosophers or idealists have strong ideas what policies are needed to improve the quality of
life and society. They are inclined towards ideological rationality. Some may feel it is their first
responsibility to make the political leadership and/or their colleagues and stakeholders aware of the
consequences and implications of certain policy choices or the need of others. Their expertise emerges
from a combination of normative thinking about the „ideal society‟, situation analysis and comparative
policy analysis. They tend to ignore the practical problems of policy implementation as well as the
needs and opinions of specific stakeholders.
Among them you find enthusiastic „advocates‟ as well as stubborn „idealists‟.
345
Advocates consider it to be their first task to support the aims and goals of the political leadership or
specific stakeholders and to find the best ways to implement them.
Idealists should be respected because of their normative input, without which no society can exist. Nor
should it be forgotten that they are the ones who might change unhealthy patterns, especially in times
of crisis. For example, experts like Paul Krugman in the USA and Arjan Klamer in The Netherlands are
typical „idealists‟ who raised their professional and idealist voice during the time of the financial crisis
in 2008. To some extent their advice was taken seriously and used to develop somewhat more
adequate policies to cope with the crisis and reform the banking system. Maybe not enough.
Policy experts are inclined to technical rationality. They consider professional and analytic capabilities,
as well as knowledge of comparative policy analysis in a specific area of policy development
(sometimes in a particular policy domain) to be their prime expertise. They consider this to be the best
guarantee for making sound policies. Experts consider professional and analytic capabilities in the
area of policy development (sometimes in a particular policy domain) to be their prime expertise. They
often stress the need for policy research and getting the facts on the table. Some believe in the need of
evidence based policy advice, which is contradicts the principle of the indeterminacy of human
behavior and denies the „power of dreaming‟. Evidence needs to be complemented by novelty. Sure,
policy analysis is conditional for making sound policies. Historical input (evidence flowing from past
experience) is badly needed, but we should understand that policies need a social support basis in
order to be effective, as well as a dot on the horizon, the novelty that is worth to aim at.
Practical policy managers: in many countries no distinction is made between policy development and
policy implementation. Civil servants charged with implementing a policy are also expected to monitor
and evaluate that policy and improve the policy on the basis of evaluation conclusions. In Q.D.2.2. I
argued that such a distinction is very useful. But that does not mean that people charged with practical
implementation should not have a say in the policy process. They surely should. They are the ones who
may point to some practical impossibilities and suggest how to render the policy feasible and workable.
They are the experts who in actual fact should have the final word about the implementation plan.
Scheme 1: Five professional roles for policymakers
346
Below we will take this matter up again and argue the ideal policy expert a type of „architect‟ is, able to
combine the different roles. The profession of a policy expert resembles that of an architect.
Conclusion: policy makers by definition struggle with a number of choices or priorities, which are
imposed on them and which are not always conducive to the ideal policy design. It is very much a
matter of weighing up the pros and cons. Policy makers with ample experience sometimes acquire a
good measure of authority that enable them to convince the executive or stakeholders. Most policy
makers feel at ease with a particular „ideal‟ role: technical experts, idealist, advocate, process manager
or practical policy manager.
Q. C.1.2. What types of policy presentations or papers exist? And which purposes can they serve?
Different types of policy papers will be produced by these different kind of experts:
1. A policy study or expert advice is detached from political or societal preference. It provides
sound arguments on the basis of an analysis of the situation, research and professional insight
in the potentials of a policy as a result of comparative analysis. It can be used by civic society,
governmental officials, political parties and so on to stimulate the discussion on what might be
done to improve problematic situations.
2. An analytical paper focuses on analysis of the environment, information and research data as
well as sound argumentation, not necessarily to support a favored political decision. Tjis may
serve the same purpose as 1.
3. An advocacy paper attempts to support a favored political decision, and may sometimes
contain some clever argumentations, but it may also argue on behalf of a multitude of
Subject and goal oriented
process oriented
Political/ societal loyalty
professional loyalty
technicalExpert
ert
advocate
process manager
idealist
Practical Policy manager
ert
Implementation oriented, realistic
347
stakeholders interests and contain a synopsis of the deliberation process. This is the type of
paper used by the political executive, a political party or a CSO to press for certain policy
measures.
4. Policy notes or green papers are tentative suggestions regarding a particular policy issue which
is on the agenda or might soon be. Basically a discussion paper, written either by a
professional policy expert or a civil servant. Policy notes or green papers are very useful during
the deliberation process. Green papers sometimes get elaborated into a white paper. A green
paper is really a discussion paper, useful for a policy department in a ministry, or a
deliberation process.
5. White Papers are used to present some governmental policy proposals on a controversial issue
to a wider audience in order to receive feedback and suggestions for alternative solutions.
Often they are meant to test the climate of public opinion and find out what possible response
patterns might be expected of the policy gets approved. White paper may also used in the
deliberation process, but as they are more elaborated the partners in discussion might get the
feeling that the government has already made up its mind. They leave less room for discussion
and alternative proposals. Purpose as above (4), but much more specific.
6. A policy paper or policy document is a fully fledged description of the policy, based on the
results of discussions about the white paper, containing an analysis of the situation as well as
problem and goal formulation as a synopsis of different stakeholder positions, a list of
strategic activities, risk analysis, implementation plan, budget, communication plan and
preferably a logframe. For detailed information see the paragraph on „writing the text‟. Such a
paper is used for decision making, either within the ministry, or municipality or for decision
making by the parliament of local council.
Michael A. Stelzner, Learn all about white papers, 2008.
Chapin, H. and Deneau, D. Citizen involvement in Public Policy-making: Access and the Policy-making Process, Ottawa, 1978
348
C.2. Working in a policy department
See also paragraph on Policy House
By way of summary TABLE OF CONTENTS II: Q.C.2
Question/
paragraph
Issues Page
Q. C.2.1. Which are the functions of a policy department? 348
Q. C.2.1. Practical implications 350
Q. C.2.1. How should an assignment look like? 352
Q.C.2.1. Which are the 7 functions of a policy department?
Meanwhile it must be clear that good governance is dependent on good policies. Good policies do not
emerge out of the blue. Policy deliberation, elaboration, implementation and evaluation have to be
organized well. That is why we need policy departments. Even when part of the policy development
process will be outsourced, the government itself should have at its disposal an in-house service to
write terms of references, monitor, control and advise the minister about the recommendations offered
by the external consultant.
Keeping in mind what has been discussed above, we may now summarize the 7 major functions of the
policy department, or policy house.
First of all it should be clear that a policy department is a facilitating department in all
respects. Generally speaking, it facilitates the dialogue between society and government,
between experts and stakeholders, between actors representing different spheres and so on.
Secondly it is the imaginative organ of the government, it is responsible for stimulating and
coordinating societal imagination. In the words of Fred Polak: „The task before us is to re-
awaken the almost dormant awareness of the future and to find the best nourishment for a
starving social imagination‟. (p311). To fulfill this role, the policy department should be
analyzing present problem as well as trends and facilitate the encounter of problems and
trends with existing patterns. And, to make it more complicated, help the political government
to elaborate ideas and plan for the future and discuss these with stakeholders.
Thirdly, it should also be the synthesizing organ of the government in the sense that is should
envisage the ramifications in different spheres of society, its impact on patterns and the
coordination of policies in all domains and spheres and see to it that these policies work
together, including the coordination of financial policy planning and setting priorities.
Fourthly, it is the policy development and design agency of the government, with all expertise
that goes with it. Including expertise regarding legislation
349
Fifthly, it is the major planning agency of the country. It could well be that there are other
agencies in charge with planning, like the bureau for statistics, the planning bureau, even
independent think tanks and more. But when it comes to translation of future visions and
trends into concrete and feasible and affordable policies, it is the policy department that is
responsible.
Sixthly: it is the major policy expert body with expertise regarding the effectiveness and
efficiency of different types of policies in different spheres, taking into account patterns people
and stakeholders adhere to.
Seventhly, it is one of the several „feedback‟ agencies which is seeking feedback from society
regarding policies and laws with the aim to reflect, adapt and improve policies and laws.
Different kinds of evaluation go with it.
These last aspects need a little elaboration. For indeed it surely is not the only governmental or
political body responsible for reflecting on feedback and surely other agencies have knowledge of
policies, notably those responsible for implementation. Many departments and agencies fulfill similar
functions, however with different objectives. Like the human body the governmental body knows
several ways to digest information, imagine new futures, coordinate activities, develop expertise and so
on. The Policy House (department) is one of those, and an important one, combining several functions,
with the deliberate aim to develop workable policies, with a strong social support basis.
One comment on working together with external agencies. For that has become common practice.
There are some good arguments why especially the deliberation process should be carried out by
governmental officials themselves. Citizens need to see that the dialogue is not between them and
some consultants working on behalf of the government, but directly with the government. Consultants
may play a facilitating role.
So it is an important function of the policy department to stimulate the policy dialogue.
Regarding the elaboration phase outsourcing is easier and useful indeed if the government itself does
not have the expertise needed to elaborate a particular policy. A word of warning is needed though. All
too often the government is somewhat gullible regarding the credentials of the external consultant,
who is eager to get the job and is therefore pretending to have all the needed expertise. Many times I
have observed myself that selling hot air is quite common. Once the report is written the civil servants
wonder why this needed to be outsourced. They could have done it as well or even better.
It is useful for the government to have some policy experts within the government. They may also be in
the position to provide sound advice to the minister responsible for a particular policy area.
In many areas cooperation is desirable. For instance in the area of developing policy expertise.
Universities and think tanks may often have unique and useful expertise that might be badly needed by
the government. That means the policy department or policy house should keep informed about new
development and find ways to make use of these external experts.
350
Q.C.2.2. Which are the practical implications of working together in a policy department ?
political system perspective
Separation of implementation and development
The importance of separation between implementation and development cannot be stressed
sufficiently. But we will deal more explicitly with this contested issue in the next part. Here we just
take it for granted.
Teamwork
Policies are rarely the result of a one-mans-thinking-process. As all public policies deal with a myriad
of stakeholders and citizens a single person will never be able to get a good overview of the
complicated policy environment. (this is true for politicians as well.....or even more true). That is why
teamwork is a must and why public policy partnerships work so well. And policy teams should be open
to consult with external experts.
Policy departments may consider organizing themselves in teams. The expertise present in the team is
dependent on the subject matter of the policy teams for a particular policy domain or a particular
assignment..
Most of the expertise needed is of a general nature: communication, facilitation, organization, budget
calculations, chairmanship, research and legal advice.
Permanent teams consist of a few experts in the specific subject matter of the policy.
The department should have at its disposal a number of general experts to support the policy teams.
As the art of policy development is a profession, the policy department is a professional organization
and can best be organized as such. That means that professionals enjoy a sufficient measure of
freedom to carry out their work and be hold accountable.
Either the teams are managed by a professional, who works together with some other experts needed
to develop the policy. Or the teams are managed by chairman who invites some professionals to be
part of the team and support the team with their expertise.
What does the policy department need?
A policy friendly executive (this needs to be cultivated)
Ministries that desire to work policy-wise
Participative or deliberative arrangements
Good international network for advise on comparative policy analysis
351
And expertise in the following domains:
Adequate policy specific expertise, i.e. professionals specialized on economic, welfare,
educational etc policies
And in addition expertise of the following nature:
Policy design
Policy research (data collection, comparative policy analysis)
Judicial (adapting and developing the legal basis for a policy0
Financial (drawing budgets)
Communication (deliberation process and information to public, which implies excellent
connection with the media)
Deliberation (facilitating the deliberation process)
Evaluation and monitoring
writing
What policy teams should do:
Confer with organizations responsible for implementation
Confer with society and stakeholders
Confer with department or unit responsible for policy coordination and policy departments of
other ministries
Confer with governmental unit responsible for long term planning
Discuss the policy agenda‟s and write a regular agenda synopsis
Be informed internationally
Carry out policy research (or outsource research) on the policy environment, both
qualitatively and quantitatively
Develop new policies and adapt existing policies
Monitor policy implementation
Evaluate policies (or outsource evaluation)
Three groups of people involved in policymaking
Politicians and executives
Politicians initiate policy making processes. Their role is crucial in the decision making stage. When
negotiations on major aspects of the policy have to be conducted, politicians should be involved in that
stage as well.
Their main contribution to the process is their political power and the ability to take decisions
Civil servants
Civil servants are involved in all the stages of the policy making process, except the last one.
352
They contribute to the policy making process on the basis of their knowledge, expertise and
information, or at least the ability to gather the necessary information. Moreover they should have
„procedural intelligence‟, that is they should know what has to be done on which moment and in what
order.
Sometimes they hire external policy experts where they lack expertise.
Stakeholders
Stakeholders are actors that have an interest in the problem the policy is supposed to solve. As a rule
they are involved during all phases of the policy development, notably the first stage.
Their contribution exists of their practical knowledge of the problem and the ideas for solutions they
can suggest. The most important stakeholder is the citizen. They may also be asked to implement part
of the policy. In actual fact working out policies together with stakeholders, might be complicated on
the one hand, but can substantially contribute to effectiveness.
Q.C.2.3.: How should an assignment to develop a policy look like?
In the policy development process we discern nine stages or methods. We call them methods because
each of these stages asks for a different way of working, a different method, based on a particular
methodology. But methods should not be followed rigidly. Methods need to be adapted to existing
situations. Without mindful adaptation no quality can be attained.
Assignment
Policymaking always starts with an assignment: The executive is responsible for the policy field in
question asks one or more civil servants to write a policy paper on a certain issue that is on the political
agenda. Or just to come up with a rough proposal. The executive responsible for the assignment we
may call the „sponsor‟. For it is not just a matter of telling employees (civil servants) what to do. It is
more than that: the civil servants need to be supported and encouraged to produce a workable policy.
The assignment may include indications regarding:
An issue that in principle will be the subject of a policy (in which sphere?)
Relation with existing policy
a problem definition either in the environment (sphere) for which a new policy is needed or
with the implementation of an existing policy that need to be adapted;
one or more policy goals, or revised goals, and type of policy that is needed
instrumentation of existing policy to be revised or a new policy to be worked out
some stakeholders that should be consulted and how
budget restrictions for the policy
budget and time frame for policy development
353
In a democratic political system the politician or the executive, not the civil servant will act as the
sponsor and take responsibility for the policy. Therefore civil servants should never start working on a
policy paper without the consent of the person who is politically responsible for that policy.
On the other hand it often happens that civil servants or CSO‟s ask attention for a particular policy
problem or need. The civil servant reports on the different agenda‟s and the politicians will respond to
this report.
Assignment details (Terms of Reference)
Suppose you got an assignment to write a policy paper on a certain topic. Your first task will be to
organize the writing process. Before you can start you need a number of indications and instructions:
Job: Is it about developing a new policy or adapting an existing one?
Policy: what exactly is the issue and the main problem to tackle with the policy?
Target group? Who is the target group? Which sphere?
Confidentiality: is the entire process or parts of it of a confidential nature?
Time and budget: how much time is given to develop the policy? What is the budget to develop the
policy?
Team: Who will be team members to work together with? What skills and expertise are needed in the
team?
Problem finding:
- Is there already a clear problem definition or not?
- Should alternative problem definitions be given?
- How to find the „adequate‟ problem definition? Who to consult (experts, stakeholders etc)?
And how to consult them?
Deliberation process:
- Should civil society, market or oikos or all be involved in the process?
- If yes, is there any indication by which means or instruments? Or is the policy designer
(department) free to choose the appropriate means?
- Should civil society be involved in all phases of the policy cycle or just one?
Goals:
354
- Are some (or may be all) goals already given in the assignment?
- Are more concrete goals desirable, as well as sets of indicators?
- Should alternative goals be considered?
- Who to consult and how to consult?
Instrumentation and budget:
- Are there indications regarding the instrumentation?
- Is there a maximum budget?
- Should an alternative instrumentation (with scenarios) be considered?
- Is there room (financial means and time) to carry out research?
- Who to consult and how to consult?
Implementation: Should an implementation plan be developed?
Organizational set-up:
- Will there be regular meetings with the executive about the proceedings?
- Should the executive be consulted about certain matters?
- Should a critical review be carried out?
- Should only one draft policy paper be proposed or more alternatives?
355
D. Organizing and Managing Public Administration with
policies in view
Nota Bene: this short paragraph will just consider the management of public administration in the
perspective of policy implementation
D.1. Seperating policy development and implementation
By way of summary TABLE OF CONTENTS II: Q.E.1
Question/
paragraph
Issues Page
Q. D.1. Why a separation between policy development and
implementation?
355
Q. D.2 How should the organization of separation look like? 357
Q. D.3 HR-requirements and the policy expert as an architect 359
Q. D.4 A good policy development team 360
Q. D.5 A good policy implementation team 361
Q. D.6 Conditions for hiring an external partner 366
Q.D. 1. Again: Why should policy development be separated from policy implementation?
political system perspective
Civil servants charged with services and implementing policies usually take it for granted they are the
experts in the field, aware of the strengths and weaknesses of service and policy, as well as aware of the
needs and problems of the beneficiaries. They know who they are working for and they know all the ins
and outs of the policies they implement or monitor. Often they propose useful amendments to the
political executive prepared to listen and to take the voice of the civil servant seriously. Put differently,
civil servants have their own policy agenda and it is to be recommended to politicians not to neglect
that agenda.
I have suggested it in several countries and the response is always the same: great idea, but not for us.
Our culture does not permit it. Our people, charged with implementation, insist on being involved in
policy development as well. And…..people just charged with policy development will not understand
practice!
How to deal with this standard response? It needs to be stressed also that because of their involvement
in the public service and their natural preoccupation with operational activities, their ability to take
distance and reflect is limited. It is the privilege of relative outsiders to be in a better position to look at
356
things more objectively, critically and strategically. Operation and strategy, policy implementation and
policy development are by nature different activities. The two activities require radically different
attitudes towards the purpose of the work. They also require a different way of focusing. The first
activity is geared to producing results by means of relatively standardized methods of work. It has the
characteristics of a craft. The focus is on applying rules of organization and work or a method to
proceed and on being on the look-out for the way the work is having an impact on the beneficiary of
the environment. As soon as one notices the impact is not what it should be, work performance should
be adapted. It is a continuous to and fro, like a dialogue. Client centeredness and friendliness are also
needed. Very different is the attitude of the policy specialist who is assessing and evaluating the
quality of service or the impact of a policy. Distance is required. Data are required. Analysis is
required. And very important is the ability to think „laterally‟, out of the box, of reasoning that is not
immediately obvious in order to creatively imagine a better and more suitable approach.
The two attitudes are so radically different, that very few people can switch from one to the other while
maintaining professional quality. We may compare it to the difference between politicians and political
scientists. Very rarely are political scientists good politicians. They are trained to think analytically and
laterally. Reflection is more important than reaction. With politicians it is the other way round. They
have learned to react intuitively to new situations, they focus on the minds of relevant actors and they
sense what is in the air and on what going on in the minds of other actors. That is why they often know
to say the right thing at the right moment. However, rarely are politicians good political scientists.
Rarely are they focused on reflection and theoretical reasoning.
This is why operation and strategy, implementation and design should be detached. Two separate
departments should be charged with these functions. Better to separate the 2 disciplines, for if they are
put in the same, mixed department and meet each other daily, sooner or later the 2 focus points will
start merging and none of the disciplines will function properly anymore.
That is why I argue for 2 separate departments, with separate work- and organization cultures. That
does not mean though that they should not regularly meet and discuss issues. They should. The
operation department should challenge the policy department with the reality of implementation and
operation and the policy department should always consult with the operation department about
„workability‟ of policy designs.
A ministerial or municipal policy department should be relatively independent and free to develop
policies creatively within the framework provided by the executive. However, there should be ample
communication between the two departments. Here too the principle of dialogue is relevant. For
without dialogue reflection is slow or non-existent. Walking goes better on 2 legs.
Conclusion: as development and implementation are two entirely different types of activity that
require different types of expertise, in order to prevent confusion and colonization by one it is wise to
separate the two, while stimulating dialogue between them.
357
Q.D.2. How should the organization of separation look like?
political system perspective
Different organization models may work, but in the basis of the principle of separation between
development and implementation of policies I suggest the following basic structure
358
Political executive
Management team
Support staff
HR, Fin,
Comm,
Jur, Adm
Methodologic
al support
(staff)
Implementation or operation departments and public
services
Policy development
department (policy
chamber)
Public and stakeholders and different spheres: oikos, market and civil society
359
This model can be used as the basis of the policy house with its policy chambers.
Q. D.3. What would be the HR-requirements for such an organizational structure? What is a policy-
architect?
We already discussed the different capacities needed for a policy development department above. (Q.
D.2.2.) Now it is time for one important point of attention: the profession of a policy expert, which
resembles that of an architect. Why?
All professionals have to deal with different factors and take them into account in order to produce
quality. Architects in particular. To design an office building the architect has to take into account an
number of physical conditions. The type and strength of the soil is important for the foundation. The
weather conditions in tropical countries require a particular structure, different from temperate areas.
There is also the built environment in which the new building has to fit. Next he has to take into
account the demands and needs of the customer, the „program requirements‟. There will be budget
limitations and perhaps an indication about the duration of the building process. Finally there is the
aesthetic dimension that should be related to „feng shui‟ conditions in order to create a pleasant
atmosphere.
The policy expert too should be sensitive to a large number of conditions and take them into account.
We already mentioned different dimensions of the profession: technical expertise, idealism, advocacy,
practical feeling and sensitivity regarding the development process.
The professional expert is indeed a type of architect. Designing a policy the experts must take into
account:
Policy environment consisting of different spheres that will be affected; other policies in
related domains, the relative strength of the social support basis, cultural traditions (for
instance a culture that easily tolerates contrary behavior probably needs more checks and
balances as part of the policy than a culture of strictness)
Comparative policy analysis will point to experiences in similar situations in similar spheres.
This might have to be complemented with specific research to be carried out to obtain
important data.
Stakeholders need to be heard and to be involved. Maybe even to be convinced or „nudged‟ into
the desired position. Especially the political executive needs attention, lest the policy will never
be approved. So the policy expert should also be able to read political programs well.
Naturally there will be a number of program requirements, that need to be taken into account
without rendering the policy unworkable. Including financial limitations. This is the practical
part of it. Given all the requirements, the policy must work.
Finally there is the communication aspect as part of the deliberation process plus information
to public and the ability to write a readable text
360
The policy expert does not need to excel in all aspects. Some part of the job might be outsourced to a
colleague or external expert. What I am saying here is that the policy expert should have a clear
understanding of the importance of all these aspects, how to combine them and how to handle them.
That is what will make a good „policy architect‟. The „policy architect‟ as a professional is in charge of
the entire process . He or she has control over the entire design process, which means that the
professional „works relatively independently of his colleagues, but closely with the clients he serves‟ (in
the words of Henry Mintzberg) . The policy department (or policy chamber) resembles a „professional
bureaucracy, according to Mintzberg‟s terminology. Professionals with ambition to acquire policy
expertise and work as a policy architect should in the future follow a Masters Program with a
curriculum that is specifically geared to this work. Only a fully developed masters program will prepare
the student for this type of work. A number of training sessions are by far insufficient.
See: H.Mintzberg, Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations, 1983, p 189ff
Q.D.4. Which are the typical characteristics of a good policy development team?
Policy development requires excellent coordination. That is why the general policy expert resembles
the architect. He or she needs a team though.
1. The size of the team
No exact rules can be given in this case. Some rules of thumb are:
- The smaller, the better, for the members of the team should be able to realize a minimum of
synergy together. This is difficult to achieve with large teams.
- The size of the team depends of course on the „size‟ and complications of the subject.
- To a certain degree you can speed up the policy making process through division of labor, so
the size of the team depends on your deadline.
- Maximum size of the team should be 5 – 10, depending on the size of the subject.
- Minimum size of the team should be 2. Even if you have to write the policy paper completely
on your own, it is wise to have a second person simply to make comments on your work.
In case of a PDP the team must be larger in include representatives of partner-stakeholders
2. As members of your team you, the policy architect, will need in any case:
- a general process manager (see section 1)
- a prime author, who will put together the materials produced by the other team members
- a communication/facilitation manager responsible for discussion with stakeholders
3. If you foresee that your policy paper will deviate from what the political leadership expects to be
(e.g. as a result of consultations with stakeholders or target group members), include a policy
„philosopher‟ in your team, if you feel uneasy with the political leadership.
361
4. For the remaining part the composition of your team depends on the type of policy paper you have
chosen to write.
- If your policy paper will be an expert advice, be sure to include some experts in your team
- If your policy paper will be an essay, include both experts and advocates in your team
- If your policy paper will be and advocacy paper, rely mainly on advocates
- If you plan to write an analytical paper, rely on experts
- If you plan to work out a logframe paper, see to it you include someone with experience with
logframes.
Q. D.5. Idem: the Implementing department?
Very different are the requirements for the department of operations. If the policy department is the
domain of the architect, this is the domain of the contractor, who will carry out the work of
implementation with professionals of all sorts. The contractor needs carpenters, masons, electrical
engineers and so on. The civil servant team responsible for public (policy) service is fully dependent on
a large number of professional specializations, varying from client service, to accountancy to police
surveillance on the street. Each with its own relatively independent area of responsibility. That is why a
more diversified structure is needed or a divisional structure. Leadership here is mainly coordinating
the various divisions and making sure the right people are on the right position or otherwise shift
position.
The biggest and most difficult challenge of any implementing department or agency is the challenge
posed by feedback. Nothing will ever go as envisaged or planned. There will always be unexpected
surprises, responses, trends, obstacles or whatever. Roughly speaking feedback information may fall
into two categories. The first category is a technical or methodical one. This is the category of
problems that can in principle be solved. Solutions are available. We may think of problems varying
from very simple day to day troubles and bottlenecks to the more substantial problems of lack of
human capacity, lack of financial means or an imperfection or error in the law which can be repaired.
Usually the attention is focused on this category of problems.
There is a second category that is more fundamental. A first process evaluation shows one of the
facilitating instruments does not work. Maybe in spite of some policy mediation which was carried out
and remained unsuccessful. The instrument is meeting fierce opposition. Or one of the policy strategy
lines appears unworkable. Or an important partner in the implementation process backs out or turns
out to be unreliable. How does the average implementing organization respond to such challenges?
Either they consider the problem as a category 1 problem and find some solution that is not really a
solution, or they deny there is a problem. The human mind is extremely creative in finding arguments
why the solution offered is sufficient or why there is no reason to be worried at all.
I remember a difficult discussion in one of the ministries of Curacao regarding a financial policy that
did not work. At the time I was in a team to advice the council of ministers. We were with 3 team
members to discuss the rather grave problem. The ministry relativized tried to put the problems in its
362
own perspective and suggested some solutions, which were not only inadequate in my eyes, but risky
as well, opening the door to corruption. After one hour I noticed I was the only person in the room
insisted a more radical approach was needed. All the others submitted to the pressure exerted by the
minister. At a certain moment somebody started to ridicule me and accusing me of being out of my
mind, seeing dangers that weren‟t there at all. Group‟s pressure was getting stronger and stronger and
getting unpleasant. By the end of the meeting some conclusions were drawn I disagreed with. Once we
had left the building my teammates told me they were in complete agreement with me. They felt
uneasy during the meeting and preferred to keep silent. Why? so I asked myself. The following day we
wrote our report and advised the council of ministers to take adequate action, which in actual fact the
council did, incurring displeasure of the relevant minister.
Daniel Kahneman has suggested people find it awfully difficult to lose. Especially when they are in a
larger group with colleagues being witnesses of their loss. The person responsible is fighting to carry
his point and be put in the right. Others start calculating: what will be the consequences if we go back
on him? Will we be dismissed eventually? The costs seem to be high and so they decide to support him.
According to Kahneman we have big problems accepting loss, due to the functioning of our brains and
he offers an interesting neurological explanation. The Dutch sociologist Aart Broek suggests it is a
matter of shame. We all avoid being shamed and risking group acceptance. That is a slightly different
theory and it points to a more sociological approach to the issue, which I consider to be very relevant.
The long tradition of imitation theories was already mentioned above. Let me point here to the work of
Bandura and Walter, of half a century ago. They did a lot of experiments and discovered that imitation
is central in the acquisition of behavior. They also discovered that learners „successfully imitate more
or less the entire pattern of a model‟, even without any reinforcement. It appears to be a spontaneous
process. Thus, the acquisition of „novel responses through imitation is not the slow, gradual process
based on differential reinforcement‟ as has been postulated by various learning theorists. This aspect
of their theory fits well the pattern approach I am suggesting here. It also fits the symbolic
interactionist approach of Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann. If our basic condition is uncertainty
and disability to orientate, we are dependent on models and groups to orientate ourselves. This is not a
matter of small individual lessons, it is much more a matter of adopting a pattern and learning how to
apply that pattern in different situations. Individual judgment comes later and often only reluctantly
or not at all. Adopting a pattern and imitating models is probably supported by our aversion of shame
and our ability to calculate.
But what is the result? The result is that individual people and teams have a strong tendency to be
consistent and to stay the course in spite of signs of upcoming failure. Sure, in most cases there is some
awareness that something is wrong, but our minds are very ingenious in building reassuring
argumentations which enable us to ignore feedback. On top of it all is the reluctance of individual
people, especially executives in the limelight, to be accused of being opportunistic and unreliable
because of regular mind shifts. This can indeed be a sign of mere opportunism and expediency, but it
could also be a sign of alertness, reflection and phronesis.
When it comes to policy implementation, which by definition means change and overcoming
resistance, this „culture of staying the course‟ is quite disastrous and in my view point a major reason
363
why so many policies don‟t work. Somehow implementation teams should get out of the habit of
consistently staying the course by all means. Aart Broek is suggesting to adopt „crew resource
management‟ which was developed to train cockpit teams of pilots not to conform to
the first solution for a serious flight problem automatically, springing from fear to criticize a colleague
or springing from aversion to pay serious attention to a critical voice and risking to „lose face‟. In
cockpits such all too human behavior is an obvious recipe for disaster. So pilots are trained to ignore
such dysfunctional behavior patterns and openly discuss various options without wanting to be right.
Such training should be recommended to all sorts of teams and especially policy implementation
teams which are naturally confronted with one obstacle after another. Such teams should be willing to
learn from practice day by day and be ready to respond freely and creatively.
How apt is the recommendation by Denis de Rougemont to „think with our hands‟.
See: Henry Mintzberg, Managing Government, Governing Management, Harvard Business Review, 1996; Daniel Kahneman,
Thinking Fast and Slow, New York, 2011; Aart Broek, Dwarsliggers, Tegenspraak onder schaamteloos leiderschap, Haarlem
2013, and for learning theory of Bandura and Walter, see Morton Deutsch and Robert M.Krauss,Theories in Social Psychology,
New York, 1965, p94ff
Conclusion: The implementation department or agency, whether external or internal, outsourced or
insourced should naturally have the right capacity. Of the utmost importance is the ability to consider
feedback seriously and be prepared to change the course if need be.
Q. D.6. Under which conditions may external partners get involved? Should such involvement be part
of „corporate social responsibility?
During a short period of time outsourcing public policy implementation and service delivery was a
hype, ideologically inspired by the free market pattern. Nowadays we have adapted a more sober
minded approach to outsourcing. We realize outsourcing has its merits as well as it shortcomings. The
expected financial advantages have often turned out to be disappointing. And likewise the expected
quality of service.
Let us first sum up the types of cooperation:
Insourcing: entire in-house arrangement
Outsourcing: Public policy partnerships with:
1. Government controlled company (for profit)
2. Government controlled foundation (not for profit)
3. Company (private; often called ‟public private partnership‟)
4. CSO: one or even several
364
Which one to choose? Naturally there will be a number of conditions and requirements, that need to be
taken into account
So which are determining factors to outsource or insource?
First of all there is the factor of principle:
There are certain services that so typically belong to the core of public sphere that it seems unwise to
put these in the hands of CSO‟s or companies. The public sphere is accountable to the public and
acting on behalf of the public. If something goes wrong that is of principle importance the public
executives cannot come up with the story that they were powerless because they outsourced the
service. We should be thinking of 3 basic areas: financial income, civil affairs, legislation and security.
Financial income: it cannot be the case that the government becomes dependent on an external agency
to secure its income. That is why most governments are very reluctant to outsource fiscal affairs. And
rightly so. This is of course including fiscal policy development.
Civil affairs like registration of births and deaths, passports and the nowadays very complicated
systems to link registration with the fiscal department, police etc. This is a very sensitive area which
easily infringe upon privacy. Contemporary governments should make conscientious efforts to protect
citizens, which is already very difficult. For many services need external support, notably IT-support.
Security: in modern society the police is responsible for internal security. However at present we are
witnessing a mushrooming of private security companies, because individual citizens and businesses
feel insecure. They hire private security services, sometimes armed. We should use our imagination to
imagine where this might lead to. First of all I will lead to exclusive security of some exclusive
categories of people. Secondly it may lead to the erosion of the police and even lead to fights between
private security people and police. This goes against the general public good. So the government
should think of better ways to make sure the police can guarantee the safety of all citizens. If there is a
place for private securities it seems to me they should work under supervision of the police and be
unarmed.
Legislation: this is the core of the public governance and should be strictly and directly controlled by
parliament. Individual legislative lawyers may be hires, but to outsource that to an external legislation
office is a risky affair in that some private interest might be incorporated in legislation without
parliament being aware of it.
Secondly there is strategy factor: desirability of cooperation.
We have already discussed this factor in detail above. Cooperation within „public policy partnerships‟
might increase the social support basis of policies and effectiveness of policies. Cooperation means
working together. Not making use of others, though. This is something to take attention of.
Thirdly there is the quality factor:
Outsourcing to agents who hold a monopoly position does not seem desirable. Abuse of monopoly
positions is just a bit too tempting. This may lead to unnecessary increase of costs and quality. It also
365
goes against the standard argumentation to outsource services to the market, because it is supposed to
limit costs and maximize quality. However, only under conditions of free competition. But in a number
of areas it is unlikely that the government as an institutions with civil servants may produce desired
quality. Think of railways, airports, energy or maintenance of dikes or many other areas. At the same
time there does not seem to be a healthy level of competition in society. In such cases an in between
solution is thinkable: relatively independent agencies, foundations or companies owned and governed
by the public government might be the solution. Because of their relative independence they may
adopt their own HR-policies and make sure there is sufficient capacity in that particular area. Such
agencies are close to the work floor, which might be required and which is unlikely to be achieved by
the public government.
Fourthly there is the monitoring factor.
Outsourcing is OK provided both performance and results can be monitored by means of clear
verifiable indicators.
So we may now provide the following table for insourcing/ outsourcing:
Conditions/
Type of partnership
Principle of core Desirablility of
coöperation with
society
Need of quality
fulfilled
Monitoring
condition fulfilled
Internal
arrangement
Yes No Possibly but
attention quickly
fades away
Possibly, but
attention quickly
fades away
Public policy
partnerships
Gov controlled
company
No No In principle yes, but
attention quickly
fades away
In principle yes, but
attention quickly
fades away
Gov controlled
foundation
Possibly No In principle yes, but
attention quickly
fades away
In principle yes, but
attention quickly
fades away
Private company No Hardly In principle yes In principle yes
CSO or CSO‟s No Possibly In principle yes In principle yes
See for a thorough discussion: John Alford and Janine O‟Flynn, Rethinking Public Service Delivery, Managing with External
Providers, 2012, p 83ff
366
General Conclusion of Part II
This part was about a number of tools to support good policy development, which I consider to be
useful. The main tools were:
a. Policy analysis. Indeed the policy expert needs to know what existing policies are at work in
the relevant area. Both explicit policies and implicit ones, or common policies. The latter are in
particular worth paying attention to. Most people might not be sufficiently aware of implicit
policies and yet they have an impact and should not be ignored. They may support a pattern
that has to be taken into account for the new policy that is in the make. Policy analysis is also
useful as a basis for evaluation and adaptation of policies.
b. Policy deliberation process. This is an area which in full development right now. Democracies
do not work very well. Citizens want to have a say and citizens are often very well-educated.
Also in many countries civil society is well-developed and many advocacy groups are active.
The deliberation process needs to be organized well in order to have a positive effect. There a 2
major conditions or success factors. One is inclusiveness. Partners in dialogue need to realize
society is a society. That means that people and entities with different interests need to
understand and respect one another in order to live peacefully together. The idea is to
cooperate in a symbiotic way, rather than a parasitical way. The other one concerns the role of
the policy expert. The policy expert with experience and knowledge in a particular area must
be listened to. It would be stupid to ignore his voice and expertise. The idea of the deliberation
process is, among others, to make sure expert knowledge is geared to the interests of
stakeholders in an optimal way. We also stressed the importance of institutionalization of
deliberation. It should not be an ad hoc process, or something of just superficial importance as
in the case with advisory councils whose advice can easily be ignored by the government. So
we pointed to „public policy partnerships‟ and to „policy chambers‟ in the local or central
government. Policy chamber may evolve into a „policy house‟ as a fourth power in a
constitutional democracy.
c. Finally we discussed different roles of policy designers and the organization of a policy
department. Although they are not „ tools‟ in the proper sense of the word, a good policy
department is useful to support the policy development process. And policy experts should be
aware of different roles they might play.
367
Part III: policy cycle: 9 critical phases
In this part we will have a practical look at the different phases of the policy development process.
Each paragraph contains a number of steps that might be considered in order to develop a good policy.
So this part of the syllabus is of a practical nature. For more theoretical questions, the user is referred
to part I or II for relevant background information.
Each chapter starts with a table that contains information about the steps in a summarized way.
Nota bene.
In the course of the years I have seen hundreds of policy manuals passing by. Most of these manuals
were written by consultants and were used as the basis of training in policy development. Some are
more clever than others. Some are easier to work with than others. Some are very restrictive and sound
like „this is the one best way‟. Some are presented as the egg of Columbus. I have found that the more
restrictive they are, the more limited is their usefulness. For reality is by definition surprising and
challenging us to be creative.
The practical steps that I offer here, also seem to have the character of a manual. But I myself do not
believe that following these steps will automatically lead to a great policy. They should be viewed as an
invitation to consider these steps.
During my student years with Gijs Kuypers in Amsterdam, he once told us that the method he had
presented to us, was first to be used rigidly. But once we had mastered the method, we should feel free
to adapt the method according to the situation we were going to work in. That was exactly the moment
that I concluded that the method he was teaching us was indeed interesting and useful. Before I had
considered it as a rigid method that I approached with a good measure of skepticism. So his remark
that early morning during the workshop worked as an eye opener and a relief to me. And during my
years that I was teaching policy development, I always told participants exactly the same. Try to
practice first according to the scheme that I am offering you. But after sufficient practice, „forget
everything ‟so to speak and do as you believe is wise to do in the particular situation you are in. This
course too is a pattern, a way of thinking and doing. It may become part of your mind. But once it is,
don‟t restrict your mind, for that would block creativity and creativity is needed more than anything
else to develop workable policies that serve the public good. Let me put it differently, methods are
meant to become part and parcel of personal craftsmanship. They should help us to deal with reality.
We should not act as executioners of blind methods. With our well-intended activities and policies we
impinge on reality and, naturally, reality will respond. We should be prepared to respond in turn and
be sensitive to what we triggered, adapting and refining our actions creatively, lest we pull about
matters and destroy. This is the theme of Robert Pirsig‟s thorough analysis in his Zen and the Art of
Motorcycle Maintenance (1974) about the nature of „quality‟. Quality is the characteristic of a dialogical
relationship between actor and reality. Above I discussed the relevance of it for policy development.
368
Here I would just put forward that proper policy development needs a sensitive mind which registers
the possible impact of a policy on stakeholders and which knows how to respond creatively, rather
than just consistently staying the course inducing chaos and destruction.
It contains 3 ways of logic reasoning:
First there is the logic of society, with its network of interdependent patterns, subject to processes of
unfoldment and enfoldment. Always related to the four different spheres of society, with the
governmental sphere trying to subdue everything to the meta-framework of laws and policies.
Second there is the logic of policies and laws, always intertwined, operating together.
And thirdly, entering part III of the syllabus, we get to the logic of policy development, which must
take into account the first two types of logic. If it does not take these two types of logic for granted, it
will not get anywhere. Or much rather, its final product, a policy, will not have any effect whatsoever.
So if there is anything to say about the method used in this part, it is an attempt to develop policies
while keeping in mind the logic of society and the logic of policies.
Summary of the steps
The entire process involves 9 critical phases:
1.Agenda setting: understanding the policy environment, combining different agenda‟s and
seeking consensus, waiting of the right moment
2.Problem finding: starting with situation analysis, finding a relevant problem formulation
followed by the formulation of policy objectives
3.Strategy choice: identifying the main policy lines and goals (strategy)
4.Finding the appropriate facilitation or instrumentation
5.Developing a workable and feasible implementation plan, organizational structure and
budget
6.Carrying out a critical review (feasibility testing and/or ex ante evaluation)
7.Decision process: by the responsible governing body
8.Implementation and monitoring
9.Carrying out an evaluation, appreciation, and, if need be, followed by adaptation
Note for political executives and civil servants: during all these 9 critical phases the public
needs to be heard, consulted, informed and involved.
Note for policy experts of CSO‟s and general policy experts: you are not in charge of this
cycle, but you may have a say in most of these phases. SO you have to understand how policy
369
development works and the better you know how it works, the more likely it is that you manage to
have a say.
Schematically:
Consulting the public and getting the public involved in policy development and the decision process,
is the subject matter of Part III of this course: the deliberation process.
For each phase we start by giving a summary of steps to take.
Note: at different stages the agreement from the executive is needed. We will indicate this with red
Note: at different stages stakeholders/citizens will have to be consulted.
•fromulation objectives
•choice of strategy and method
•instrumentation
•critical review
•decision process
•environement
•agenda
•problem definition and formulation
•implementation
•evaluation
•adaptation
to be involved
to be heard
to be consulted
to be informed
370
A. Critical phase 1: Agenda setting
Nota Bene: agenda issues are extremely fluid. What is an issue today might not be so tomorrow. Or
rather, it is a matter of shifting priorities. What is more, there are different categories of actors who
have different agenda‟s, like the public and the political agenda. People are sometimes entirely
mistaken about the agenda of another category. Some people assume a particular issue is naturally an
issue for the entire society, but maybe it isn‟t. This should all be kept in mind by the political, the civil
servants, societal actors
The actors. Actors can be representatives of all relevant categories: politicians, civil servants,
professionals, representatives of particular categories of citizens (CSO‟s, trade unions etc). All of them
may discuss agenda issues and try to get these issues on the political agenda.
Note: in the third column (status) you will find 3 possible indications:
One-off: a onetime activity
Ongoing: a continuous activity
To and fro: an activity that might have to be repeated at a later stage in the process.
AGENDA
MATTERS
Description Nota bene Status
To keep in mind When a problematic situation has
reached a crisis proportion and
cannot be ignored anymore.
When a larger problem (springing
from a conflict of value hierarchies or
from technological innovation) is
expressed in a concrete or particular
way
When media pay so much attention
to it that it gets emotively charged
When it has an impact on a
substantial group of stakeholders
When it raises question about the
legitimacy of power in society or a
government
When it is trendy and widely
discussed (policy discourse
Discern
between:
Political
agenda
Public agenda
Professional
agenda
Activist
agenda
Civil servant
Agenda
-
Step 1
371
Make a list of
relevant actors
Scientists who foresee a problem
emerging on the basis of scientific
research.
Professional policy expert who
compare policies in different areas and
countries and see that a particular policy
can be improved or introduced
Activists, i.e. a group of citizens who
struggle with a particular problem they
face in society and who feel it has an
impact on the quality of life
Politicians who act on the basis of a
political program
Public: individual citizens (public
opinion), oikos, market, middle field
Administrative: civil servants who are
responsible for effective implementation
as well as the translation of a political
program into a workable policy.
Choice of
categories
depends on
type of policy
One off
Step 2
Inventory of
agenda issues for
a particular policy
domain
Contact (representatives of) actors and find
out what agenda issues they have, as well as
their priorities and sense of urgency.
To find out what is on the public agenda, it
may be useful to carry out opinion research.
Categories of
actors do not
necessarily
agree on
agenda issues
Ongoing
Step 2A
(social)
Environmental
orientation
Which problems?
Which trends?
Which interests?
Which conflicts
Which main policies? (more or less
successful)
Which ideas, visions and ideals?
Which norms and values?
Which new methods?
Continuous research and brainstorming
sessions (!) required.
It is
important to
have a clear
picture of the
policy
environment
and its
dynamics
Ongoing
Step 3
Agenda synopsis On the basis of information of step 2 en 2A: Idem To and
372
draft an agenda synopsis:
With common agenda issues, shared by most
actor
With attention to particular issues, shared by
a few actors
fro
Q.A.1. Agenda setting: what is at stake?
A famous description of the agenda discussion: a set of political controversies that will be viewed as
falling within the range of legitimate concerns, deserving the attention of the polity: a set of items
scheduled for active and serious attention by the decision-making body‟ (Cobb and Elder) Or to put it
in somewhat more concrete terms: agenda setting often is nothing more than the result of the general
feeling that „something needs to be done‟. The traffic jams in the city are disastrous: something needs
to be done. And so on.
As a civil servant or a policy expert working for a CSO, keep in mind that newly appointed political
executives are more open for advice and new ideas than
Executives who have been serving for some time. Their minds have been set, so to speak.
Prior to the agenda issue we need to deal with the policy environment. For all agenda discussions are
related to the policy environment. Agenda setting is a process, the process by which particular
problems are seen to be of such urgency that the government should pay attention to them.
We already paid attention to the policy environment. Here we will elaborate a bit more.
List all relevant stakeholders and actors, i.e. all who take an active or passive interest in the
policy domain/ sphere. Don‟t forget the stakeholders who are less vocal: children, disabled,
elderly, ex-prisoners etc
Find out for each of them how they view the environment, what they think of relevant existing
policies and their (lack of) effects, what problems they experience and how they define these
problems, what they see as their causes and whether they consider them to have priority. Is
there a sense of urgency?
What are their ideological viewpoints, values (as well as the value-hierarchy), ideals, dreams
regarding a particular policy area? And what are their fears, dislikes, hang-ups? Can any
pattern be discerned? Try to describe their „bounded sense of rationality‟ and „discriminatory
consciousness‟ that flow from the pattern they adhere to.
How do they see other actors in the field and what do they expect or fear of each other?
What is their actual involvement, responsibility? How do they define their role in the field?
Describe existing networks, coalitions;
Describe possible areas of conflict;
373
Finally: what do they expect from the government? What do they want the government to pay
attention to? In other words: what is on the public agenda?
For all this you need to meet with them. If there are many or if a large group of individual citizens is
involved it is to be recommended to carry out surveys as well.
The biggest problem with most politicians and executives is that their picture of what is going on
around them is biased by their (often) ideological party program (which is used as an interpretation
framework). And, often more important, there is the power issue and the public opinion issue, or the
voting effect. Precisely for this reason they take so much effort to impose their vision and
interpretation on the public. As a „civil servant‟ it is your responsibility to communicate the needs and
ideas of civil society to the executive. As a representative of a CSO your challenge is to open the
politician‟s eyes for needs and ideas to meet them that they tend to ignore.
Why get some issues on an agenda and others not? The answer is: Political pressure, ideological
insight, policy research, policy failure, stakeholder/CSO pressure, media attention, international
pressure, natural disaster etc. In other words: urgency. But there is more. Sometimes individual
citizens consider their problems as part of life. They may not be aware of the fact that something can
be done. Sociologists have often noted that a passive attitude is characteristic for the „culture of
poverty‟. Once people start talking and discussing and once they get informed about possible changes,
awareness is raised and the issue is put on the public agenda. This is mostly the role of CSO‟s. It also
depends on the (ideological) pattern that dominates the mind. A social-democrat will discover all sorts
of problematic issues that undermine equality, whereas a libertarian is focused on threats to freedom.
Each pattern has its own value hierarchy with related priorities. But these can be discussed and
discussion may open the eyes for important issues. Keeping in mind we all suffer from discriminatory
consciousness. But as long as we are bona fide, there is the possibility of awareness extension. In other
words: discussions may result in a new agenda issue.
Important to discern between different agenda‟s:
Political agenda: of political parties with sometimes a consensus in the parliament regarding
important issues (not solutions)
Public agenda: difficult to understand because it tends to be very dynamic or rather enigmatic.
Different actors, belonging to different spheres (media, political parties, CSO‟s, trend experts,
public opinion researchers) claim to know. However it tends to be both dynamic and evasive;
Particular stakeholder agenda: all stakeholders have their own particular agenda in according
to their interests and objectives, related to their sphere
Professional agenda: professional often have a long term view; they see what will happen in
the future if.....
Public servant agenda: public servants often see what is going wrong now; for instance they
see that a particular plan of action will not work; there often is a difference between civil
servants working in a policy department and civil servants responsible for the implementation
of policies
374
By now it should be clear any act of observation and interpretation (like defining a situation as
problematic and important or insignificant) cannot be carried out without some implicit or explicit
pattern. It is the pattern that directs the mind. So in a way all these different agenda‟s are related to
patterns. That is why it is so useful to understand the pattern of the executive you are dependent upon
so that you may speak his or her language and understand his priorities.
Let me give a trivial example. A social-democrat minister might not be so interested in improving
investment climate and stimulating business of companies. What is more likely to appeal to a social-
democrat is employment. Here is the common ground we need to be looking for all the time.
Discussion with entrepreneurs and trade unions may lead to an agreement regarding investment and
employment. A typical win-win situation.
Discerning between agenda differences and understanding the nature of these differences is important
to know for the governing body. So the governing body should see to it that someone is drawing
agenda-maps, usually the policy department of a ministry. Alas, not all governing bodies take an
interest in other agenda‟s than their own. But policy departments should regularly issue agenda
reports and present the report to the executive.
Once these maps are available, the governing body should see to it that the information is being used
to define problems in such a way that it fits different agenda‟s. Consultations might be useful here. (see
paragraph 11)
Sometimes it is possible to make a synopsis of different agenda‟s. In this case it is appropriate to
develop a policy that will satisfy many different stakeholders. But often agenda‟s are very different and
even conflicting. This means that (political) negotiation is needed in order to get the needed support of
a particular stakeholder.
However, many policy departments that are well-aware of different agenda‟s are facing an executive
that is not interested at all, or is even hostile to stakeholders with agenda‟s that differ from their own.
Some manage to convince the executive that it usually is better to take other agenda‟s into account.
This requires special communication skills.
Example:
Mergers in tertiary education in the Netherlands. In the 80„ies of the previous century the
Dutch government decided to merge a large number of small colleges into a small number of large
educational institutes for higher professional education. Motivation? Reduction of costs and better
quality control. This was the joint agenda of politicians at the time and of civil servants in the ministry
of education. Did it correspond with the agenda of the public? And of the colleges themselves? Of the
business world? Hardly or not at all. They were mainly interested in quality of education geared to
finding a job. The colleges were also interested in more stable financial subsidy from the government.
Was there any agenda discussion? No. The ministry and the minister took it for granted that
stakeholders would follow. The political agenda was imposed on them.
375
Will be continued in next paragraph
See R.W.Cobb and C.D.Elder, Participation and American Policies: The Dynamics of Agenda Building, Baltimore, 1972
Q.A.2.Agenda setting: how to deal with different world views and situation definitions, in
other words with patterns?
Agenda‟s stem from normative world views as well as from situations and failing policies.
For instance, social democrats will be of the opinion that equality is a basic value with higher priority
than freedom. The liberal world view will give priority to freedom rather than equality. World views
and cultures agree on almost all values, but disagree on value hierarchies and priorities. Hence a
discussion is possible and the discussion will focus on the effects of a particular priority, i.e. the effects
it has on different stakeholders. Pluralist nations tend to be characterized by a vivid public discourse.
Many issues are being discussed. Pros and cons are assessed by different actors from different
viewpoints. As soon as a theoretical issue gets concrete and urgent in a particular situation, it will be
put on the general governmental agenda. That is where the situation enters the policy agenda
discourse.
In most cases it is the situation that demands action or gives a green light to a particular policy priority
that would otherwise never be put into practice. This is the sublime momentum, or „Kairos‟ in Greek.
Suddenly a policy based on the values of equality seems crucial and people with a liberal world view
agree. Or a situation in which human rights are violated demand a policy decision based on the
importance of freedom and human rights. In another situation a green policy, otherwise not at all on
the agenda of liberals and social-democrats, seems necessary. In other words, „kairos‟ may lead to
awareness extension and of course the attentive facilitator will make use of kairos.
Three examples
A financial crisis may spark discussions on new financial and taxation policies with less
freedom to banks and stock exchanges. It may be argued that income differences should be
reduced.
A severe neighborhood conflict between Christian and Muslim people may spark a discussion
about the importance of freedom and tolerance and introduce this theme in school curricula.
A disaster as a result of a tsunami may force different stakeholders to get together and accept
new standards or even to reverse the governmental energy policy (as Germany did recently)
However, most agenda discussions focus on environmental and technological change. Very often it is a
newly discovered (technical) method that is a stimulus to develop an adequate policy to face an
otherwise problematic situation. By the way, all too often that problematic situation is caused by
recent technological innovation. No innovation without impact, positive or negative.
376
This happens in the area of transportation, medicine and health, communication etc
Some sociologists are even of the opinion that in most cases it is technological development that
demands policy development, as a self-generating process.
Example:
The introduction of cars never was a policy decision. But people started to use cars a century ago. An
immense network of policies is the result. Think of roads, driving schools, examinations, insurances,
petrol production, petrol distribution, environmental monitoring, taxation systems, auto industry,
garages, traffic lights, road policy, ambulances and rehabilitation centers. The functioning of this
immense system is the result of many separate policies which are nevertheless interrelated.
Not to forget failing policies or policies which are only partially successful and need to be adapted and
improved. That is why policy evaluation is important. But apart from official evaluations all policies
spark discussion for policies interfere in existing patterns which are taken for granted. A policy often
has a somewhat disturbing effect, which sparks discussion at home, at work, in places where people
meet, in the (social) media and so on. Criticism and appreciation, new ideas and concrete proposals for
change are floating around and getting the attention from the public, which eventually will result in a
public opinion. In Europe this is often called the „policy discourse‟. Kingdon calls it the „policy stream‟.
Once the discussion is continued in political parties, interest groups, advocacy groups, public
administrative entities and so on the policy stream evolves into the „political stream‟. From there an
issue will finally be put on the political agenda or rejected from the agenda.
See: Dearing, J.W., Everett, M.R., Agenda-Setting, Thousand Oaks, 1996; Kingdon, J.W. Agenda‟s, Alternatives and Public
Policies, New York, 1995
Lots of discussions ignore the time-dimension. They entirely focus on the actual of the here and now,
the urgent. Once the time-dimension comes into the picture, the focus is on how issues will develop if
you do this or that or nothing. This is where policy imagination enters into the discussion. Sure
political actors will think of electoral response, but other will look on and imagine what other effects an
activity will have. In any case this focus on the future will revive a discussion that would otherwise get
blocked by fixed opinions. As we have seen in Part I, policy imagination requires insight in the
dynamics of patterns.
Point of Attention: how to deal with advocacy groups
Advocacy groups usually attempt to educate and influence the general public as well as public policy
makers about the nature of particular problems. For instance the problem of polluting industry that
provides employment for people in general and for medical personnel in particular, due to the impact
of industry on health. Although advocacy is viewed as undemocratic by some it obviously has an
377
impact. Advocacy groups and lobbies or different lobbies with different and even conflicting interests
may be at war with one another.
What should the civil servant do? Demand academic research data and demand publication of these
data, demand critical listening and reasoning rather than rhetoric, let alone bribing. Hire independent
experts. And do not let yourself be impressed by rhetorical power. Above I suggested the formation of a
„ policy house‟ as the right place to deal with different advocacy groups, lobbies, stakeholders, to get
them together around the table and start a deliberation process.
Q.A.3. What is the impact of the actual situation on the agenda?
The answer is: usually strong. We gave already some examples. As the saying goes: when the steed is
stolen, the stable door is locked. The lesson is: use the actuality in order to get an important issue on
the (political) agenda. But often this is easier said than done. Even better is of course to practice „policy
imagination‟ and anticipate possible undesirable developments and disaster. And to take action
beforehand. To govern well is to anticipate well. Anticipation starts with the correct definition of a
situation.
In the next paragraph we will pay ample attention to the process of defining situations. There are
always stakeholders who would relativise a problematic situation, arguing that it is an unfortunate
coincidence not worth so much attention, or arguing that other matters are far more important. That is
why the media play such an important role. Media discussions often lead to agenda change. Rarely
instantaneously, but if attention is paid to the impact of a problematic situation on the lives of
particular category of people, media attention often leads to increased awareness of a problematic
situation. In recent history a number of novels that showed how a problematic situation made a
particular category of people suffer, had a big political impact. Think of novels by Dickens (Oliver
Twist) or Upton Sinclair‟s The Jungle, or Harriet Beecher Stowe‟s Uncle Tom‟s Cabin and so many
others in many other languages. Such novels spark discussion and open eyes for problems that few
were aware of before.
Especially when a catching (preferably visual) metaphor is available, the impact is strong. Dreadful if
human misery needs to be visualized in order to wake up the public or wake up the responsible
politicians, as in the case of the Vietnamese girl attacked by a napalm bomb, running away in utter
pain. The picture taken in 1972 had an enormous impact on public onion all over the world.
Even the more we realize how important anticipation is, to become aware of the possible effects of
policy measures (like the use of napalm in military policies)
Recently in Curacao the polluting oil refinery went too far. A green precipitation could be seen on
tables, cars and fences. Many people were coughing. Then a medical doctor, living in the area himself,
investigated his cough and discovered the green substance in it. The substance was analysed and
defined as extremely poisonous. A journalistwrote an alarming article. People joined forces and sued
378
the refinery. Suddenly politicians indicated they realized something was wrong and action had to be
taken.
Agenda setting: conclusion
When will a situation, that is seen to be problematic from a particular world view or in the eyes of a
particular stakeholder, be put on the governmental agenda? We summarize and conclude:
1. When a problematic situation has reached a crisis proportion and cannot be ignored anymore.
2. When a larger problem (springing from a conflict of value hierarchies or from technological
innovation) is expressed in a concrete or particular way
3. When media pay so much attention to it that it gets emotively charged
4. When it has an impact on a substantial group of stakeholders
5. When it raises question about the legitimacy of power in society or a government
6. When it is trendy and widely discussed (policy discourse)
Annex: assignment
Agenda setting may result in the need to develop a policy. Before we discussed the assignment details
(in fact a „terms of reference‟). Here we summarize by means of a table:
ASSIGNMENT Description Nota bene Status
To keep in mind The executive responsible for a policy
domain must give some indications
regarding the type of policy that needs to
be developed. The executive should act as
the sponsor.
Do not go
ahead
without a
clear terms
of reference.
-
Step 1
Get clarity regarding
the terms of
reference.
Job: Is it about developing a new
policy or adapting an existing one?
Policy: what exactly is the issue and
the main problem to tackle with the
policy?
Target group? Who is the target
group? Which sphere?
Confidentiality: is the entire process
or parts of it of a confidential nature?
The terms
of reference
can be and
should be
subject to
discussion
with the
executive
One off
379
Time: how much time is given to
develop the policy?
Team: Who will be team members to
work together with? What skills and
expertise are needed in the team?
Keep teams small!
Problem finding:
Is there already a clear problem
definition or not?
Should alternative problem
definitions be given?
How to find the „adequate‟
problem definition? Who to
consult (experts, stakeholders
etc)? And how to consult them?
Deliberation process:
Should civil society be involved in
the process?
If yes, is there any indication by
which means or instruments? Or
is the policy designer
(department) free to choose the
appropriate means?
Should civil society be involved in
all phases of the policy cycle or
just one?
Goals:
Are some (or may be all) goals
already given in the assignment?
Are more concrete goals desirable,
as well as sets of indicators?
Should alternative goals be
considered?
Who to consult and how to
consult?
Instrumentation and budget:
380
Are there indications regarding
the instrumentation?
Is there a budget ceiling?
Should an alternative
instrumentation (with scenarios)
be considered?
Is there room (financial means
and time) to carry out research?
Who to consult and how to
consult?
Implementation: Should an
implementation plan be developed?
Organizational set-up:
Will there be regular meetings
with the executive about the
proceedings?
Should the executive be consulted
about certain matters?
Should a critical review be carried
out?
Should only one draft policy paper
be proposed or more alternatives?
Budget: what budget is available to
develop the policy?
Step 2
Get it signed Once both parties agree with the ToR, it
should be signed.
One off
Note: regarding the political agenda the agreement from the executive is needed.
Note: at this stage stakeholders/citizens will have to be consulted or interviewed.
381
Assignment 1
Regarding the issue you are working on:
First identify relevant stakeholders (including the political) and find out which (related) issues are on
their agenda and have priority
Next, try to find out whether this issue is on the different agenda‟s mentioned above.
If so, has it priority?
If not, what could be done to put it on the agenda? Or, is there perhaps a related issue which is on that
agenda? And could the issue perhaps be reformulated so as to fit different agenda‟s.
Write a short overview of the different agenda‟s related to this issue, that can be presented to the
responsible politician, and conclude with agenda recommendations.
382
B. Critical phase 2: Problem definition
Nota Bene: a good beginning is half the work. Without a good problem definition, policies will be
ineffective. Once a problem is defined sharply and is supported by a good number of stakeholders, an
adequate policy can be designed.
The actors: all stakeholders have their own problem definition: politicians, civil servants,
representatives of CSO‟s and other institutions. The challenge is to redefine the problem in such a way
that other stakeholders will agree with the formulation.
PROBLEM
IDENTIFICATION
Description Nota bene Status
To keep in mind Problem: A gap as experienced by
most of the relevant actors, between
„ what is‟ and „ what should be‟.
Problems should be considered as
much as possible as challenges and
less as (potential) conflicts
Problems emerge from ill-adapted or
dysfunctioning patterns, of from
intra-pattern conflict
power is the
ability to
define a
situation as
problematic
or non-
problematic
-
Step 1
Basic problem
description
First: is the problem connected to a
particular policy implementation, or
not.
If so the policy needs redesigning.
Otherwise, find out what type of
problem it is:
A type of structured or unstructured
problem, with or without consensus
(see table). Without consensus there
is a strong need for policy
deliberation.
Patterns and problems
To and
fro
Step 2
383
List all relevant
problem definitions
And perceived causes
Contact (representatives of) actors and
find out how they define the problem.
If you are uncertain about the
problem definition of some actors,
you should gather information
through interviews or otherwise.
Also find out what is seen to have
caused the problem.
On the basis of this list, make an
inventory of the differences between
perceptions and definitions of the
problem.
And analyze the (causes) of the
problem
Do consult all
stakeholders
and do
include both
beneficiaries
and victims.
Make use of
policy
deliberation
arrangements
To and
fro
Step 3
Finding the right
formulation
On the basis of information of step 2 try
to formulate the problem in such a way
that most actors will agree.
Next: check whether this is the case and
reformulate. Check also whether most
actors agree on the possible causes of the
problem.
Be aware of existing patterns from which
situations get defined.
Idem To and
fro
Step 4
Check with sponsor Check whether the sponsor agrees on the
problem definition.
One off
Q.B.1. How to identify and define a problem?
A problem can be defined as: a gap between „what is‟ and „what should be‟. To be more specific: The
gap between „what is‟ and „what should be‟, in the eyes of most stakeholders with their respective
norms and values (underlying pattern). „What is‟ refers to the (interpreted) facts about the present
situation.
This definition of a problem assumes that „what should be‟ is enlightening the „what is‟. Without an
idea of „what should be‟ people will not put the „what is‟ in question. Before I pointed to the practice of
„objective directed analysis or diagnoses of a situation.
384
If people do not agree about „what is‟, they can resolve their disagreement either by continuing to
discuss objectives and desirable situations, or, if that discussion is finished, by doing better and/or
more careful research. Research and gathering of information are often crucial.
If „what is‟ is a threat to interests and even survival, it is felt to be problematic. Do note that a
perceived survival threat is in fact an imagined future state of affairs which is undesirable. Many
situations are seen to be undesirable because of an anticipated development in the future.
The problematic is especially the source of the „what should be‟. Problems reveal desirables and lead to
identifying goals.
If „what is‟ is seen not to be in accordance with the „should be‟ (values and norms and interests) it is
seen to be problematic. The „what should be‟ is saying why the „what is‟ is problematic. Goals and
values identify problems. So we see that interests and values both play a role here and, what is more,
they are often intertwined.
As the two are often intertwined they are difficult to separate. Interests and values, one or the other or
both of them may lead to interpretations of situations and hence to defining a situation as problematic.
Example where both approaches converge is the following:
Free education
In some countries not all children can receive education, as their parents may not have
sufficient financial means to pay the school. Often this is felt to be an unacceptable situation
because it is a serious obstacle to personal development to a part of the population. The
situation is at loggerheads with the interests of a particular category of people, the „have-nots‟.
Naturally they long for a situation where they too have opportunities to develop themselves
What is more, it may mean that children spend much of the time on the street running the
danger of getting lured into a street gang. The days of Oliver Twist continue in different parts
of the world. This means that they pose a threat to another category of people, the „have-lots‟.
It is also in their interest to keep youngsters from the street and they may consider education
as an excellent instrument. At first sight they might not be charmed by the idea of providing
subsidies to the have-nots. But once they realize there will thus be fewer Oliver Twists on the
street, so they too will benefit from it, they may quickly be convinced of the usefulness. This
particular side-effect is crucial to understanding. Discussing the „what for‟ may quickly open
their eyes.
So in this case the have-nots and have-lots might agree on this issue related to educational
policies.
Some others will also define the situation as problematic. They foster a high ideal of education
for all (a value and an objective to be realized). Here the ideal is that all human beings are
equal and have the right to develop themselves by means of education.
385
So here there is common ground. Three categories of people agree on this issue and will also
easily agree on policy objectives.
„What should be‟, on the other hand, may also refer to interests or values that are truly at loggerheads.
Disagreement on „what should be‟ may be a consequence of different norms and values different
people adhere to. Or spring from contradicting interests. Such a disagreement cannot be resolved by
doing more research into the facts. Much better is to discuss underlying values, as people (reasonable
people) tend to be willing to discuss values, rather than interests. Interests might be respected, if the
underlying values and value hierarchy deserve respect. These can be discussed. The result might be
respect for interests. People who disagree on „what should be‟ can try to convince each other. If that
turns out to be impossible, there only way out is to reach a compromise, or better a synthesis.
Think of the story of two quarrelling sisters in a kitchen who together had just one orange. Both sisters
claimed they needed the orange, but there is only one orange available. After some deliberation they
cut the orange in two halves. That is what we call a compromise. After that, the first sister pressed her
half of the orange drank the juice and throw away the skin. The other sister peeled her half of the
orange, used the skin to bake an orange cake and throw away the juice and flesh of the orange. If they
had asked each other WHAT they needed an orange FOR, they could each have had what they needed
from the whole orange: one to get the content and the other one to get the peel. That is what we call a
synthesis.
This was an easy one. But take this example, not of 2 but 3 sisters.
Three sisters inherit one flute:
Sister 1 is arguing the flute should be hers, as she is the only one who can play the flute
Sister 2 is arguing the flute should be hers, for after all she was the one who actually made it
Sister 3 is arguing the flute should be hers, as she is the poorest of all 3
Question: How to solve this „distribution‟ problem?
This example (provided by Armatya Sen) is a very interesting one, because all 3 individual sisters are
convinced of the correctness of their own reasoning. They have not the slightest doubt that their
reasoning why they should deserve the flute is correct and acceptable to others. And what is more, they
might be convinced that the other 2 sisters will „naturally‟ agree. If they discover the other 2 sisters do
not at all agree, it may come as a big surprise. But all argue on the basis of what seems to be
reasonable and reasonableness is linked to values and value priorities. A case of bounded rationality in
combination with discriminatory consciousness. A case of pattern conflict also. We may call this an
„intra-pattern conflict‟ as it is a conflict between different (rudimentary) patterns. Each of the sisters
has her own system of argumentation. One is based on „functioning‟ (capacity to actually use and play
the flute and give a concert). This is the professional speaking. One is based on production (design and
fabrication leads to a valuable product which can be sold on the market) This is the industrialist
speaking. One is based on the need to survive (political principles of equality and righteousness are
needed for a just society). This is the (social-democratic) politician speaking.
386
The regulatory body (in this case the notary, in other cases the government) may also be surprised that
different parties have such entirely different views of the situation and come up with totally different
interpretations. There is no such thing as „one viewpoint, one interpretation, one solution‟. We must
take into account the different perspectives in which situations can be seen and interpreted, depending
on the „Sitz im Leben‟, or somebody‟s position in life or, in other words, a particular location and
context in which somebody is living his life. From this „position in life‟ patterns often flow. Today this
is often called „local knowledge‟ and „local reasoning‟. Not „local‟ in the sense of a particular
geographical position. „Local‟ refers to a pattern of interests and values and ways of reasoning that flow
from it. In order to avoid misunderstanding I prefer to use the term „contextual knowledge‟ and
contextual reasoning‟, though it sounds more abstract. Contextual knowledge is related to a position in
society. According to the local contect, leading to a suitable pattern, people have a particular grasp of
experiences in life and a particular way of defining situations. They take their knowledge and way of
reasoning for granted, assuming their way of reasoning is natural and legitimate. In order to
understand contextual knowledge, concrete actors have to be taken into account. Interviewing them
may lead to lots of surprises about all kinds of contextual reasoning. Very often the government is not
at all aware of the characteristics of local knowledge. Contextual knowledge is usually „tacit
knowledge‟. (Michael Polanyi) Contextual knowledge always consist of various elements which
together constitute a pattern.
Of course a clear understanding of the different perspectives and kinds of contextual knowledge, does
not provide a solution. The 3 sisters may start understanding one another indeed and still not find a
solution to the problem who should owe the flute. However, without efforts to make tacit knowledge
explicit, there will be little chance that parties understand each other of a policy solution. Making tacit
knowledge explicit means reflection, which might be followed by dialogue and learning.
See P.L. Berger and T.Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality, 1967; A.Sen, „Identity and violence‟ ,2006. See also
M.Bevir, Democratic Governance, 2010, p262; M.Polanyi, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, Chicago,
1958.
Lesson about the ‟logic of consequence‟: it is always useful to ask what-for-questions, for a synthesis
instead of a compromise may be just around the corner. Like in the case of school attendance and
using an orange. Knowing the objectives of an actor, we may use our „policy imagination‟ to foresee
future consequences of an actor‟s policy. It is based on a feeling for both the logic of finality and
causality in combination with a feeling for the working of patterns and the probability of response
policies.
Lesson about the „logic of appropriateness‟: discuss differences in local or contextual reasoning and
increase the understanding of people in different positions by means of the different patterns they
adhere to. Without such understanding even a compromise might not be found. The logic of
appropriateness is characteristic for phronesis or situational wisdom, although it should always be
combined with the logic of consequence. Logic of appropriateness is therefore based on inclusiveness.
387
Not that all interests of all relevant actors can or should be taken care of, but at least they should be
considered and taken into account in order to take a decision.
These are examples of rather well-defined (problematic) situation, like how to end a quarrel about a
flute and come up with some kind a compromise.
Most policy problems are diffuse and often cover different policy areas. Take as an example economic
stagnation. This problematic fact might be caused by international trends, by ill-developed industries,
by a lack of well-trained professionals, by too many regulations and so on. The Central Bank may try to
stimulate the economy by some ‟crucial policy measures‟, like a decrease of interest rates. And such
measures may indeed have a positive impact. But perhaps more is needed for healthy development. If
you work for the ministry of economic development you will see it as a very important problem that
needs to be dealt with. However it is also clear that a concerted action of ministries responsible for
different policy domains is needed. You may think of a better fit between vocational education and the
labor market. Or a better investment climate. Or improved infrastructure. Or professional support for
new entrepreneurs. Starting with the problem definition a joint activity with different stakeholders is
desirable.
You start and you discover that stakeholders have very different and maybe incompatible priorities.
You discover these spring from different patterns. Entrepreneurs desire freedom. Technicians and
professionals stress the need for „research and development‟. Educationalists press for better
(vocational) education. Some bureaucrat civil servants are focused on better regulations and
infrastructure. While a particular group of politicians seize the opportunity to argue in favor of state
intervention in the economy.
Maybe in the end a cluster type of policy will be the result, rather than a fully integrated approach. But
there are different types of clustering, varying from very loose clustering to well-considered clustering
that is close to an integrated approach.
Civil servants often take the lead here, as they are less restricted by political party ideologies. Together
with stakeholders they discuss various problem definitions and worry about an impossible synthesis.
What we sometimes see is that the civil servant emerges as the „true politician‟, the dealer who
creatively manages to suggest an approach that is acceptable to all. In other words, to do the
impossible, which Vaclav Havel considered to be the essential characteristic of a politician. (see
Q.C.4.2.)
Problems and existing policies
Very often a problem will somehow be related to an existing policy, a policy in implementation. The
policy may have some negative side effects or may generally be disappointing in its expected effects. If
this is the case the problematic situation must be analyzed within the framework of the policy in
implementation. This means that the policy needs to be evaluated (see below) before the problem is
defined and/or identified.
388
Here we encounter the issue of pattern failure, which often is too painful to discuss openly. We have
been witnessing the failure of socialism, liberal capitalism and nationalism. Today we also witness the
failure of Islamic theocracy. Of all four „world view patterns‟ liberal capitalism is still managing to
adapt somewhat. The others tend to be too dogmatic to adapt. But with less dogmatic attitudes and
some courageous and creative political leaders adaptations might be possible. Like Deng Xiaoping did
for China.
At a lower level we witness a lot of pattern failure. Applying free market principles to banking,
education or social service is causing tension, conflict and outright failure (see Q.A.2.11, Q.B.4.3.,
Q.C.5.2.) We should have the courage to face the question whether a particular pattern is the root
cause of the problem and whether pattern change is needed to „solve‟ the problems. Again a level lower
we witness the failure of laws and policies and plans to create order and a new future. Let me mention
one example:
Example: city development Amsterdam
Back in the 1960‟ies the city of Amsterdam had high expectations of new urban development in the
South East of the city. An entire new township emerged (called „Bijlmer‟) with huge apartment
buildings, parking places, long walkways, tunnels, parks and transportation facilities to the centre. The
idea was that people with low budgets might move in and live comfortably and, contrary to Dutch
living patterns, anonymously. It turned out to be a total failure, due to a lack of social control,
increasing criminality, antisocial behavior and all the rest. Police, social workers and policy experts did
their best, but failed to solve the problems. Half a century later most of the apartment buildings were
pulled down and a new kind of township was build. Once I discussed the „Bijlmer problem‟ with a
social worker. I asked: what went wrong? Her answer: 2 things. First anonymity. Every parking place,
every walkway, every tunnel was identical, with people walking around like loose elements, and
without any social control whatsoever. This is why young guys got tempted to behave like criminals too
easily. Secondly: rapid occupation. In just a couple of years time tens of thousands of people moved in.
No networks, no culture, no structure. Of course networks did develop, but unfortunately antisocial
behavior developed more quickly….. That second answer surprised me. For I remembered a friend of
mine, one of the town planners who brushed aside all the gloomy forecasts of the critics as fruits of
pessimism, who moved into the Bijlmer himself, with his family and who was proud to receive his
guests and show them around. He was one of the very first inhabitants and he was unable to see any
problem for at least a year or two. To cut a long story short, he could stand it for less than 5 years and
then decided to move out, disillusioned. What made him so passionately enthusiastic in the beginning?
Yes indeed, the fact that thousands of newcomers, strangers to each other were dropped there within a
couple of years. All equals, no burden of the past, no narrow-minded habits and mores, a new page,
new expectations, new opportunities for a new community…..that never developed….
His policy imagination worked very different from the policy imagination of the critics. He embraced a
pattern of town planning that the critics found risky. He, at that time, was a planner-technocrat, a bit
neo-marxist, maybe even a futurist. The critics were „communitarians‟ who could not imagine such
anonymous apartment compounds to be „livable‟. He ridiculed their old-fashioned, romantic concerns.
389
They were shaking their heads because of his naivety. He did not see the emerging problems. They
were able to see sharply and the tragic developments proved they saw it right.
Many Dutchmen left the township within a few years. Immigrants moved in and for a number of years
the problems were seen to be problems of immigrants. The Surinam people were to be blamed. Social
workers were hired to solve the immigrants‟ problems. It took another 20 years or so to convince town
planners and politicians that the heart of the problem was the structure of the township, rather than its
inhabitants. That is why most of the buildings were finally pulled down and recently replaced by more
„humane‟ buildings, with shops, restaurants, offices, a deliberate mixture that mirrored the diversity of
humankind.
It needs to be emphasized again and again that a sound problem definition is half the work. The right
way of defining a policy will help to anticipate possible future developments and future problematic
situations better.
From the definition of a problem is has to be concluded that:
A problem is a comparison between two things of different status. The one („what is‟) is
factual; the other („what should be‟) is normative, with rarely a „communis opinio‟,i.e. different
people view compare in different ways.
In the same problematic situation different people with different local knowledge and or
different patterns they adhere to, will have different problem definitions. Even after extensive
research and deliberation their disagreements may remain unresolved. Their judgments are
based on their discriminatory consciousness that seems to be entirely obvious and rational to
them.
Rarely is there something like one objective problem definition.
However, looking at the reality of the problematic situation, we often see that different
stakeholders are all harmed, though in different ways. That they have in common. The best
problem definition is the definition that includes as many stakeholder problems as possible.
When do we define a situation as problematic?
When some stakeholders feel their interests and/or values are critically at stake and are able to
argue that it really is
There emerges a situation of particularity, i.e. the situation is dramatized and can be seen as
an example of more things to come (for instance an ecological calamity)
Because of its emotive aspect it gets media coverage and becomes fashionable to talk about it
and some people and politicians are showing signs of awareness extension
It appears to have an impact on other stakeholders, the interests of a political party etc
Political legitimacy appears to be at stake
The problems that emerges were not just incidental
Need for quantitative information and insight.
390
The last point needs elaboration. One serious car accident in 10 years does not qualify that road as
dangerous and it to take al sort of measures to improve safety does not seem justified. But a weekly
accident is quite a different matter. And if regular accidents occur, the question is why? Increase of
traffic? And so on and so forth. The message is clear, we need factual information. And we also need
information about comparable situations, related factors and possible trends. We may also want to
find out whether particular factors do contribute to the problem. So some statistical information often
is indispensable.
Next step is of course to compare the road with many accidents with roads without accidents, or, to
make it statistically relevant, to compare a significant number of roads with many accidents with a
significant number of roads with few accidents. List some road characteristics and use these as
variables to investigate statistically.
Many policy departments employ people who are in charge with gathering and analyzing information
about problematic issues which are on the agenda
Note on two different approaches: the deliberative approach and the activist or technical approach
A deliberative approach An activist or technical approach
Situation is analyzed from different angles (political,
cultural, economical, legal etc ) + pattern viewpoints
Issues are seen from 1 or a very limited
number of angles
Deliberation process is started with stakeholders to
discuss their points of view: local or contextual reasoning,
tending towards inclusiveness
Seeking the support from stakeholders with
similar viewpoints, leaving other stakeholders
out, supportive reasoning, running the risk of
exclusiveness.
Careful consensus formation as to the right problem
definition
Imposing a particular problem definition
multi-dimensional logic of appropriateness; one-dimensional logic of consequence
Takes a relatively long time Takes a relative short time
Conciliatory in nature Solution oriented
Difficult in case of urgency Appropriate in case of urgency
Risk: loss of time and momentum Risk: loss of social support basis
Useful for „wicked‟ problems Useful for „tame‟ problems
Later we will have a closer look at different kinds of problems. A very basic difference is between tame
and wicked problems. The activist or technical approach is useful for relatively tame problems, but
many policy experts who fit the activist or technical approach, like to deal with wicked problems also!
They like to „cut through complexity with simplicity‟. They often say they are tired of all discussions,
deliberation and consultation meetings, empirical research, reports and opinions. So they come up
with a simple solution. It should not be excluded that the simple solution is the crucial one, but if not it
may make matters worse. This takes us to a next paragraph.
391
Q.B.2. Who has power to define? And how to deal with defining powers?
Please note: a famous sociological definition of power: „the capacity to define situations as problematic
or as non-problematic‟. The sometimes chaotic and unclear process of problem definition often is the
result of an intricate power game between various actors involved. The game starts with agenda setting
and continues during this phase of the process, reaching its climax. What issues are obscuring the
discussion? Always unexpressed and sometimes even tacit interests. The policy deliberation process is
for a large part about getting actors or stakeholders together and inviting them to show colors. This is
where transparency is needed most and needs to be tested.
Once a (problematic) situation is defined as real, or really problematic, real consequences will flow
from this definition.
If a problem is a gap between what is and what should be, we can understand that each problem
definition flows from a particular pattern. Or to be more specific, from the bounded pattern rationality.
It is from the viewpoint of the pattern we adhere to that we look at our environment. If we cannot
imagine other perspectives and viewpoints it will seem to us that our viewpoint is the only „natural and
rational and common sense‟ way of thinking. We expect others to think likewise, which of course is not
necessarily the case…. As we stated before, each pattern causes biased awareness. In the worst case
rigid awareness. The pattern reveals the discrepancy between the ideal in the eyes of its adherents and
the real world of lots of others who adhere to other patterns. People who represent the pattern suppose
they naturally have the ability to define, which in actual fact turns out to be power to define. Vice versa,
the power to define reveals an attempt to impose a pattern on others. Political parties all uphold
particular patterns, as concretizations of a world view. So do churches, companies, professional
associations, CSO‟s, trade unions, think tanks,scientific communities,service clubs and so on.
Let us take a simple example: the rich and the poor.
In countries with large income differences people with low income will define substantial income
differences as problematic. People with high incomes will define this situation as non-problematic.
Which definition is the right one? Eventually it will always be time and history that decide which is the
right definition.
During the present, the process of defining situations is very much a matter of power between different
(political) parties and all sorts of stakeholders, like CSO‟s, companies, trade unions, churches and
sport clubs and last but not least the media, including the social media.
Let us assume that the rich elite manages to seize power. So unequal income distribution appears not
to be a problem anymore..... However, the poor „rank and file‟ might have quite a different point of
view. They cannot even get their children into school. Maybe they succeed in organizing
392
demonstrations and even strikes. They show muscle and in the end they manage to reduce income
differences to a more agreeable level. Donald Schön recommended making use of „generative
metaphors‟ to show visibly and clearly that there is a problem or a problem is emerging. In this case
one may use the metaphor of a „downward spiral‟ or the „emergence of a large uneducated alienated
body as a type of fibroid within the societal body‟. Let us see what Schön has to say on the matter:
"the essential difficulties in social policy have more to do with problem setting than with problem
solving, more to do with ways in which we frame the purposes to be achieved than with the selection of
optimal means for achieving them…….the framing of problems often depends upon metaphors
underlying the stories which generate problem setting and set the direction of problem solving."
See: Donald A. Schön, Generative Metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy‟ in Metaphor and Thought,
A.Ortony ed, Cambridge, 1983, p 137ff.
Put differently, if the poor at last manage to press for inclusion, the question emerges, why not
immediately think inclusively? Why wait till the excluded start speaking up, demonstrating and
striking?
Example
How to draw attention to the interest of people with disabilities?
Most people are totally unaware of the problematic situations people with disabilities face. They
cannot see what others see, cannot hear what others hear, cannot reach what others naturally reach,
cannot comprehend what others naturally comprehend and so on. In Curacao the schools organized a
project with the help of the Liliana Foundation to open the eyes of schoolchildren to the limitations
faced by disables children. For instance they were invited to make drawing not with their hands, but
with their feet or mouth. By practicing that they learned how it is not to have hands to work with.
Generally speaking this is a good recipe: put yourself actually in the position of another and try to see
the world through their eyes.
Civil servants charged with policy design often are expected to follow the definitions of the powerful,
i.e. the political elite. I would argue that it is part of professional policy design to be able to think and
to act inclusively. It is their duty to show to politicians that neglecting the point of view and the
interests of the people without power is short sighted, for it will mean trouble in the future. For after
all they are public servants, appointed to serve the entire public.
Example (cont.)
Mergers in Dutch tertiary education.
Step by step the ministry of education communicated to the colleges and wider public that small scale
colleges would be unable to survive in the increasingly competitive educational world. To maintain
393
quality they needed to merge. Though practically none of the colleges shared this „problem definition‟
the definition was imposed on them. The new subsidy system finally forced them into mergers and,
physically, into huge new buildings. As usual an amazing number of directors and professors came
down a peg or two and accepted the governments‟ problem definition.
Please note: When a particular stakeholder does not agree with a problem formulation and wants to
change the formulation somewhat, there is always something behind it. Either an interest (a hidden
agenda issue) or tacit knowledge (maybe related to a moral issue) or an issue that the more powerful
party just prefers to ignore. Often you see that the new formulation is agreed on and a few months
later the partner that wanted to change the formulation again is unhappy with the way the problem is
interpreted. Why? The others have not really asked why this partner wanted to change the
formulation. So they are not really aware of the issue that is at stake. To all likelihood different
patterns are at work and the actors are neither sufficiently aware of their own pattern nor of the
patterns of other actors. Gain I would say that using the term „framing‟ may betray a simplification of
the real differences that are at work (coming from different patterns), or even betray a sort of
„spinning‟.
That is why policy dialogue, also during this stage of problem formulation, is so very important. Try to
get all crucial issues on the table! If during this stage they remain under the table, they will pop up at a
later stage, perhaps at an inappropriate moment.
There is something funny here. Think of „objective directed diagnosis‟, which we discussed above.
What we see is that different partners may agree on objectives. Once they start analyzing the present
problematic situation with the objective in mind, they may quickly agree that this and that obstacle
indeed should be removed.
Think of the polluting oil refinery. All stakeholders agree that pollution should be reduced. That is the
objective. Well, that means we agree that specific situations of the present are indeed problematic and
in need for a solution. Like the green precipitation.
Q.B.3. Why is a typology of problems useful?
What goes for problems in general is even more important for policy problems.
Every policy starts with a problem. In almost all policies many actors are involved, so it has to be
expected that among these actors there are many different or even contradicting problem definitions.
If people do not agree on the problem definition, they can hardly be expected to agree on the solution.
Problem formulation is the first stage of drafting a policy. It is the process of working towards a
problem definition that is supported by as much of the actors involved as possible.
The table below (by H. van de Graaf) gives an overview of the different types of problems that can be
discerned.
394
Type of problem
and
Knowledge about Problem
Consensus
(norms/values – same
pattern)
no consensus
(norms/values) different
response patterns
Technical knowledge to solve
problem available
Structured problem
„Tame problem‟
Unstructured
political problem
Political,policy
dialogue needed
Technical knowledge to solve
problem not (yet) available
(un)structured
research problem
Research needed
Unstructured
problem
„wicked problem‟
If the certainty of knowledge is high (i.e. if we know (almost) everything about the present problematic
situation and its origins and causes), and if the consensus on norms and values is high (i.e. if all actors
involved agree on the relevant norms and values, sharing the same pattern), than the problem is called
structured. In such a case there is a good chance of finding a solution that is acceptable to everyone.
If it is the other way around (certainty of knowledge is low, consensus on norms and values is low,
different patterns at work) the problem is called unstructured. In such a case there is no chance of
finding a solution that is acceptable for all the actors involved.
In such cases the problem has to be reformulated in such a way that it becomes structured. This
reformulation may include the restriction of the problem to those parts or aspects of the original
problem on which agreement is possible.
See H.van de Graaf en R.Hoppe, Beleid en Politiek, Muiderberg, 1996
Q.B.4. How to interpret and formulate problems?
First question: With whom? About Actors, Stakeholders, Beneficiaries, Victims:
„Actors‟ is a general name to indicate all the individuals, institutions, and organizations that are
somehow involved in the policy area, either in the making of the policy, or in its implementation.
„Stakeholders‟ are those actors who have an interest in the policy or in its outcome. Some of them will
have an interest in the solution of the policy problem. Some others may have an interest in the
problem remaining unsolved. Roughly speaking stakeholders can be divided into two groups:
beneficiaries and victims.
„Beneficiaries‟ are those stakeholders who have a positive interest in the policy. In other words: they
have something to win from the solution of the policy problem.
„Victims‟ are those stakeholders who have a negative interest in the policy. In other words: they will
lose something when the policy is being implemented and policy problem is „solved‟ in the eyes of the
beneficiaries.
395
How to go about in problem formulation?
The initiative. Different types of actors can take an initiative and put a particular problem on the
political agenda:
1. Scientists who foresee a problem emerging on the basis of scientific research. (traffic
congestions, epidemic etc)
2. Professional policy designers who compare policies in different areas and countries and see
that a particular policy can be improved or introduced (educational policies, taxation policies
etc)
3. Citizens and CSO‟s or activists, i.e. a group of citizens (from any sphere) who struggle with a
particular problem they face in society and who feel it has an impact on the quality of life
(environment, prices, employment etc), discussing it with others, taking efforts to raise
awareness
4. Politicians who act on the basis of a political program (see the activist approach)
5. Administrative: civil servants who are responsible for effective implementations well as the
translation of a political program into a workable policy. They often work together with
professional policy designers, groups of citizens , stakeholders (see the rational approach)
Let us now assume we belong to category 5. So:
First: Make clear for yourself how the problematic situation looks like (in your eyes) and from which
pattern point of view the situation appears to be problematic and what the general lines of possible
solutions would look like.
Second: Collect information. This usually is a quantitative matter. You need to be informed how
frequent the problem occurs, whether it occurs in other situations (countries) as well. You may want to
gather information about related problems and factors. You may want to know something about
relevant trends and their (possible) impact on the problem. And, secondly, if sufficient information
about several variables is available you may carry out some statistical research on the problem in order
to find out which factors significantly contribute to the problem.
Third: Make a list of all the actors involved (taking different spheres into account). Indicate on that list
which actors can be called beneficiaries, and which actors can be called victims.
Try to find out about the initial problem definitions of all the actors on your list. Each problem
definition will be related to a pattern. If you are uncertain about the problem definition of some actors,
you should gather information through interviews or otherwise.
Fourth: On the basis of this list, make an inventory of the differences between the definitions.
Fifth: Try to find solutions for these differences. Organizing meetings with different actors (i.e. direct
discussions between actors with different opinions) is the best way to do this.
396
In these meetings synthesis, not compromise is the aim (think of the story of the two sisters and the
orange), so your role is to ask why-questions and to make people aware of their own „frames‟ or
patterns, presuppositions etc, that „color‟ the situation and lead to specific problem definitions. Once
actors get aware of the frames they use, they often stop taking them for granted, get ready to discuss
and start understanding alternative frames, used by other actors. These are conditions to discover a
synthesis together.
Also keep in mind that most people at least try to behave rationally, but each in their own way. And if
they are constantly answering for themselves the following four questions:
a. Does this alternative help me to achieve my goals?
b. Am I still right in considering this or that to be my goal?
c. What are acceptable ways to pursue my ultimate aims? What goals can I have?
d. Should I reconsider my ultimate aims?
(We will return to these questions in part 3 of the course.)
Note: much depends on the „terms of reference‟ of the assignment to get from the executive. The
terms of reference often contain indications as to the type of problem and to strategic choices. See
paragraph „assignment‟ of next chapter.
Q.B.5. Defining problems, should we take causes into account?
So far we have not touched this all too obvious question. Sometimes it helps focusing on the „material
causes‟ of a problem, sometimes it just leads to never ending discussions. And, as already remarked, it
may have a paralyzing effect. However, when it comes to finding effective solutions it is necessary to
ask why the problem has emerged.
We should distinguish between at least the following types of „causes‟, more or less parallel to the 4
types of problems that we identified above:
1. Technical causes: varying from technical (or methodical) failure to methodological failure,
to lack of human or organizational capacity to lack of financial means. The difference between
methodical (or technical) and methodological is important. For „methodological‟ is about the
choice of method and is more fundamental than methodical, i.e. the argumentation which is
behind the choice of method. Nota bene: the methodological maybe a political cause dressed in
a methodological jacket, which is not an uncommon phenomenon.
Example
Republic of Moldova: too many people were living below the poverty line. The government decided to
take action and introduce an unemployment benefit. Who was going to administer this? In most cities
the local government. In some cities it was outsourced to some CSO‟s who are already active in helping
the poor. The cities performed badly, spent too much money to the benefit of the wrong people.
397
This is a methodological problem. It was argued in Moldova that it is much better to outsource it to
CSO‟s for they know how to discern between people who really are in need and who just pretend to be
and in fact intend to mislead. The basic decision: administration by the city hall or the CSO‟s is a
methodological one. The lack of expertise among the civil servants is a problem of method. Apparently
CSO‟s have far more expertise of method than some still to be trained civil servants who might also be
pressured by political powers.
2. Political causes: we call political all those causes which are directly related to the decision
process. In actual fact this category belongs to the Aristotelian category of the causa finalis, the
causes related to a deliberate human decision, which may effectuate or have effectuated the
desired end, which will have a number of side effects and which may also effectuate a situation
that is both deplorable and never intended. What is the cause of it? A human (political)
decision. Or a lack of it! Not taking a decision is decision as well.
For years the Moldovan government did nothing to support the poor and as a result their situation
deteriorated. Lots of Moldovan people left the country looking for jobs elsewhere. A positive effect of
not taking any decision at all, is that the Moldovans that got jobs in Spain, Italy and Germany (almost
2 million altogether) earned money and sent a significant percentage back into Moldova, thus
supporting the Moldovan economy. Many invested in real estate. As a result the prices of real estate
went up. This example shows that different causes are at work, a political one and a social-economic
one (which we call a „material cause‟). But the political cause stands out as immediately linked with
living conditions of the poor.
Later the government decided to adopt a policy to support the poor and decided to use the
methodology described above. Apparently they wanted to keep the fund under control as much as
possible and there were hidden reasons behind: politicians could play the role of Saint Nicholas, giving
presents to people as a medium of exchange, for of course they wanted some votes in return. In other
words political causes can be quite complicated and are often related to power. Nevertheless they have
an impact, positive or negative or mixed.
3. Material causes: by material cause we mean all causes which are external to human decision
power, like our genetic DNA pattern, our family culture, the economic dynamics that shape
our economic environment, the climate of the country we live in and so on. None of it is
completely beyond our power. Neither as an individual human being, nor as human beings
collectively are we mere robots that can be completely programmed. The secret of our freedom
is our power of awareness. Once we become aware of the limitations of our family culture we
start thinking about a mitigating response pattern. This is called the principle of
indeterminacy in sociology. It means that none of the causes mentioned here will ever be
found in pure form. We always have to deal with interpretations of causes. The interpretation
we give to an external factor determines its final effect. Meanwhile we know that our
interpretation is linked with a relevant pattern we adhere to. A social-darwinist, a social-
398
democrat, an anthroposophist, a Roman Catholic or a street gang member are likely to have
different interpretations of the impact of our genome.
4. Normative causes: as human beings we are normative creatures. We cannot imagine a life
outside a normative world view. Continuously we assess situations, we look for meaning, and
understanding and we conclude with judgments. Doing so we also change our hierarchy of
values, giving more priority to a value that seems particularly important in a situation. This
may lead to pattern change. But refusing to adapt a pattern and maintaining a pattern rigidly
may be the cause of problem with the environment. The normative world view we uphold is
both the cause of much happiness and of much misery. It is the cause of feeling united and the
cause of strife, conflict, discussion and war. There are norms that perhaps were useful long
ago, but no longer and vice versa. The problem with normative patterns is that they tend to be
rigid, even if it is clear that they cause much misery.
Simple example:
In the past ages human beings were forced to do much exhausting physical work: hunting, ploughing,
building pyramids. Hence they needed a fat diet. That was a matter of survival. So parents stimulated
their children to adopt a fat diet. This was the useful norm. And nowadays? The norm did not change
and has now become the main cause of obesity and all the miserable unhealthy rest of it.
Point of attention: laws and problems
We need to pay attention to a particular type of problem that does not really fit these categories at first
sight. Though they do at second sight. I am referring to problems that result from issuing laws which
are difficult to implement. It is relatively easy to design a good sounding law, but laws that are difficult
to apply and to maintain are insufficient laws. Often they need to be complemented by a policy to ease
its implementation or to effectuate its maintenance. When the going of public governance is getting
tough, the natural inclination of actors is to get things under control again by issuing new laws,
without bothering too much about implementation issues. This is what many powerless actors tend to
do.
Laws need to be implemented, communicated, enforced and maintained. For all this money and
people are needed and often an organizational structure. And not just that, also a minimum of a social
support basis, lest there will be widespread resistance and even civic disobedience.
Now it is time to look at our problem matrix again. This was the one presented above:
Type of problem
and
Knowledge about Problem
Consensus
(norms/values and
patterns)
no consensus
(norms/values) Different
response patterns
399
Technical knowledge to solve
problem available
Structured problem
„Tame problem‟
Unstructured
political problem
Political, policy
dialogue needed
Technical knowledge to solve
problem not (yet) available
(un)structured
research problem
Research needed
Unstructured
problem
„wicked problem‟
Now we give you a revised one on the basis of our cause-paragraph
Type of problem
and
Knowledge about
causes of problem
Consensus
(norms/values),
political likely to
be in harmony:
desired response
pattern
Consensus
(norms/values),
political decision
causes trouble:
different response
patterns
No consensus
(norms/values),
political decision
imposed
no consensus
(norms/values),
political decision
postponed
Material causes quite
evident and therefore
technical knowledge to
solve problem available
Structured
problem
„Tame problem‟
Political
problem,
though
structured
Structured problem
and societal tension
Unstructured
political problem
Political, policy
dialogue needed
Material causes quite
evident but a technical
failure is causing the
problem
Structured
problem
„Tame problem‟
Political
problem,
though
structured
Structured problem
and societal
tension,
Unstructured
political problem
Political, policy
dialogue needed
Material causes not so
evident and therefore is
Technical knowledge to
solve problem not (yet)
available
(un)structured
research
problem
Research
needed
(un) structured
research and
political
problem.
(un)structured „
wicked problem‟
unstructured
„wicked problem‟
So it all becomes somewhat more complicated. But that is the way it is. The policy expert working as a
civil servant for the government is indeed playing a much more difficult and complicated role than the
academic policy specialist or the expert working for a CSO.
Have a careful look at all the cells.
Problems that can be put in white cells may cheer us up, though the executive should be
persuaded to be more aware of what is going on in society;
Problems that can be put in the blue cells require diplomatic, argumentative and rhetoric
capacities to convince the (political) executive to take the right decisions; or require more
research and comparative policy analysis;
400
Problems that end up in the grey cells are unpleasant. However they may create some unity
between different stakeholders and the executive, for nobody knows how to proceed. Often
joint efforts to combat the problematic situation bind stakeholders together and stimulate
creativity. Translation of the term „problem‟ into „challenge‟ may help. Note that the use of the
word „challenge‟ is a different way of interpreting a situation.
What lesson can be learned?
Only few problems are tame problems, caused by technical or methodical failure; in such
cases policy solutions are within arms‟ reach;
Most problems are caused by the way we interpret a „cause‟ : material, political and normative.
Try to map the interpretation of causes as much as possible! And try to re-interpret or reframe
the problematic situation
And be aware of two dangers that loom:
o A stupid political decision is forced upon all stakeholders for a simple and ineffective
policy which creates societal tension and does not lead to any solution at all; on the
contrary it may aggravate the problem;
o Nothing is being done; paralysis. However this is not necessarily wrong. In Chinese
Taoism „wu wei‟ or „doing nothing‟ and waiting for the right moment to act is often
propagated as wisdom. Conclusion: wait for the right moment to act.
So what should be done? (if it is time to act)
Stimulate the policy deliberation process and try to find some policy solution together that
most stakeholders support; communication is to society as the neurotransmitter is to the
human brain. If the neurotransmitters function well, the brain feels ok and is creatively
looking for workable solutions, maybe not perfect, but making life livable again. It is exactly
the same in society. Without the policy deliberation process society is in danger of falling
victim to depression......
Invest in research and comparative policy analyzes. Maybe somewhere in the world they
discovered the „wheel‟ or something close to it.
Note: regarding the problem definition of any public policy the agreement from the executive is
needed.
Note: at this stages of defining problems stakeholders/citizens will have to be consulted.
Assignment 2
401
Give a short description of a policy problem you are currently working on. (Or give the description of a
policy problem you know about and on which others are presently working.)
On what analysis of situation is the policy based on (assumptions)
Mention four different (groups of) stakeholders. Two (groups of) „victims‟ and two (groups of)
„beneficiaries‟.
Give a short description of the problem from the point of view of each of these four (groups of)
stakeholders. Make an inventory of causes of problems that stakeholders point to.
What can be done to reconcile all the different problem descriptions and the causes mentioned?
Keep in mind the following:
After the forthcoming parts of the course there will be other assignments. In each of the assignments
you will be asked to work with the same topic as the one you choose for this assignment. The idea is
that in the last assignment you will be asked to put together a short policy paper on the topic you are
choosing now.
402
C. Critical phase 3: Strategy choice: Finding main policy lines and
goals
Nota bene: strategy choice and finding main policy lines in actual fact means: policy identification
What policy is needed to deal with the problem as defined before. From the start the policy actor needs
to keep in mind that is not just a matter of effectiveness of choice, but also of efficiency, feasibility,
sustainability and inclusiveness
The actors: can be any. Politicians, civil servants, trade unions, CSO‟s will all come up with policy
choices. Best is to check relevance of proposals by means of the criteria mentioned above.
Finding goals Description Nota bene Status
To keep in mind Finding goals is not the opposite of finding
problems. Solving a problem might be the
side-effect of a particular policy geared to
a goal not immediately related to the
problem.
Generally speaking you should collaborate
with stakeholders
Collect information about frequency of
problem, related problems and factors,
trends and public opinion.
Collect information about strategies,
policies and laws used in other countries.
The use of a
„tree of
objectives‟ is
useful here
-
Step 1
Visualization and
goal definition
Working together with stakeholders:
focus on the policy domain/sphere
where the policy manifests itself
Give a description of the domain
as it looks right now. Combine the
different stakeholder descriptions
Give a description how it should
look, of the desirable situation.
Combine the different desirables
If possible,
organize a
meeting and
work in
small
stakeholder
groups
One off
Step 2
Orientation and Look around and find out what other Strategies One off
403
strategy countries/cities did to solve similar
problems, what strategies they followed
and how successful they were.
You now get an idea about
policies/strategies to get to the desired
situation.
Discuss such strategies with the
stakeholders. What strategy and policy
model seems most appropriate? Here you
face 5 challenges.
What strategy fits existing patterns best
and which strategy fits the sphere.
What alternative solutions are possible?
Some comparative policy analysis needs to
be carried out and solutions assessed.
are major
policy
activities
directed to
sub-goals
which
together
help realize
the major
objective
Step 3
Arrangement of goals
according to tree of
objectives.
After describing the desirable
situation and some main
strategies to get there, you may
summarize in terms of a limited
number of goals
Find out which of these goals is
the most encompassing. This is
probably the main and ultimate
objective.
The other goals probably are
concretizations of the main one.
Try to arrange the goals or
objectives in a „tree of objectives‟
on the basis of logic of finality,
with the main goal on top.
Compare different trees of
objectives as produced by different
groups of stakeholders (if
applicable)
Logic of
finality is
expressed
by:
„In order to‟
„so that‟
To and
fro
Step 4
Define indicators Define indicators for each goal
In fact it is the answer to the
question: when do we say „ yes, we
did it‟
One-off
404
Indicators should be concrete and
in some way measurable. Maybe
research is needed to find out
whether the goals are achieved.
Step 5
General check Which goals are conditional to
other goals (relationship of
finality). Maybe you should revise
the tree of objectives.
Which goals support other goals
and which goals are at loggerheads
with other goals? Do eliminate
problematic goals and try to
achieve coherency, plus fit with
sphere (framework pattern)
Which are priority goals?
Are stakeholders in agreement
with the concluding tree of
objectives?
Will the causes of the problem
cease being effective if the policy is
being carried out?
Are goals in coherence with overall
government contract, ministries‟
policies etc?
All arrows
should point
upward and
express a
relationship
of finality
To and
fro
Q.C.1. which policy approaches and models are appropriate?
Policy identification
Before we start, we should be sure the issue is worth to be worked out into a policy. In other words, the
issue should be identified as a policy issue. Maybe this has been decided by the executive on the basis
of the agenda report some time ago. Maybe it was decided after defining the problem. Maybe now the
time has come to make this decision. In any case there must be a moment that the executive, the
sponsor is giving a green light, a GO.
405
In order to continue, you need to have an assignment from the executive (see for the assignment
above)
Policy problems and policy goals
Policy goals are not simply the reverse of policy problems. There is the practice to analyze problems
with the help of a „problem tree‟, which is the reverse of a tree of objectives. The idea is to find the root
causes of a problem. After completing the problem tree you turn it around with root causes on top,
which now is defined as the ultimate goal. But root causes always have root causes as well, ad
infinitum, or until you meet Adam and Eve. So the method is somewhat complicated.
Another, opposite, practice is the use of one-dimensional logic of consequence. There is the problem of
crime in a township. So you need to solve that problem. Instead of analyzing causes and patterns, you
look for available methods and instruments to combat crime. That is exactly what happened in the
Bijlmer township in Amsterdam (see above). The police opened a special alarm number to call in case
of danger or attack. The number of police for the area was increased. More lights were put and, at a
later stage, camera‟s installed. Street corner work was started as well as some community projects.
Unfortunately the results still let so much to wish, that everybody got desperate.
After this sobering paragraph, let us see how we may go ahead.
Let us start with two remarks. In case we encounter difficult and complex problems we need to think
laterally, out of the box, creatively. We can be pretty sure we have to do with inter or intra pattern
conflicts. Logic of one-dimensional consequence will not work. It is surely necessary to discuss the
matter with different stakeholders, analyze the situation, define the problem and set goals.
But not all problems are complex. The policy expert needs to see when relatively simple measures are
adequate.
Let me present 2 obvious examples of opposite problems.
Domestic waste and unemployment
In a certain city the amount of domestic waste increases every year. And so does the cost of its
collecting and processing. This is all part of an emerging problem. The local council decides to set up a
policy to reduce the amount of domestic waste. What should be the goal(s) of that policy?
Imagine the policy makers start by discussing the causes of increase of waste: average income increase,
increased consumption, increased waste. A sort of „problem tree‟ is emerging. Now they turn the tree
upside down and conclude that the goal should be: decrease of average income, which naturally will
result in less waste.
Not difficult to see that this type of policy development is unlikely to be helpful.
406
Policy goals have to be invented or discovered! Finding goals is a creative activity. There is a problem
with waste. Perhaps different kinds of waste should be separated and dealt with differently. Or packing
regulations should be formulated with more eco-friendly paper and plastic.
And now the more complicated example: Medellin in Colombia, (not totally unlike the example of the
Bijlmer in Amsterdam):
A particular district is struggling with numerous problems, varying from unemployment, streets that
are no longer safe, high criminality, poor access to municipal services and lots of school drop outs. Of
course the ultimate goal will be „well being‟ of living conditions. But how to go about? Where to start?
More police? Better schools? Introduction of street corner work? Keeping the district clean? More
lights during the night? Pulling down poor housing areas in which some young addicts are hiding?
Getting investors to set up small companies and create economic activity? Building an open air
escalator so that people do not need to climb all these stairs anymore? And they did, with great
success, for people were proud of their escalator.
How to go about?
- Information: make sure as much (statistical) information is available about the frequency of the
problem, possibly relevant trends and related factors, as well as public opinion.
- Interviews with the target groups, with stakeholders and experts: what do they suggest as
solutions? What goals do they have in mind? Who should take the initiative?
- Ask yourself the question: What did others do in similar situations? Will these measures work
here? Is there sufficient social support basis?
- Install a small policy team and start brainstorming about possible solutions.
After brainstorming and collecting different types of sub-goals, you get into the subject matter. Now it
is time to realize that strategic choices about strategic main lines have to be made.
- Is it going to be a matter of simple logic of consequence, applying well-known measures and
solve the problem?
- Or is it too complicated for that? In that case you face a challenge. So, let us elaborate
somewhat.
Main challenge: keep in mind all relevant patterns of all relevant stakeholders and related strategy
suggestions to these patterns. Imagine how different strategies will have an impact on these patterns
as well as on their respective spheres. And of course think twice of the impact might be negative,
sparking a negative response pattern.
We encounter a major challenge when it seems that radical pattern change is required, while at the
same time major actors got stuck in the very pattern that is causing trouble. This, in my viewpoint, is
or was the case with the financial crisis in 2008. As in lots of other similar situations radical pattern
change is unlikely to happen. However, some crucial steps might be the beginning of the enfoldment of
the dysfunctioning pattern as well as the beginning of the unfoldment of an alternative pattern.
407
Next a few more challenges pop up. After lots of workshops on policy design, I have come to the
conclusion that the sequence presented here is functional:
Challenge 1: can we think of one specific crucial activity that will be THE solution? This could be a new
law, an institutional arrangement, a simple financial incentive or whatever. Let us assume this is not
the case. Or maybe there is an interesting idea, but it is not sure whether it will be effective. If it
appears obvious you may opt of a crucial or synergetic model. Perhaps the crucial intervention will
lead to pattern adaptation or change. Maybe it concerns a simple adaptation of an old policy to an
altered environment. In that case you will opt for a contextual model. If both are not the case, you will
face challenge 2.
Challenge 2: think of and identify all possible ways of actions (measures or strategy lines) that you
might pursue in order to realize the main objectives. Use the „tree of objectives‟ to make it clearly
visible to all partners in dialogue or partners in design.
Challenge 3: discuss whether these strategy lines can be put together into a coherent framework. If
that appears to be obvious, you may opt for an „integral-rational-comprehensive model. If this appears
to be complicated and expensive with too many assumptions, a next challenge pops up;
Challenge 4: so after giving up on crucial mode and a comprehensive model, the choice is between an
incremental model or a clustered model. Both models have chances. With a good budget and an eager
executive that desires to show citizens it is doing something, there often is a tendency to opt for a
number of strategic lines even of these are not rationally linked and coherent. Another reason why a
clustered model might be attractive is that different stakeholders of partners in dialogue might feel
satisfied. Why? Because for each of them there is an attractive strategy. Often there are budget
restrictions, doubts, controversies etc. What we often see after long discussions that partners get more
cautious and finally agree to opt for an incremental model. And of even this option does not appear to
be proper?
Challenge 5: in that case the challenge is indeed whether it might not be wiser not to do anything at all
and adopt a zero-model.
Policy models
A main decision concerns the kind of policy model. Which is the appropriate one?
Integral (also called the „rational-comprehensive‟ way): developing an encompassing,
consistent policy framework to restructure the environment. It presupposes a „rational actor‟
who is sufficiently powerful. Perhaps this implies pattern change. But patterns resist change,
so various types of response patterns are likely to emerge, which will make things more
complicated. How to prevent negative responses? How to keep all these dynamics under
control? Do we really want an integral and rational approach, keeping as many factors as
possible under control and working with a great variety of instruments? In this case we should
408
realize that ambition must be curbed. Often integral policies are expensive and the
implementation is risky. However some political parties and some politicians with a strong
ideological vision, might prefer an integral approach and expect civil servants to design one.
The result is a number of different but mutually coherent strategy lines and a set of
coherent policy goals
Example 1: facing the financial crisis and breakdown of the banking system, the
executive may decide to radically change the function of banking: limit it to lending
money. No entrepreneurial banking any more. The consequences are huge. Think of
related strategy goals that need to be realized
Example 2: facing the growing criminality in a district, the executive decide for an
integral approach with a combination of a series of repressive and preventive
measures in combination of infrastructural, economic and cultural policies.
Incremental: adjusting existing policies to solve specific and immediate problems and to
take away some obstacles in order to increase effectiveness. Guehenno characterized
contemporary policy making by “a multitude of precautionary micro-adjustments”. It often is
the result of the lobbying of a particular stakeholder who is annoyed with some negative
effects of an existing policy. Often incrementalism is defended with the argument that a large
strategic plan is either unnecessary or has proved to be a failure. Or an incrementalist
approach is chosen because it is not possible to anticipate effects and response policies.
Therefore it is wiser to go step by step, incrementally, making the most of feedback, being
open for adaptation. It is often a wise approach. And this approach is much easier than the
first one and much less expensive. Often the executive will prefer an incremental approach.
For it shows that the executive is aware of the problem, it does take action and the action is
likely to yield some success soon (quick win) and after the first steps it might be easier to find
out which next step are needed. However, if the problems do not disappear and if people get
impatient in the long run this approach will result in a never ending „muddling through‟
The result is a simple strategy geared to the solution of some pressing problems
Example 1: just save the banks from collapsing and trust the economy will recover
naturally
Example 2: if the major problem with criminality is the impact on victims, make sure
you protect potential victims better
Charles Lindblom made the following remark: “Policy making is typically a never-ending process of
successive steps in which continual nibbling is a substitute for a good byte." I do not know do what
extent he was inspired by Karl Popper, but Popper reiterated that „big plans might well cause big
misery‟. Much better are „policies geared to elimination of concrete miseries‟. Just that. Bertrand de
Jouvenel advised to „ fragment‟ big plans into small pieces. Pieces can be handled by means of
individual policies or projects. Big plans are too big to handle, so he asserted.
409
Contextual: adjusting an existing policy framework and gear it to new requirements from a
changing environment. Anticipation is the key word. Policy makers should study trends and
anticipate new development and their impact on existing policies and take measures in a
timely way. Nobody can look into the future, but we all do and then decide to turn a blind eye
(which might sometimes be wise) or take action. Sometimes trends can be responded to in a
creative manner. If the trends itself are not questioned the result is a passive and uncritical
approach.
Strategy is geared to adjustment to trends (notably globalization), that already took
place or can be foreseen to take unfold
Example 1: if the trend is more governmental borrowing in combination of a growing
speculating public, the strategy should for instance be to regulate both trends
(borrowing and speculating) more effectively
Example 2: if a growing number of young men drop out of school and join street
gangs, a creative way of responding to this trend is to provide alternative
opportunities for development to these young men, in particular branches of the
economy or culture (like sports, theatre, military service etc)
Niccolo Machiavelli had this to say: ”The one who adapts his policy to the times prospers, and likewise
that the one whose policy clashes with the demands of the times does not”. It is a typical contextual
way of thinking.
Synergetic: at a crucial moment adapting an existing policy in such a way that more desirable
changes in the same and related policy domains follow naturally or logically. It would
probably imply pattern change or adaptation. This approach should not be altogether different
from the first 3. The difference with integral approach is that only a small number of strategic
lines are selected which are expected to have a natural impact on other areas. Regarding the
2nd approach, we can state that a good incremental choice may have synergetic effects. And
regarding the 3rd approach, the synergetic approach too is eager to find out what the trends are
and perhaps to anticipate creatively, but it also raises the question whether particular trends
should be geared into another direction or whether a new trend should be launched that is
more adequately responding to present day challenges. This all sounds great and creative, but
is indeed very difficult to practice.
Strategy: on the basis of a holistic (integral and contextual) analysis, some crucial
choices are made
Example 1: if the core business of banking is lending, set rules to lend responsibly,
which also implies that a number of speculation habits (short selling) come to an end.
Establish „ commitment relationships‟ between lenders and borrowers
Example 2: some cities have taken very interesting „crucial‟ choices: like indeed
offering alternative ways of development (notably in sports), improving the
environment, or infiltrating in gangs. Or a combination.
410
Clustered: when a problem is urgent, complex and relatively wicked with a myriad of
stakeholders expressing opinions and suggesting solutions, one may consider a clustered type
of approach, combining different policies based on different definitions of situation and
problem. The policy department may think that perhaps one of the policies will give some
comfort and if so, it may then convince some otherwise skeptical or stubborn stakeholders to
cooperate as yet. Often it is difficult to distinguish between clustered and integral, as some
integral policy approaches turn out not to be coherent at all. Rather than being integral, they
are like an aggregate or clustered set of policy measures
The result of this type of approach is that most stakeholders are satisfied that
something is in it for them and they may enthusiastically cooperate
Example 1: Combating crime again. Policy measures varying from more
policemen on the streets, regular road checks, distributive justice, rectificatory
justice, subsidy on pepper spray and lattice and alarm systems, keeping boys
from the street, vacation plans, rehabilitation programs and so on and so forth
Zero policy approach: most governments have the tendency to look for creative action to
solve problems, introduce popular policies as well as to impress and please voters and win the
next elections. However all too often societies, stakeholders and individual citizens have
sufficient resilience to cope and to find their own creative solutions. If there is any truth in the
symbiotic model of society, it might be assumed that lots of problems will be naturally be
solved without any governmental interference. Not interfering may even stimulate resilience
and creativity. It is like the body. The more medicine it receives the lazier it gets to restore
itself naturally and creatively. This is one side of the coin. The other side is that the executive is
responsible for law and order and should see to it that, as in the case of criminality, citizens do
not take the law into their own hands. Or that chaos is emerging.
If you suggest the executive should opt for a zero policy approach it should be
a well-considered choice, be well-monitored. It will often be the outcome of a
deliberation process with stakeholders
Example: colleges in the Netherlands urged the government not to press for
mergers, not to adopt a new subsidy-policy that would actually push them into
mergers
Example: the handling of Amsterdam student street demonstrations and
dealing with their demands by the government of Mr De Jong (see Q.B.3.1)
See: Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, London, 1963; Jouvenel, B. de,De la souverainité: à la recherché du bien
politique, Paris 1955
After choosing the most appropriate model, it is time to have a thorough discussion with all
stakeholders as to the impact of the model (and its strategy lines). Of course, from the point of view of
411
this syllabus it is clear that it will be very helpful to keep patterns in mind and ask how the strategy will
impact the patterns that stakeholders adhere to.
Q. C.2. Are there any interesting alternative policy solutions for the issue at stake?
It is high time to look around and see whether any interesting alternative policy solutions (whatever
model) are available. This means you have to do some comparative research. How did other
municipalities or countries deal with the problem? What are their experiences with their policy
solution? Are evaluation studies available?
Next it should be discussed whether any of these solutions would fit? In short a selected number of
policy solutions should be assessed.
A good and serious executive (and parliament) will want to see what alternative solutions are available
and how they might fit.
This assessment is also something that can be carried out with stakeholders during the deliberation
process. In my own experience partners in policy dialogue are very interested in discussing alternative
solutions and often come up with important insights, related to local knowledge.
A very excellent example of comparative policy analysis is the study on local integrity systems carried
out by the Free University of Amsterdam. This approach might indeed considered being a model
approach for comparative analysis.
See: Leo Huberts, Frank Anechiarico and Frederique Six, Local Integrity System, World Cities Fighting Corruption and
Safeguarding Integrity, The Hague,2008.
Once the assessment is ready the proposed policy model needs to be reconsidered of course.
Q.C.3. In case of several goals, how to arrange policy goals?
Once you have opted for one of these models, the next step is to make an inventory of all goals that are
supposed to be realized as a result of the chosen strategy lines. Now try to arrange the most important
goals (strategic goals) in a new and definitive tree of policy elements (see the overview of the first part
of the course). Make sure you strictly observe the logic of finality.
First: find out which goals of your list are in fact sub goals of other goals. Sub goals tend to be more
concrete or even be main goals made more concrete.
412
By arranging your goals in a tree of policy elements, you will also find out which goals are in fact
identical with other ones, or which goals can better be merged in one goal, and whether goals can be
categorized.
Categorization is important for it is an indication of major strategy lines, or strategic goals.
Take the second example: some goals might be educational, others infrastructural, others economical.
Here you have the strategy: 3 strategy lines.
Second: Did you find a general or central or even crucial goal in your list? If not, try to formulate one.
As we are rearranging goals and work with the tree of objectives, it could very well be that we get
second thoughts about the selected policy model. We may have to reconsider the choice.
Now you have a first version of a tree of policy elements. But there are still some questions to be
answered.
1. Are your goals compatible? It may be the case that achieving goals A has as a
consequence that goal B can no longer be achieved. Such goals are incompatible and
one of them has to be removed from your goal tree.
2. Are some goals conditional to other goals? It may be the case that you will not be able
to work on a particular goal before realizing another one first? And is there perhaps
one crucial goal?
3. Which goals are most urgent? You should consider removing less urgent goals from
your goal tree. This makes it possible to concentrate during implementation all the
energy on those goals that really matter. On the other hand, budget restrictions will
seldom allow you to achieve all the policy goals you can think of.
4. Is there any synergy to be expected between the goals? Will the synergy work naturally
or need some activities to be carried out? Is there synergy with other patterns/pattern
framework?
5. Are the goals sufficiently precise and concrete? Ideally speaking goals should be
quantified and they should have a time horizon. It is of course good to have policy in
order to reduce the amount of domestic waste. But it is better to have policy goals that
specify with how many tons or with percentage the amount of domestic should be
reduced and within how many years this should be achieved. If not already done, try
to specify your policy goals in this way.
Now you are ready to revise the tree of policy elements or objectives again. The main strategy lines
should now be clear. Keep in mind that a policy should be a somewhat coherent pattern of elements
that support one another.
Third: which are the indicators that indicate whether your goals have actually been realized?
Indicators should enable you to measure results. The best way to find indicators is to ask yourself the
413
question: when would I conclude „yes we have achieved it‟. It is this question that will help you to
discover indicators.
An indicator is: a quantitative or qualitative factor that provides an indication regarding the actual
results of a particular policy activity.
Point of attention a: support strategies
Often policy experts, including their partners in dialogue, get so focused on that on policy that needs to
be developed, that they forget which supportive policies are needed, or forget what related policies may
provide support or may pose a risk.
Also, the focus is entirely on the problem at hand, with the result that the wider environment of which
that one problem is embedded in, is lost sight of. The result is a policy solely directed to the symptom,
neglecting the bigger picture of causes. That will be like swimming against the tide. Preventive
measures are needed to change the tide. Think of the Amsterdam example where support policies are
needed to stop human trafficking, to clean up the police and so on.
The big question should always be: is this one policy on which we work together part of a network of
policies that interact positively with one another. This question leads to the question as to whether
there is synergy and possibly symbiosis.
Point of attention b: liquid modernity
In so-called „liquid modernity‟, people have the tendency to give priority to private goals above public
goals. Micro ethics seem more important than macro ethics. In many countries people are more
concerned about private lives of presidents than about their political viewpoints. In line with this
tendency much energy is spent on advocacy for private or local issues (like street lighting) neglecting
big issues which are of enormous importance to our future. So we need to put issues in perspective. My
impression is that most people are perfectly willing to reconsider their priorities, as long as they are
taken serious and if it can be demonstrated that big issues will indeed have a big impact.
In liquid modernity people also tend to focus strongly on the present and the actual. Why bother about
the future? First we do not know anything about the future. Everything is liquid, changeable.
Tomorrow is different from today. Secondly, the people of tomorrow are responsible for tomorrow. At
present, I and we are responsible for the present. Not for the future. This attitude results in short-
sightedness.
Personally I would call this „american blindness‟, for this phenomenon with its obsession with money
that is equaled with time and pop which is equaled with art, manifested itself first in the USA. Any type
of reflection seems a waste of time and money and its results have rarely any entertainment value.
They are neither sexy nor cool. So the average American assumes and gladly takes for granted.
414
(By the way let us not overlook the fact that American culture has another face as well. Some of the
fiercest critics of modernity and some of the most creative intellectuals of today are to be found in the
USA)
Nevertheless, individual choices tend to be quite myopic, short sighted. We strongly favor today over
tomorrow. Jackson called this „hyperbolic discounting‟. In many societies this tendency is balanced by
all sorts of institutional arrangements like pension schemes, marriages, contracts and long-range
planning. In liquid modernity such arrangements get played down. This exactly the wrong response. In
liquid modernity the opposite is needed.This is why I plead for policy imagination, which means
looking ahead, envisaging developments as well as possible alternative and more desirable situations.
An essential condition for policy imagination is that people assume their responsibility for the future.
See: Z. Bauman, Liquid Modernity, Cambridge, 2000; and also Al Gore, The Future, Six Drives of Global Change, New York,
2013; see also Tim Jackson, Prosperity and Growth, Economics for a finite planet ,2009, p157 ff
Q.C.4. How to make use of scenarios?
But we proceed a bit too quickly. After exploring different policy approaches and after drawing
different maps of goals, we should attempt to draw some scenarios. First we draw 1 or 2 scenarios on
the basis of one particular change factor: external or internal. Next we try to imagine what might
happen if the executive will take this or that policy decision, or combination of decisions. Try to assess
the possible impact, positive and negative. And also try to find out what other supportive policy
measures might be necessary or useful. Keep in mind the pattern framework of the sphere in which the
policy is meant to be carried out.
Drawing a scenario on the basis of pattern development is difficult, but the more experience one gets
with drawing scenario‟s with complexity level 2, the more insight you will acquire in pattern dynamics.
And one day the art of pattern development will be part of the profession of policy development.
Of crucial importance is insight in possible response patterns or policies. You need to work on this. Try
to anticipate possible responses of stakeholders and beneficiaries. The better the communication with
stakeholders, the more likely you get insight in possible response patterns.
If negative response patterns seem likely, you either have to follow a different strategy or you have to
pay ample attention to the matter when dealing with the instrumentation and ask yourself whether it is
possible to evade negative responses by means of clever instrumentation.
Example (cont.)
Mergers in Dutch tertiary education.
415
Most people underestimate the persisting power of organizational culture. The merging of 2 or even
more banks, companies, CSO‟s, schools or colleges all too often fail because nobody took culture
differences into account. The sports academy of professor Gordijn in Arnhem was a typical case.
Gordijn had developed a specific phenomenological philosophy (strongly influenced by Merleau
Ponty) that served as the base of the sport training of the school. Most of the professors highly valued
that approach. After merging with other schools in the late 8o‟ies they were forced to adopt teaching
methods that were at loggerheads with their tradition. It did not just cause much friction, it also
lowered the quality of education. Likewise the quality of education in other sectors suffered
substantially from the forced mergers. It took lots of years to recover and find a new equilibrium.
Also nobody was foreseeing the effects of career development of professors and teachers. Teaching
masses of students, was something that many professors disliked utterly. When offered the
opportunity to be active as out-door trainers and consultants and earn some additional money, many
embraced it, neglecting their regular duties. Again, quality was the victim.
One more unforeseen side effect. The new highly paid directors of the big institutes were all requiring
offices with secretaries, office equipment, assistants and so on. The distance between directors and
professors as well as the distance between directors and students was striking, with blindness to feed
back as a result. The entire operation appeared to be significantly more expensive than was calculated,
leading to ill-functioning of tertiary education and low quality.
The example shows how important policy imagination is: we need to imagine all possible response
patterns and anticipate in order designing good policies. In the case of Dutch tertiary educational
institutes a step by step approach might have prevented much misery, loss of quality and waste of
money.
In sociology the merging process got ample attention. Sociologists have pointed out that there is a
range of response patterns possible, both positive and negative, all with different side-effects. Basically
4 individual responses can be discerned: enthusiastic embracers, quiet adapters, persistent critics and
victims. The less you communicate the more people will fall in the last 3 categories and the higher the
risk of failure.
See: Buono A. F., Bowditch J. L. The human side of mergers and acquisitions: Managing collisions between people, cultures, and
organizations. San Francisco, 1989, Bruhn, J.G., Mixing Apples and Oranges, Sociological Issues in the Process of and Academic
Manager, in Clinical Sociology Review,16/1/4, 1998
Only the policy deliberation process will gradually provide you with insight in what stakeholders and
policy actors want and do not want, what they may support and my not support and how they might
respond. It will also challenge you to map the ramifications for other policy domains and you should
ask how likely a particular policy will get support from policies in related domains. If a particular
economic strategy line seems feasible from an economic point of view and to be liked by many
stakeholders, it might still be very difficult to realize because of a structural lack of human capacity or
because of negative ecological impact. In such a case an alternative scenarios will be welcome.
416
Note: regarding the strategy the agreement from the executive is needed. Scenario‟s can be very useful
Note: At these stages stakeholders/citizens will have to be consulted.
Assignment 3
For the case you are working on, discuss first the relevance of the 4 policy approaches.
Next you make a choice on the basis of a sound argumentation.
Draft 1 or 2 scenarios.
When you are clear as to what you believe is a desirable approach and which are the right policy goals
you present this by means of a tree of policy elements.
Finally, look for measurable indicators that tell you when the goals have been achieved.
417
D. Critical phase 4: finding the appropriate facilitation
Nota bene: Keep the following in mind: An activity or instrument is an action to be taken in order to
achieve the situation specified by the policy (sub)goal. Keep also in mind that each activity will by
definition have side effects, positive as well as negative. In actual fact activities as instruments are
facilitators to spark or start a process.
The actors: usually civil servants charged with policy development and legislation. Others may have
suggestions or have a critical look (see later)
Facilitation Description Nota bene Status
To keep in mind There are four types of policy
instruments or facilitators:
Regulations (R) (laws, rules,
contracts, etc.
Financial incentives (F), both
positive and negative
(incentives, taxes, penalties etc)
Communication (C), varying
from information to educational
programs
Institutional arrangements (IA),
like councils, organizational
structures, educational
development schemes etc
Most policies use a mix of instruments
Policies and legislation usually go hand
in hand as a pair.
Alternative
facilitation
should always
be considered
-
Step 1
Look at 4 factors
first
Choice of instrumentation depends on
Type of problem (structured or
unstructured etc – see scheme)
Whether behavioral change is
easy or difficult to realize
Size of target group and sphere
Whether behavioral change is
easy or difficult to observe
One-off
418
See scheme
Step 2
First choice:
effectiveness of
facilitation
Do a first choice and ask why the
target group can be expected to
change its behavior as a result of the
instrument
If the instrument is likely to be
necessary but not sufficient, choose
an additional instrument.
If it cannot even be argued that it is
necessary.
Also ask the question whether the
target group might respond
negatively.
Observe the
relations of
finality
To and
fro
Step 3
Questions regarding
efficiency of
facilitation
Which costs are involved (time,
money, effort, people, negative
side effects.
Do the costs outweigh the
positive effect that they might
have?
What are the costs if nothing is
done?
Which alternative facilitation is
feasible?
Because of
efficiency
reasons an
alternative
instrumentation
might be
desirable.
At this point a
discussion with
the sponsor if
needed.
To and
fro
Step 4
Questions regarding
negative side effects
and response
patterns
Find out which negative side
effects might be regarding
people and organizations
(victims), other policies,
infrastructure, nature. And
distinguish between short term
and long term effects.
Can something additional be
done to neutralize the negative
side effects? Or should the
facilitation be reconsidered
altogether?
What response patterns can be
expected? What should be done
419
if these are negative, harmful or
counterproductive?
Step 5
Consider 2 policy
laws
Never introduce a rule, a law or
punitive financial measure
which cannot be imposed.
Result is civic disobedience
Never introduce a positive
financial measure (like a
subsidy) on which no control is
possible. Result is abuse.
In both cases
carry-over
effects are likely
One-off
Step 6
Consider the
likelihood of policy
effectiveness
reduction
Negative response patterns as a
result to too many, too
complicated or too stringent
rules or the danger of
juridification, too much
communication etc are likely to
invoke a negative response
Unbalanced facilitation: if it is
too heavy it may become a goal
in itself; if it is too light it may
not achieve anything
To and
fro
Step 7
Reflection round 1:
On type of policy
and its typical risks
If you look at the facilitation, what
type of policy does it resemble?
(integral, incremental etc?)
Look at the typical risks. Do they
apply top your facilitation?
What mitigating measures can
be taken?
Step 8
Reflection round 2:
On assumptions and
related risks
Consider all assumptions and
related risks. Assumption regarding:
Values and norms
Facts and trends
Financial conditions
HR conditions
Social support base (political
All assumptions
are potential
risks
420
and societal)
Commitment of „sponsor‟
How serious might be the risks of
one or more of these assumptions
turn out to be unwarranted. How
can the risks be limited?
Step 9
Reflection round 3: Can the policy as you developed it so
far, be carried out on its own? Or is
it dependant on supportive policies?
Do such supportive policies in
related policy domains exist? Or
should it be developed and
introduced?
Policies seldom
operate in a
vacuum. They
are related to
other policies
Q.D.1. How to choose appropriate facilitating instruments?
In most cases, a policy instrument is not simply one action to be taken by the policy implementer, but
is a whole series of actions some of them to be carried out by the agency responsible for
implementation, usually in cooperation with the target group. The action is meant to start up a change
process. The change needs to take place in the minds of people, who will think of and reflect on the
input they receive. That is why the term ‟instrument‟, though widely used, is not appropriate. Better is
to use the term „facilitator‟ or, to mark the difference between a person as facilitator and an activity as
a facilitator a „facilitating instrument‟.
For example: If the city mentioned above wants to reduce the amount of domestic waste by
introducing a system of separate collection of certain fragments of the waste (e.g. paper and/or glass),
it not only needs that system but also the cooperation of the citizens. They should change their
behavior by no longer disposing of their waste paper and glass together with their other waste, but
bring to the special collecting points.
The citizens who should change their behavior in order to achieve the policy goals, or more generally
speaking the actors who should change their behavior, are called the policy‟s target group.
In some other cases it is almost meaningless to speak about a target group. If, for example, the policy
instrument is the building of a road or a bridge, the target group consists of those people who in the
future are going to use that road or that bridge. By using that road or bridge they change their
behavior. But the difference with the case of separate collection of waste paper and glass is that this
change in behavior is supposed to have only positive effects.
421
Below a method is given for identifying a policy instrument. Think of the target group. Describe the
change in behavior of the target group that is necessary to achieve the policy goal. And answer the
following questions:
Is it easy or difficult to identify whether or not members of the target group
have changed their behavior?
Is the target group small or large?
Is it easy or difficult for members of the target group to change their behavior
as necessary for achieving the policy goal? This last question is very much
dependent on the type of pattern they adhere to. If the policy goal is more or
less coherent with the pattern, it will be easy. Otherwise it will be difficult.
Again we note there are four types of policy instruments or facilitators:
Regulations (R) laws, rules, regulations, contracts, etc.
Financial incentives (F), both positive and negative (incentives, taxes, penalties etc, to avoid
„free riding‟ and stimulate „forced riding‟)
Communication (C), varying from information to educational programs
Institutional arrangements (IA), like councils, organizational structures, educational
development schemes etc
Each type of facilitating instrument has its own advantages and limitations. Almost all policies consist
of mixed elements. Different spheres demand different instrumentation. Different patterns demand
different facilitation too (see above).
The advantage of laws and regulations is that it becomes obligatory for members of the target group to
change their behavior. Especially in the market sphere actors often opt for regulations, lest
competition and bad games become destructive.
But in fact each policy should have a legal basis. Often a policy requires the introduction of a new law.
The disadvantage of laws and rules (and negative financial incentives) is that it is sometimes difficult
to enforce them. Generally speaking a rule that cannot be enforced is worse than no rule, for it
stimulates civic disobedience. Both correct and incorrect behavior may have a „carry-over effect‟ to
other areas.
Big risk is the possible danger of juridification of governance. Appeal to courts in order to secure a
particular policy implementation or to force stakeholders to adapt to policy requirements, or to protect
the interests of stakeholders may all means a sidestepping to the democratic process. Bevir mentions
the example of the USA where „the growing use of litigation to sidestep democracy has contributed to
the increasing politization of judicial nominations and elections‟. So a paradoxical side-effect is the
undermining of the „trias politica‟. We may call this an example of the policy paradox.
(see M.Bevir, Democratic Governance, 2010, p167)
422
The advantage of financial incentives is that members of the target group get as direct interest in
changing their behavior. The disadvantage is that these instruments have budgetary consequences.
Moreover there is almost always the risk of misuse and corruption. Negative incentives like fines and
penalties might be necessary, but they always have negative side effects. The 2 main ones are:
- Some citizens will adopt a negative attitude towards the government and rather than seeing
the government as „theirs‟ , they see it as a major opponent or enemy they have to be aware of;
- Some citizens will be inspired to use their creativity to find loop-holes, to cover up their
behavior, to develop clever argumentation and so on
In any case the number of negative financial incentives should be kept at a minimal level. The saying
that „the medication is worse than the illness‟ is very applicable to negative financial incentives
Generally speaking it is better to convince members of the target group of the necessity to change their
behavior than to coerce them. Communication as a policy instrument aims at convincing members of
the target group. The disadvantage of this type of instrument is that you can never be sure about its
effectiveness. Suitable for oikos and middle field. However, communication usually is a soft
instrument. It is an instrument that in principle respects privacy, responsibility. It suits roomification,
for it does not brutally intrude spaces allotted to people or entities and, if it is two-way it is also a
means to receive feedback and adapt a policy.
There is one exception though. This is the practice of ‟shaming‟. It is a type of punishment used to
enforce norms. An agency, often a CSO, but it might also be the government, communicates to the
public that a particular actor is transgressing norms, doing harm to the public good. Shaming is like
disparaging the actor‟s reputation with the aim to force the actor to behave better and conform to
agreed policies. As it is a somewhat peculiar „policy instrument‟ I will elaborate in a „point of attention‟.
Often policies require continuous action. The big question who is going to take care of continuity? The
police and judicial system? A ministry? A city hall? They have so many different responsibilities that it
is difficult to combine. And a conflict of interest is likely. That is why institutional arrangements are
often needed: to implement a complicated policy and to secure continuity.
Let us have a look at the table, which summarizes some of these findings. Point to type of instrument
which is likely to be adequate, according to the following scheme: (NOTE the facilitating instruments
mentioned are selected on the basis of research as to the evident effectiveness of instruments)
Change of behavior
identifiable
Size of target group Change of behavior
difficult
Type of facilitating
instrument
Easy
Small Easy R, C
Difficult F (R)
Large Easy R
Difficult F, IA (R)
423
Difficult
Small Easy C, IA
Difficult C, F, IA
Large Easy C, IA
Difficult IA, ?
Mixing of policy instruments or facilitators:
In most cases it is advisable to work with a mix of instruments. With one instrument you should
stimulate the desired change in behavior. With the other instrument you should discourage the
members of the target group to behave wrongly.
Mixing is also important for another reason. Each policy will spark response policies, some in harmony
and some in disharmony with the intended policy. The ones that will undermine the effectiveness of
the intended policy need to be prevented. This can sometimes be done by adding an instrument,
usually a law that forces people to behave well and according to the policy.
Example (cont.)
Mergers in Dutch tertiary education.
In the case of the Dutch policy a mix of instruments was applied. Like:
- A set of rules of subsidy and monitoring of quality, based on a new law;
- A number of financial incentives: refusing to merge ceased to be an option;
- Much communication, mostly information about the governments‟ intentions;
- Adaptation of an existing institutional arrangement: the council of tertiary professional education
(HBO-Raad) as the legal representative body of the colleges, plus the introduction of new college-
management („college van bestuur‟)
Point of attention: shaming
Recently Jennifer Jacquet published an interesting book on the usefulness of shame as an effective way
of practicing social control. She starts with the distinction made by anthropologists Ruth Benedict and
Margaret Mead to distinguish between guilt and shame cultures. Usually shame is considered to fit
Eastern cultures, where people are afraid of losing face. Losing face is something which is considered
detestable, even a reason to commit suicide. Whereas in the so-called Western cultures, guilt is
considered to be a superior and more authentic response to making a mistake. Whether this
distinction is justified remains to be seen. I believe it is very much a matter of value hierarchy. Indeed,
guilt may be seen as a superior feeling than shame, but that does not mean that shame is unimportant
in the Western cultures. In fact there are lots of indications that people in Western cultures likewise
are afraid of losing face. During the banking crisis in 2008 when bankers were facing collapse and
wide public disapproval, several bankers choose to end their lives. The recent obsession with dress
codes is another indication that shame is at work. Jacquet‟s point is that guilt is something individual
with little public impact, plus something that cannot be induced. Therefore she point to the
424
importance of shaming. If banks and bankers behave badly, we may have to wait a very long time for
the bankers‟ consciousness to be awakened and maybe the awakening will never happen. During the
financial crisis some observers assumed that the moment of awakening had come, but that proved to
be a big mistake. Already a couple of years later it became clear that bankers started to carry on with
the same type of behavior as before the crisis. Maybe with just a bit more caution in order to avoid
public outrage.
Other examples are companies that destroy the environment. Food companies that process food in a
way that is harmful to our health. Pharmaceutical companies that experiment on people in poor
countries. Or companies that scandalously cooperate with Chinese sweat shops, where human beings
as contemporary slaves produce shoes, cameras, laptops (the one I am working on) and lots of other
products that we are proud to have and use.
What to do? Should we as consumers feel guilty? Should we switch to other products? Like Dutch
citizens who in large numbers switched from big misbehaving banks to small „green‟ banks. Should
citizens put pressure on governments to issue laws to forbid such company strategies? It is a very long
and complicated way to alter harmful strategies by asking governments to take measures. This is
where Jacquet has a point. An often more effective way to achieve this is shaming. Not in a physical
way as we were used to in the past. Pillories are not so civilized. But both governments and CSO‟s can
make blacklists and regularly publish these blacklists, or mark them with red spots. Like houses and
buildings in Bucharest which are identified as in danger to collapse in case of a 5+ Richter scale
earthquake. The big red stickers tell the owners to consolidate their building. As long as the sticker is
there, the building is difficult to sell. Something similar might be considered with cars that use too
much fuel and cause too much pollution, as most SUV‟s do. If car manufacturers continue to build
such cars, this might be a way to limit waste behavior.
Sometimes CSO‟s and media together managed to put companies to shame, like the wine scandal in
Austria in the 1970‟ies, when it was discovered that wineries used poisonous chemicals as
preservatives in wine. Or when dioxin and/or hormones were discovered in milk. Such action
prompted the government to take action.
Spontaneously a kind of partnership between the public, the media and the public government
emerges. This type of partnership can be established in the „policy house‟ (see above) and used to force
companies as stakeholders to take the citizens‟ perspective and opinion seriously. CSO‟s like Amnesty
International, Green Peace, Transparency International often manage to force governments to put
certain companies or individuals to shame by publishing their names. As a result the public may
demand further action.
Knowing all this, the government may also take the initiative and use shaming to discourage
companies to behave harmfully.
See, Jennifer Jacquet, Is Shame Necessary? New Uses for an Old Tool, New York 2015.
425
Q.D.2. Why the choice of facilitating instruments and methodology depend on policy dialogue.
To decide to make use of regulations and communication is only a first step. Next step is what kind of
regulation, how tight, how precise, and how to check whether people obey? How to respect space,
privacy and responsibility? By means of holding some people accountable? Is that sufficient?
The same applies to financial incentives and communication, shaming and rewarding.
Especially communication is an area where much expertise is required to do it well and effectively. But
you need to know the target group well. You need to be able to judge how people might respond.
Usually the policy designer will not go in much detail. That means that some expert must work it out
once the policy has been accepted. But even then it might be necessary to give an indication what type
of regulation/communication is needed. The expert must later know what is required.
We should also realize that much depends on the situation as well as on the authority and reputation
of the political executive. In Russia Gorbachov did his utmost to convince people that fundamental
changes were a must. He used the media, personal contact, public hearings, interviews, the publication
of a book (Perestroika) but nothing worked. People did not trust him. Boris Jeltsin with fewer ideas,
was more popular. Compare that to the status and authority of people like Adenauer in Germany after
World War II, or Nelson Mandela in South Africa, or Vaclav Havel in ChechoSlovakia. With relatively
little effort they were able to convince. What is their secret? If it is a „secret‟….. I suggest it is sincerity,
integrity, sound judgment and the willingness to listen and suggest inclusive solutions. And Confucius
adds to all this: „he does not consider the land, nor the people to be his property‟. These are words that
we do not often here in our contemporary world. But Confucius is giving us a sketch of a badly needed
attitude. It is that attitude that determines the tone of the music, making the music so to speak.
Confucius was not just addressing the emperor, he was also addressing the average civil servant, in
charge of some modest tasks. It is this attitude that is needed to serve the people well.
See Yu, Dan, Confucius from the Heart: Ancient Wisdom for Today‟s World, New York, 2009
But it is an attitude that should also be characteristic of the organizational culture of an agency that is
in charge of public policies
As to institutional arrangements this is also the case.
Bulgaria, late 20th century.
The ministry of education decided the link between lower professional education and the needs of the
labor market should be improved. Too many students got a useless diploma.....Too many professionals
who were needed during communist times, were jobless in the new economy. What types of training
should be organized to give them a second chance?
426
The policy designer discussed the matter with schools and companies who are in need of employees
with particular expertise. Could the link be improved by mere communication? Could that lead to a
more adequate curriculum and diploma: What type of communication? Regular conferences?
Committees for different professions to discuss curricula? Training for teachers? Introducing learn-
work arrangements at schools? What types of training should be offered to experienced unemployed
professionals? And so on and so forth.
At first the idea was to improve the link by means of communication and maybe some financial
incentives. But who will organize it all? During the discussions with schools, teachers and employers
the idea came up to start a small institute responsible for carrying out such activities. The minister of
education then decides to contact his colleague for employment matters, who is enthusiastic. Both
ministries now start working out this institutional arrangement. Should it be a big institute? With
different departments for different professional groups? Or just a small one in charge of organizing
different events that may work as a catalyst, sparking chemical reaction between the „school stuff‟ and
the company stuff‟, as they called it. The more they discussed it, the more enthusiastic all partners got.
Somebody suggested to have a look at other countries to see what they did. A delegation consisting of
civil servants, teachers and employers visited 2 other EU countries to compare methods and institutes.
They were also advised to have a special look at response policies on the part of professional schools,
students and companies. Finally quite a substantial institute was adopted as one of the main
instruments of the policy. The institute as an „institutional arrangement‟ was meant to effectively
facilitate a process. One of the actions it initiated was the so-called „700-job project‟, to offer training
to unemployed professionals in view of concrete jobs for which professionals were needed. The
number of 700 functioned also as a clear and verifiable indicator of success.
Around 700 unemployed people were selected for 700 available jobs and offered training to upgrade
their knowledge and skills so is to make them fit the jobs.
Such discussions are discussions on methodology, resulting in an argumentation not just why this
particular instrument is chosen, but also why all these different functions were expected from the
policy instrument, making it a substantial one, with substantial costs as well. There is the comparison
with other countries and the possibility of learning from mistakes made somewhere else. Discussions
on methodology will typically also focus on response patterns. How will people respond? In the case of
Bulgaria people responded very positively and made ample use of it.
Sometimes a minor arrangement may be sufficient to spark positive response patterns. Imagine such a
fine institute with a board of directors consisting just of politicians and civil servants? As apparently is
or was the case in some Eastern European countries. Such was their „natural‟ habit as it flourished
under communism. Proud of a good initiative it did not occur to anybody that such an institute will
only work as a joint effort of all stakeholders. But in Bulgaria the public policy partnership with private
partners involved functioned reasonably well and could be seen as a model of good practice. I believe it
was also appreciated the government did not carry out the policy on its own, but invited external
partners to join them in the effort to improve the employment situation.
427
George Herbert Mead (Sociologist and father of symbolic interactionist sociology) liked to say:
“communication is anticipation”. If you want to communicate something to someone with the
intention to change or direct his behavior, you have to anticipate a response from the other person. In
order to anticipate you have to put yourself in the position of the other. In fact that is what all policies
should be about: anticipation of responses and trying to find out how to get the desired response. That
is why policy deliberation or policy dialogue is crucial: it challenges to put you in the position of the
other, understand his interests, goals, fears, expectations etc. As a result you get insight in possible
response patterns. That insight is crucial to finding an adequate methodology, to be worked out in
adequate instrumentation. For communication too is a kind of activity that is meant to incite a
desirable response (pattern).
On the basis of Mead‟s interactionist sociology we should not just say that policy deliberation is
dependent on our ability to communicate truly which is the art of anticipation and thus a form of
dialogue, but also: a policy is a type of dialogue. In the public sphere the government is
communicating with stakeholders/citizens directly and indirectly through the medium of a policy. The
policy is anticipating a particular response pattern from the stakeholders and target group. The
stakeholder should see to it that his interests and goals are known to the government, inciting the
government to come up with an adequate policy. Policy as a type of dialogue in order to improve living
conditions together to the benefit of all (the public good). This I believe is the heart of the matter.
C‟est le ton qui fait la musique, so the French sayin goes. I suggest you keep this saying in mind as you
are discussing instruments.
See G.H.Mead, Mind, Self and Society, Chicago 1934
Q.D.3. Are any alternatives available and, if so, should these be considered?
Given the objectives of the policy under design, often many different ways of implementation are
possible. A „one best way‟ rarely exists. That is where comparative policy analysis comes in. It provides
us with information about different approaches in different, though somewhat similar situations, in
different locations and/or countries. We do not need to invent the wheel again. And also it helps us to
overcome localism, it generates a fresh look at situations and stimulates creativity. It may finally help
us from not making the same mistakes. So, the idea is:
to make an inventory of possible policy models, each with its own instrumentation, and
assess their effects and implications;
to envisage possible response policies (in harmony or in disharmony with the policy-
intention)
to assess the measure of risk involved in each of the options;
to assess the relative strength of its potential social support basis;
to calculate the costs involved in each of the options;
428
to find out which of the options is the most consistent with other related policies;
to assess various options in the light of values and political ideology
Q.D.4. Thinking to and fro
It is all about choosing or advising the best option, on the basis of a good understanding of policy
experiences, problems, consequences and adequacy of the preferred option. During the entire process
of policy development, communication with all stakeholders is continuously needed.
Communication with the sponsor(the executive). Communication with all other internal stakeholders
and external stakeholders. It is a process and there is no such thing as the „ one best way‟. That means
there are arguments for alternative „a‟ and there are arguments for alternative „b‟. There are differences
in insight. There are different facts about different trends that can be interpreted differently.
During the entire process new insights emerge, new understandings, agreements and disagreements.
That is why we have to think „to and fro‟ : towards the objective that needs to be realized and back to
the stakeholders to find out whether they are still „with it‟. Thinking from their point of view. Perhaps
stakeholders and sponsor have some new ideas to propose, or perhaps they have some second
thoughts about an issue that was already taken for granted. New ideas have to be proposed and
reflected upon. As a result of reflection a revised idea might be the result. And back from the
stakeholders to the drawing table to work again towards the objective to realize. Originally this was
called „forward and backward mapping‟.
That means that after discussing a number of alternatives, maybe a critical look at the problem
definition is required and maybe the goals should be reformulated. That is why we stated at the
beginning the phases in the process overlap one another.
Of course the deliberation process should not continue indefinitely. There comes a moment that the
process has to be stopped, as a fire that needs to be extinguished. This is the original meaning of
„blessing‟ (coming from the Germanic root „slissen‟, in modern Dutch „ beslissen‟ ): stopping a fire, let
us hope a fire of purification, in which insight is purified.
The entire process must be brought to an end: problem analysis, discussions about problem definitions
with stakeholders, problem definition, goal setting and discussions about strategies with stakeholders,
finding the right instrumentation and project the outcomes, discussions concerning the outcomes with
stakeholders and come to a consensus. It is a continuous to and fro which needs to come to an end by
making sure the executive Decides. Followed by telling the story! (in the terminology of Bardach). And
how this policy will be a blessing.
See for much useful information: Bardach,E. A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem
Solving, 2011
429
Note: regarding instrumentation it might be wise to inform the (political) executive or consult with the
executive
Note: at this stages stakeholders/citizens might to be consulted.
Assignment
The assignment will be clear:
Select the right mix of instruments you think is needed to realize the different goals
And write down all the arguments why you have selected these instruments, taking into account
experiences with alternative options.
430
E. Critical phase 5: Implementation plan
Nota bene: this is where there is a caesura in case policy development and implementation are
seriously separated by different departments in one ministry or by policy chambers. The policy
development department should develop the policy up to here and offer a sketch for the following
chapters. The civil servants responsible for implementation start working at this particular paragraph.
However, it is very useful that they have a critical look at the previous paragraphs, viewing them from
the point of view of an implementing agency. Their critical view may lead to adaptations.
The actors: Role of CSO‟s and other institutions : there is much to say to invite CSO‟s to become
partner(s) in implementation. Often CSO‟s have a better contact with the target group and know how
to approach them and build the needed social support basis for the policy. Central and local
governments may sign a contract with CSO‟s and other institutions to carry out (part of) the policy.
IMPLEMENTATION Description Nota bene Status
To keep in mind It is time to write an implementation plan.
Once you have to become very practical,
you will start raising question about the
feasibility of goals and instrumentation.
(thinking to and fro) This is normal and
you may have to revise them. Useful to
consult with the organization charged
with the future implementation of the
policy.
-
Step 1
Basics What results do we want to
produce
Which indicators tell us that we
did it?
When and in which sequence? Is
there a critical path?
Who will be in charge? Who will
do the work? Who will check?
Who will report? Any support
needed?
What means are needed? And
when?
To and
fro
431
Step 2
The implementation
organization
Organizations responsible for policy
implementation need to have sufficient
HR-capacity, both in terms of quality and
quantity.Choice: internal or external
agency?
To and
fro
Step 3
More detailed look Now we have a detailed look at what
needs to be done.
Making a new law requires
specific expertise and much time
Rules seems easy, but drafting
rules that are simple, practical and
meaningful require specific
expertise
Idem with financial incentives
Idem with communication
Idem with institutional
arrangements
To and
fro
Step 4
COWS analysis
As soon as you know what needs to be
done, a COWS analysis for all parties
)(internal and external) involved
should be carried out
a. Challenges and obstacles coming
from the environment, as well as
the
b. Weak and strong characteristics of
the actors that are expected to
carry out the policy
Take note: implementation capacity
includes: relevant
expertise/experience, quantity of
capacity, leadership, process
management, communication etc
One-off
Step 5
Procedures For cooperation contract with Hire One-off
432
external actors, including terms of
reference
To select personnel
To acquire means that are needed
to monitor
And to report (formats)
To evaluate
people
always on
the basis of
a profile!
Step 6
Drawing a budget 1 Basically 4 types of budget that need
to be distinguished:
Policy development costs (one-off)
Starting-up costs (one-off)
Implementation costs(continuous
to calculate per budget year)
Evaluation/adaptation costs
One-off
Step 7
Drawing a budget
2
Draft sub-budgets for the following
items, both for the internal actor and
external actor(s):
salaries
honoraria
office space
utilities and logistics
communication
transportation
And a miscellaneous budget:
Subsidies (often the bulk of the
budget)
In vestments
Inflation correction
procurement
additional
And a cost-benefit estimate (always an
estimate)
433
Q.E.1 Operational policies and operational styles
After specifying the policy goals and having identified the necessary activities or instruments to
achieve these goals, we should work out an implementation plan. We call this the „operational policy‟.
But before we explore this further we should realize that each government or executive can be
characterized by a specific „operational style‟. It is very risky to propose an operational policy that does
not fit the operational style of the executive
Which styles can be distinguished?
basic executive attitudes Centralizing: Decentralizing:
Interventional: activist and
ambitious
Centralized activist model:
Getting things done and
keeping things under control
Participative model:
seeking public policy deliberation
partnerships
with stakeholders
Non-interventional: passive
and less ambitious
Bureaucratic model:
with emphasis on (legal)
procedures and mandates
Laissez faire model:
Usually a sign of incapacity, or too
many internal conflicts
Please note that the choice usually is between a centralized model, a participative model or
bureaucratic model. The laissez-faire model often is the result of a government‟s incapacity to govern
or to deal with internal conflicts, or the adoption of zero-policies. As the centralized activist model is
almost always too ambitious and too conflictuous as it lays great emphasis on control and power, it is
the style that most easily degenerates into a laissez-faire type of governing.
When we have reached the stage of designing an operational model to carry out the desired policy, we
must take into account what style of governing the executive is attracted to.
Centralized activist model: likes to keep direction in its own hands. Works with policy task forces or
teams consisting of civil servants. If stakeholders have to be involved (for instance with educational
policies schools have to carry out the policies) they will be told what to do and when. Feed back is
problematic as such governments are not keen to listen to problematic news. That is why flexibility and
creativity have little room. This model has a strong preference for integral policies, with all too often
disastrous results.
434
However, if policies are well-designed and if the implementation team consists of able people, much
can be achieved! The Soviet Union Space policy and concrete Sputnik project is a great positive
example.
Bureaucratic model: likes to work with an implementation plan that is worked out in great detail;
mandates and responsibilities have to be clearly defined. Monitoring is essential.
The model works if the policy is well-designed, including an efficient monitoring scheme. If it is agreed
from the start that monitoring reports should be taken serious and be followed by critical assessment
and adaptive measures a bureaucratic approach might be OK.
Generally speaking, a bureaucratic style is quite compatible to in incrementalist approach.
Participative model: is gaining popularity today. Why? Apart from the fact that policies need a social
support basis (already discussed) there is the saying that „united we are strong‟. Cooperation needs
preparation. This can best be achieved by including citizens and stakeholders in society in the entire
policy development and implementation process. Contemporary societies are open and extremely
diverse, but they are also characterized by reasonably well-educated citizens. Proper civic society
education, with special attention to the importance of symbiosis, is crucial. Policies may stimulate
symbiosis if the participation model is well-facilitated. But many executives are reluctant to delegate
executive responsibilities to entities outside the government, like CSO‟s, trade unions, chambers of
commerce etc. However, the experience of bid donors (including World Bank and EU) have proved
that the model can work very successfully in rather stable situations. Important is to establish strong
and workable contracts with partners in implementation and to make sure costs will shoot up. It tends
to work in rather egalitarian societies where private partners will refrain from maximizing profit.
However, egalitarian societies also tend to be reluctant to outsource implementation.
Another big challenge is how to convince non-governmental partners that they are playing a public
role with ditto responsibilities in implementing policies.
Laissez-faire model: can be a solution in case of a passive government that is unable to carry out any
new policy. Agreements can be made with stakeholders to carry out policies that are in their interest.
Without an executive that is eager to monitor, check and adjust the risks of misuse are big. So crystal
clear agreements with stakeholders is a must. Often a steering committee consisting of politicians and
representatives of stakeholders assume responsibility. Here the need for at least one committed
sponsor in the person of an executive member is crucial.
See Goggin, M.L. Bowman, M.O.M., Lester, J.P., O‟Toole, L.J., Implementation Theory and Practice: Toward a third Generation,
New York, 1990.
435
Q.E.2. This all sounds theoretical. Can we think of a concrete example and preferably not just a
simple one?
OK, let me give an example of one of the most difficult policies to implement: integrity of public
service.
Example: Bulgaria, implementing integrity policies at the local level.
Bulgaria: during the late 1990‟ies integrity discussions were started. As from 1998 the problem of
integrity assumed increasing public and political importance. Round that time the first big
anticorruption initiatives in Bulgaria were launched and later implemented mainly by non-
governmental actors. As a result of the huge anticorruption awareness campaigns at national and local
level, the corruption issue became central in the political competition and dominated the 2001 general
elections. After the elections the newly elected government adopted a different approach towards
corruption creating in 2002 a Commission for Coordinating Actions against Corruption. A number of
new legislations were adopted by the Parliament in order to create proper legislative framework for
reducing corruptive practices in administration. Since 1998, when Bulgaria was included for the first
time in the Transparency International Corruption Index, the country has improved its corruption
perception index from 2.9 in 1998 to 4.1 in 2004. Some Bulgarians boasted that no other country in
the world had better laws to secure integrity of public governance. The reality however left much to
wish. Local governments adopted some measures to improve transparency and integrity but there was
a general lack of coherency. The impact of the measures was far from impressive. Nobody really knew
how to enforce the laws.
Thus, in spite of all these positive achievements integrity remains one of the most serious problems of
the administrative situation. In 2004 the Regular Report of European Commission on Bulgaria
progress towards accession to EU, noted anew that corruption remains a very serious problem, and
Bulgaria should maintain concerted and coherent efforts to implement measures in this respect.
Round that time I got involved in a large project to improve integrity in Bulgarian municipalities, that
lasted about 3 years. Were we successful? Somewhat. But the results were not impressive. So we did
much to analyze and evaluate the proceedings of the project which were meant to implement the local
integrity policy of the government.
In practice it worked in those Bulgarian municipalities where the mayor was determined, the city
secretary backing him fully, some CSO‟s and even companies actively pursuing integrity in local society
and a number of journalists free and sufficiently brave and interested to publish critically and inform
the public of cases of corruption and desintegrity.
436
What conclusions can be drawn?
My 5 personal conclusions regarding critical success factors in this particular case were as follows:
a. Political will to maintain/improve integrity in combination with model behavior on
the part of the leadership. In other words: determined leadership, that is well aware of
the following crucial issues:
1. a definition of public office as: a position of trust, implying a duty to act in the
public interest, with no other loyalty than loyalty to public interests and
according to the law (see UN Code of Conduct for Public Officials).
2. Supporting integral integrity policies, including integrity audits (taking
conclusions seriously)
b. Public administration paying attention to moral development of civil servants and
politicians
1. Awareness that public governance is and should be both of and also for the
public; i.e. citizens are owners, rather than clients of public governance
2. An awareness that public officials should develop and implement policies
fairly and inclusively, keeping in mind the interests of all relevant
stakeholders.
c. Government establishing an independent fact finding entity (institution, agency,
committee), possibly empowered with a mandate to investigate and prosecute, in
combination with an independent judiciary
d. Government will to include the public and the business world in creating conditions
for integrity of public service:
1. Information campaign for the public to make the public aware of b.1.
2. Agreements with the business world not to engage in any type of bribing,
lobbying or financing of political parties.
e. A free and independent press in combination with vigilant citizens.
This is a huge task that can only be fulfilled by, again, determined leadership and an organizational set
up that is both qualified and motivated to put the shoulders to the wheel.
The late prime minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, managed to combat corruption effectively. One of
the very few. He was determined, knew where to start and aware of the right sequence of crucial steps
to be taken. But it came with a prize. An authoritarian type of government and with quite a few
unhappy people, especially those who wanted to climb high.
(see Pope, J., 2000, National Integrity Systems; The Transparency International Source Book; and Kristensen, B. , Een kwestie
van grenzen, over integriteit in openbaar bestuur, 2008.)
Now on to the organizational set-up. The people responsible for implementing the policy should be
fully aware of its conditions and, together with the leadership, fully embracing the policy. When
discussing pattern maintenance and formation, we noted that charismatic leadership is indispensable.
437
Likewise we now note that a „charismatic organization‟ is needed to launch and implement a
complicated policy that might encounter different types of opposition and even obstruction. Whether
we are dealing with integrity policies, educational policies, health care policies or others, the
implementing organization is of crucial importance. There are all kinds of organizational cultures that
are not very helpful when it comes to initiating change by means of policies. We will not go into the
organization discussion here, but apart from the remark on determined leadership, I want to make one
more remark: the need to be open to feedback and the capacity of an organization to be self-critical is
crucial as well. We will come back to this later when discussing the actual implementation. Let us now
return to the 4 different executive attitudes that will result in different organizational patterns. Let us
see what their relative usefulness for policy implementation might be:
Centralized model: in the case of rather complicated policies (like integrity policies) this model
may be necessary. But the executive should be determined. In case of complicated laws and
difficult law enforcement this often is the only model, apart from the bureaucratic one.
Bureaucratic model: bureaucratic organizations, always with little creativity and initiative,
have a preference for rules and procedures. Especially in the case of relative simple laws and
law enforcement, the bureaucratic model works well. The same applies for relatively simple
policies about which there is a strong consensus.
Participative model: against the background of contemporary democracy discussions, this
model should be considered more often. But it is not just a matter of outsourcing by the
government followed by withdrawal. It is much more a matter of cooperation with suitable
CSO‟s and companies. As in the „public policy partnerships‟ suggested here.
Laissez-faire model: in countries where civil society is well-organized and the business world
has embraced basic morality , much can be left to civil society initiative. But when situations
get more complicated, coordination will be needed and the participative model is more
appropriate. In case a public administration is functioning according to this model, chaos is
likely to be the result. Evade it.
Before making a concrete organizational plan, we should first consider the next step.
Q.E.3. How to draw an implementation plan?
Drawing an implementation plan does keep in mind the executive model that is going to be the
framework.
Now that we know what we want to achieve (goals) and how (instrumentation), we will decide for each
policy line of activities:
Who is the main sponsor; what exactly is going to be his role and how will he be informed?
Who will be involved in the implementation: which task forces, teams, stakeholders etc and
what will be their respective roles; check for all instruments.
Who will coordinate and check? (check also time and people)
438
Which concrete steps to take;
what means (notably HR and financial) are needed to take each step
When should these steps be taken; keeping in mind the critical path!
Who should take this step: can be 1 or more partners: how much time and people are
involved; perhaps a substantial part has to be outsourced;
Who is in charge of the input (means, including financial means, plus time and people)
Who is reporting, how should be reported, how frequently etc and what is happening to feed
back
How will evaluations take place? What type of evaluations? By internal or external agents?
Who will sit on a steering committee
What supporting and facilitating measures have to be taken: office space, costs etc
Last but not least: who has the final responsibility for the policy-in-practice?
Once this is clear, you may draft an organizational structure, including an organizational chart that
shows the different functional links between the organizational entities.
Next you may draft the HR-picture with profiles for all positions. Recruitment should be based on
profiles, rather than availability of people.
As soon as you know what organizational structure is needed and what needs to be done, a COWS
analysis for all parties involved should be carried out
a. Challenges and obstacles coming from the environment, as well as the
b. Weak and strong characteristics of the actors that are expected to carry out the policy
Of course during the development phase the organization is not yet established. This means the COWS
analysis is one in anticipation. You know the internal and external actor organizations that will provide
people and resources and on the basis of that information you can carry out a COWS analysis in
anticipation.
If the analysis shows that actor organizations are unlikely to provide sufficiently qualified people and
resources, you may have to rethink the entire policy and simplify (to and fro)
Take note: implementation capacity includes: relevant expertise/experience, quantity of capacity,
leadership, process management, communication etc
Q.E.4. How to choose the right internal or external partners?
First choice will be to choose between an internal or external partner to apply any of the planned
instruments of the policy, often in the start-up phase, the introduction of the policy, or in some cases
even the entire implementation process. For instance service delivery. Sometimes it is self-evident the
partner should be internal. In the case of legal or financial instruments it often will be an internal
439
partner (for instance the tax office) But not always. In case of complicated policies it is also
recommendable to keep the implementation in government‟s hands.
In some cases, like communication instruments, most governments now opt for an external partner. In
the case of institutional arrangements new agency may have to get established and its relationship
with the government defined.
What specific considerations play a role here, on top of the ones that we mentioned above? I suggest
we consider the following reasoning for opting for an internal partner:
1. Risk and sensitivity: financial or privacy. The government is for its functioning
entirely dependent on its income. To source that out is pretty risky. Regarding privacy
of basics, it is the government that should see to it that the privacy of its citizens is
guaranteed. Again, to source out the basics of public service (like registration of birth,
death, marital status, passports etc) is too risky
2. Dependency and accountability: in no way should the public government become
dependent on an external service provider. On behalf of the people the parliament
should keep its discretionary power. After all the parliament can and should be hold
accountable to the public. A situation where an external agent has the power to dictate
the governmental policy in an area is totally unacceptable and at loggerheads with the
idea of democracy. This is of course especially relevant in case of laws to be
implemented and enforced.
3. Monopoly: the main reason for outsourcing a service is to cut costs and increase
quality. In case of a monopoly this is unlikely to happen for a long period of time.
Probably in the beginning gains will be made, but organizations in a monopoly
position will be tempted to misuse their position.Sooner or later monopolies get
corrupted.
In other cases (parts of)policy implementation might be outsourced. Here the following considerations
are critical:
1. Reduction of costs (including efficiency)
2. Improvement of quality (including effectiveness)
3. Relatively short or medium term contract is possible. For if an evaluation concludes
that the service is below expectations it must be possible to end the contract soon
afterwards.
In such cases the government may consider to outsource to:
1. One or more partners in a public policy partnership (see above)
2. A for-profit or non-profit organization
3. An external agency that is controlled by the government (for instance the government
is represented in the board)
440
I have noticed that in such cases a government prefers a big and well-established company or CSO to a
relatively small and recent one. The assumption is that big organizations have more capacity, more
back office support and much to lose if it goes wrong. In practice such an organization will put the
assignment into the hands of a department (sometimes a new department is established for this
reason) and often some rather inexperienced professionals who are less expensive than the more
experienced people. As a result, the government gets less than expected. On top of it the first loyalty of
the department and professional‟s loyalty is to the company or CSO, rather than the government. The
leadership of the company or CSO is acting as an often inconvenient intermediate. So in the end it
turns out to be a problematic working relationship. That is why I strongly suggest to consider smaller
companies or CSO‟s in case of outsourcing, provided they have adequate capacity in terms of
HR,organizational and financial resources.
See for a useful discussion on pros and cons of outsourcing: Alford, J., O‟Flinn, J. Rethinking Public Service Delivery, Managing
with External Providers, 2012
Q.E.5. How to Calculate costs and benefits and to draw the budget?
Generally speaking cost-benefit analysis means: an estimation of the flow of costs to implement a
policy compared to the benefits in order to determine the return of investment. It sounds simple but in
practice it appears complicated. Let us elaborate.
With each of the steps listed above costs are involved.
We distinguish between:
Policy development costs (one-off)
Starting-up costs (one-off)
Implementations costs (continuous to be calculated for budget periods of 1 year or more)
Evaluation and adaptation costs.
Budget items can be systematized as follows (by the way, each country has its own budgetary format):
1. Internal actor costs (salaries, office space, utilities and communication)
a. Development costs: some have already been spent during the design process, but there
might be more: like designing a new law, preparing an institutional arrangement,
working out a communication plan etc;
b. Coordination costs: some civil servants in 1 or more departments, or in local
governments have to coordinate the implementation and/or maintenance of the
policy; maybe new personnel must be recruited;
c. Implementation/maintenance costs, if a governmental body will be involved in
implementation (for instance the police, or social assistance department etc
d. Monitoring, controlling and evaluation costs: separate monitoring, controlling and
evaluating from coordination
441
2. External actor costs are basically the same as above if such activities are outsourced:
a. Development costs (sometimes outsourced to a consultant)
b. Coordination costs: often outsourced to an external agency;
c. Implementation/maintenance costs: idem;
d. Monitoring, controlling and evaluation costs: monitoring and controlling are rarely
outsourced but evaluation very often is;
Budget items for both internal and external actors during all 4 phases include:
Salaries
Honoraria
Office space
utilities and logistics
communication
transportation and travel
And miscellaneous budgets:
Subsidies: often a very big slice of the budget: think of social assistance schemes or subsidies
to new enterprises
Materials: ranging from paper to technical
Procurement
Selection of personnel
Institutional investment costs (in case of institutional arrangements)
Inflation correction (often underestimated or ignored)
Additional costs
Financial policy forecast
Most policies will not just be restricted to one year. That means a financial policy forecast should be
made, regarding the expected costs of policy implementation for a period of 3 -5 years, or even more.
Often the first year is the most expensive year because of initial development and starting-up costs. So
once the policy implementation is in full swing such costs disappear. However some policies tend to
become more expensive over the years, because people get acquainted with subsidies that are being
offered or maintenance costs of institutional arrangements increase substantially, or the costs to
neutralize negative side-effects increase.
Benefits
442
Each policy will have some benefits. Part of developing policies is making an estimate of the benefits in
terms of money.
Direct benefits may come from:
1. Contributions (from stakeholders and/or donors)
2. Taxes
3. Penalties (difficult to estimate)
Relative benefits are benefits coming from savings in comparison to present and more expensive
policies. Many policies are designed and introduced in order to save costs on policies that appear to be
expensive.
For instance: many governments have followed a policy of outsourcing services (like security, cleaning,
selection of personnel, etc) It was discovered that companies often managed to deliver the same
service (level and quality) at a lower price than governments themselves. Unless the external agent is
in a monopoly position.
But policies to increase efficiency of service even if it is not outsourced fall in this category as well
Long term and indirect benefits:
1. Benefits that can be calculated in principle: all benefits that can be expressed in terms of
money, like:
a. Costs in same or related policy domains get reduced
For instance: by investing in better education or sport facilities some prisons may be closed and the
police force might be reduced.
b. Income in same or related policy domains will be increased
For instance: a policy to attract investors, reduce red tape etc will increase investment, economic
growth etc, with positive results for governmental income.
But still a balance is difficult to make for there might be many miscellaneous costs as well as benefits
Q.E.6. Calculating miscellaneous costs, benefits and musts
The very first question that needs to be answered is whether the estimated costs of the policy remain
within the budgetary framework, now and in the future.
Costs
Each policy will have a number of miscellaneous costs which often are extremely difficult to estimate,
let alone calculate.
443
In the first place we can think of costs related to the environmental impact. Perhaps measures will be
needed to mitigate a negative impact. Here we cannot pay much attention to it. For the matter is
extremely complicated. Think of the environmental impact on various domains: economic, health,
culture etc.
Secondly we may think of the impact of some policies on the reputation of a government, internal and
external. Sometimes harsh measures are needed indeed, but such measures always have a price.
Thirdly there is the organizational impact of many policies. Policies that make use of technological
innovation always have an organizational impact which often is extremely difficult to calculate. But
many other if not all policies have an organizational impact that could be strong and costly.
Example: the city hall of Timisoara (Romania) had adopted an HRD policy for all employees. It started
with a needs assessment by means of a long questionnaire that many employees found difficult to fill
in. Next the external consultant used the results of the questionnaire to develop a total training
program. This program consisted of over a 100 types of training to be delivered in a period of 2 years.
This program was meant to mark the start of the policy, for the idea was to continue forever. The
advantages of empowering personnel were obvious. However nobody asked if the pressure on the
organization could be handled. After 2 or 3 months it became obvious that the policy was a complete
failure. The mayor was complaining about „training fatigue‟. Intensive and expensive trainings turned
out to be a useless waste of time and money. Of course it was a methodological failure and
miscalculation, with high costs involved.
And of course each policy will have an impact on related policy domains with costs or benefits
involved.
Meanwhile, we have entered a grey area of cost calculation. For not everything can be expressed in
terms of financial costs. Dutch and Swiss culture tends to be extreme.
If after a busy week of very hard and complicated work somebody is suggesting a happy Friday
afternoon hour, there will surely be a manager to raise the question about the costs. In this case the
ambassador assumes his Dutch sense of responsibility and reminds his employees of their duty to
work. He is not thinking of the costs of drinks, but the number of hours that employees together spend
doing „nothing‟. “Doing nothing?” Somebody replies.”If we cannot meet informally and relax together,
we will be less able to cope with the stress next week and we will be less effective”. The ambassador, so
an employee told me, was immediately convinced. “The language of money was understood very well”,
so the employee commented.
Warning:
444
Cost effectiveness or cost benefit analysis suggests a measure of exactness that in actual fact is not
offered at all. It is indeed sometimes possible to estimate the costs of a policy, though seldom exactly.
But it is impossible to estimate the benefits as nobody can really foresee the entire impact of a policy,
its short term effects and side effects, its medium term and long term effects. Not in the same policy
domain, let alone other domains.
Conclusion: cost effectiveness really means: Assessing foreseeable costs against foreseeable benefits
Musts
The area of cost calculation is grey here. If not black. Not everything can be expressed in terms of
money.
There are benefits which are „musts‟ rather than „costs‟.
Each country has a constitution and is upholding some core values. It is important to ask whether a
policy is in harmony with core values. In case of disharmony we can say that the policy is contrary to
the integrity of the country, of the values that hold the country together, that together support or even
constitute its identity.
We can think of values like sanctity of life, freedom, human rights, equality, democracy, transparency,
mutual responsibility, co-operation, care and so on.
Policies should be in harmony with these values. In one word: a policy should contribute to the public
good. We call that a „must‟. But it is not possible to express its contribution in financial terms. Nor can
this be done if a policy is at loggerheads with one or more of these core values.
Policy development however should raise the question if a particular policy might be harmful to any of
these core values. If that is the case, the policy is unacceptable and must be revised.
Q.E.7. Final bits and pieces, or the finishing touch
Now you are in the position to decide what people with which capacities (profile) and with which type
of support are needed in the organizations/ teams to carry out the policy:
a. Within the government
b. Outside the government (partner organizations)
Next you should draw:
a. agreements for cooperation, both for internal and external partners
b. Contracts for external partners
c. Procedures to make (financial and HR) means available
d. Procedures to monitor
445
e. Procedures to report
f. Procedures to evaluate
g. Time-table
There is a strong tendency to make things more complicated when it comes to drawing an
implementation plan. So the motto should be: reduce, renounce and reorganize
Note: regarding the implementation the agreement from the executive is needed.
Note: at this stage stakeholders/citizens will have to be consulted and they have to agree regarding
their role.
Assignment
In what type of executive framework will the policy be implemented?
Develop an implementation plan that fits this framework reasonably well, but not in a „ slavery‟
manner!
If you believe something will not work, try to find a way that will be acceptable to the executive.
446
F. Critical phase 6: critical review
Nota bene: in case policy development and implementation are seriously separated by different
departments in one ministry or by policy chambers, both departments should carry out a critical
review about their part of the policy design. The critical view may lead to adaptations.
The actors: Sometimes external consultants or think tanks are invited to carry out a critical review.
Here I would suggest that governments should also consider asking a relevant CSO to carry out the
critical review of a policy developed and designed by other actors (government and other CSO‟s)
CRITIC
AL
REVIE
W
Description Nota bene Status
To keep
in mind
By now the draft policy is ready, so it is time for a critical
review by another policy team (deliberately charged with
a critical task), by an external consultant and/or by a
team consisting of representatives of stakeholders.
-
Step 1
Review
questions
Agenda analysis: is the issue at stake still relevant?
Problem analysis: do all important stakeholders,
including the sponsor, identify with the problem
definition? Have they been consulted?
Policy identification: do agenda priorities and
problem definition together justify the need for this
policy?
Goal formulation: clear and specific (indicators
given?), will this solve problems? Any positive or
negative side effects? Acceptable to stakeholders?
Attainable? (see below)To be realized within realistic
time frame? Relevant? SMART
Political and social acceptability: Does it have a
chance of getting accepted in parliament? And,
The critical
review is a
type of ex ante
evaluation
One off
447
generally speaking, will stakeholders be happy with
the policy?
Instrumentation: questions regarding:
Choice of methodology
Coherency of instruments/activities
Possible response policies
Effectiveness
Quality of indicators and monitoring format
Alternatives: have alternatives been studied and
seriously considered?
Are all assumptions and related risks identified? Are
risk limiting measures foreseen?
Is the implementation plan realistic? Are there
sufficient means (incl organizational, HR, financial
etc) to realize it? And is continuity secured?
How is the social support basis sufficiently strong? Is
the sponsor still committed?
Are costs and benefits in balance? In other words: is
the policy worth its costs?
Is it serving the public good? Does it have a legal
basis?
Does the policy in relation to other policies produce
synergy?
Is the policy sufficiently embedded in a network of
related policies that support one another?
Step 2
Adaptatio
n
Discuss the conclusions and recommendations and start
revising the draft.
One-off
448
Q.F.1. What exactly is the idea of a critical review?
By now a policy design is more or less ready to be presented to the executive for a final approval. But
before presenting it, it is very useful to ask a team of relative outsiders, who were not involved in the
design but with expertise in policy development to have a critical look at the design. Often this is called
an ex ante evaluation. However the question is whether at this stage a proper evaluation is possible?
The only thing that can be properly evaluated is the development or design process. In practice an ex
ante evaluation means a critical review of the design. I therefore suggest to call it „critical review‟.
Having reached this stage, the policy designers may have become a bit blind. In spite of many
discussions and lots of to and fro movements, they have lost the capacity to look critically at their own
design.
So it is time to ask an outsider for a critical look. The usefulness of a criticism in any type of planning
should be emphasized. But it is tricky. Many people don‟t know how to deal rationally with criticism,
they take it personally, feel perhaps ashamed of having made a mistake and start defending
themselves. The best is to institutionalize the critical function right from the beginning. Like pilots do
with „cockpit resource management‟, for making a mistake in the cockpit tends to be fatal.
The easiest to organize is to ask a policy team of colleagues to do the critical review. When it is a policy
of the utmost importance it should be considered to ask a small team of academics and/or consultants
to do the critical review. Sometimes representatives of stakeholders (relevant CSO‟s) form together a
review group.
The critical review is a kind of ex ante evaluation of the design. But more than that, it will also take into
account the policy deliberation process in order to make an assessment of the social support basis.
The critical review will go through all the stages of the policy development.
Q.F.2. What are suitable review questions?
The assignment for a critical consists of a number of questions that have to be answered:
1. Agenda analysis: is the issue at stake to be found on the public, political, professional
or civil servant agenda? Does it have sufficient priority to justify the development and
introduction of a new policy? And regarding the public agenda, to which sphere does
the issue belong? And finally: how does the issue at stake relate to different patterns
449
that are relevant? On other words: is there a strong consensus on the priority of the
issue?
2. Problem analysis: do all important stakeholders, including the sponsor, identify with
the problem definition? In which pattern makes the problem definition sense and are
stakeholders more or less at ease with that pattern? Other questions are related to
problem formulation: is the problem formulated in such a way that most stakeholders
agree with the formulation?
3. Policy identification: do agenda priorities and problem definition together justify the
need for either a new policy or an adaptation of an existing policy? Is the policy in
harmony with core values? Can it be said that it contributes to the public good? Does it
have a legal basis? Or should the law be changed by Parliament?
4. Goal formulation: are the objectives clear and specific? Are indicators given?. Will the
realization of these goals solve the problems which were identified? Any positive or
negative side effects? Are the objectives acceptable and/or relevant to stakeholders?
Are they attainable? (see below).Can they be realized within realistic time frame?
Have they been formulated sufficiently SMART?
5. Political acceptability: Does it have a chance of getting accepted in parliament? Is it
contributing more to unity or to divide?
6. Facilitation : here a whole range of questions is following:
1. Is the methodology behind the choice of instruments individually and
together convincing?
2. Do the instruments together form a coherent pattern and can synergetic
dynamics with other policies be expected?
3. What type of response policies can be expected? Is it likely that the policy will
indeed realize its objectives?
4. Will it realize the desired change in the behavior of the target group?
5. What positive and negative side effects may occur?
7. Is there a good monitoring system with concrete and measurable indicators?
8. Alternatives: have alternatives been studied and seriously considered?
9. Are all assumptions identified? Do any of these assumptions implicate a serious risk?
Are any measures taken to reduce this risk? Generally speaking in many cases just
some assumptions are made explicit, but not all. Have a good look at the paragraph on
assumptions and discuss whether any type of assumptions is applicable here.
Unwarranted assumptions are risks.
10. Is the implementation plan realistic? This is a major issue and a number of sub-
questions need to be answered:
1. Are there sufficient financial means to realize it, at present and in the future?
2. Is it clear what HR and especially professional expertise is needed?
3. Who is going to be the implementing agency? Does that implementing body (
a governmental agency or an external agency in the case of a public policy
partnership) has sufficient capacity and experience to carry out the policy?
450
4. And is continuity secured?
11. How is the social support basis put together? Who is supporting? Who is not? Is it
strong enough to help realize this policy successfully? Will stakeholders support it
and/or contribute to its realization? This will lead to the major question of possible
response patterns. What possible responses are envisaged? What measures taken if
these may be negative?
12. And in most cases: Are costs and benefits in balance? In other words: is the policy
worth its costs? Before we discussed how difficult a cost-benefit analysis is. Often the
result appears to be exact and convincing, whereas in reality it is just an estimate.
13. Is it serving the public good? Does it have a legal basis? Assuming the legality is meant
to serve the public good, it is useful to ask whether the policy does not infringe on any
relevant law. But that is not the entire answer. The public good is in principle an
inclusive issue. So the question is whether some categories of people get harmed by
the policy or will not equally benefit from it. Some stakeholder groups are notoriously
left out in such considerations, like ex-prisoners, disabled people, but also children,
elderly etc. This leads to the question of roomification. The public good is a well
roomificated society, with space for all categories of people to duly develop themselves
without harming others.
14. Does the policy in relation to other policies produce synergy? Some policies may look
superb on their own, but are entirely geared to that one problematic issue. First we
may ask how this individual policy will affect other policies.
15. Is the policy sufficiently embedded in a network of related policies that support one
another? This question of course follows from the previous one. Each policy can use
some energy from other related policies. Like scratching each other‟s back.
That‟s not all. Conclusions have to be drawn and recommendations to be made how the policy might
be adapted.
The conclusions and recommendations may of course be used by the policy actor to revise the original
draft.
For institutionalized criticism and dealing with the problem of shame and defense, see A, G. Broek, Dwarsliggers, schaamteloos
leiderschap, Haarlem 2013
Note: it is often useful to ask stakeholders/citizens or a small groups of experts ( with a challenging
role) to pose critical questions and challenge the effectiveness of the policy design.
Assignment
451
By far the easiest is that different policy groups make critical assessment of each other‟s work, using
the questions presented above. If CSO‟s are included, representatives of a CSO may assess a policy
designed by a governmental actor and vice versa.
452
G. Critical phase 6: Decision Process
Nota bene: logically speaking there are two moments of decision. The first decision is about the
basics of the policy. The policy as such, its main idea, its legal basis, its strategic choice. In practice this
is what the parliament should discuss and decide about. Once this is decided, the administration
designs an implementation plan. Only ex post the responsible minister will have to account for it in the
government. This paragraph deals the major policy decision. The question should then be asked, why
here? Why not at an earlier stage in the development process, prior to designing the implementation
plan? There is a specific reason to do so. Sometimes Parliament accepts a new law or an entire policy
idea, assuming the implementation is feasible and the side effects positive. When it comes to
elaboration and designing an implementation plan, it becomes apparent that the new policy is not
feasible at all. For that reason the decision process should indeed be a process, which can only be
completed if the implementation plan (and critical review) are completed.
The actors: Of course in the very first place the political executive or parliament of local council. But
behind them are different other actors who may prepare decision or influence the decision process,
like civil servants charged with policy development, or societal actors, lie CSO‟s, trade unions etc. Very
often there is a „sponsor‟ who will have a big say in the process.
DECISION
PROCESS
Description Nota bene Status
To keep in mind Present the policy in such a way that it
deals with possible questions and
objections of the politician that will decide
to go ahead or not
-
Step 1
Assignment From the beginning the assignment must
be clear. If during the process to develop
the policy as a result of thinking „to and
fro‟ some radical changes take place, do
check the assignment with the sponsor
and change the assignment if need be.
Do suggest developing an alternative
policy or policy instrumentation as well.
Executives and politicians like to have a
choice, and rightfully so.
A clear
assignment
is crucial
One off
453
Step 2
Strategy Be aware of different styles of decision
making (decision rush, spontaneity,
expediency, conformity, idealism,
phronesis)
Once you sense what type of decision style
is applicable, think of an adequate way of
eventually presenting the policy
By involving
the
executive in
the process,
the decision
style may be
(positively)
affected.
To and
fro
Step 3
Regular information During the process provide the sponsor
and politicians who take an interest with
regular information about the progress.
And invite them to give feedback.
If possible present an alternative policy as
well with its own scenario, so that the
executive can compare different
policies/scenario.
Ongoing
Step 4
Presentation Official presentation of the final draft of
the policy. (see the writing format below).
Maybe with an alternative policy.
Provide an easy to read policy paper, with
sufficient argumentation and
documentation. At the occasion of the
official presentation a summary power
point presentation is always appreciated.
One-off
Note: we may distinguish 3 types of decision
a. Routine decisions: like deciding about the annual carnival route or to issue a driving license
b. Complex decisions: like deciding to continue or terminate an oil refinery or whether to legalize the
selling and use of soft drugs
c. Crisis decisions: like deciding how to cope with the effects of a severe hurricane or a financial crisis
with banks about to collapse
In our course we deal more or less exclusively with complex decisions that often require a policy.
454
Q.G. 1. How does a rational procedure look like?
Usually rational decision is considered to be a purely cognitive process, based on pure thinking and
rational weighing of arguments, pro and con. This is impossible. There is no such thing as purely
rational thinking. The individual and collective brain cannot work without intentions (logic of finality),
emotions and morality (i.e. taking into account the presence of the other).
Having said that a rational decision model assumes that reason will take the lead and ask questions
regarding:
- Is the problem definition sensible? Does it have a broad social support base?
- Which are the possible (alternative) solutions, have these been assessed and is the one offered
a sensible one?
- Which are the consequences: financial, infrastructural, cultural etc, which are possible side
effects (with public policies mostly related to the political side effects)?
- Which are assumptions and are main assumptions justified?
- Should this policy suggestion have priority?
- Does it fit the „ideology‟ of the decision maker?
In order to prepare an executive decision, a proper policy paper has to be written.
Normally speaking at this stage the political executive, as the instigator who is kept informed from
phase to phase, will adopt the policy on rational grounds. Whether parliament will do so is of course
another matter. The question stated above need to be answered, anticipating a rational decision. If
developed in the way suggested here, these questions will naturally be responded to.
In case the instigator is a societal actor (a CSO for instance) it should be considered to find apolitical
sponsor from the start. And keep the sponsor informed about each step that is taken. It rarely is
successful to present a fully developed policy the political executive who was never informed before.
That is like talking to the wind. Open ears are ears that were properly prepared before.
One remark about assumptions that is very relevant for politicians:
For the political assumptions will include:
it fits the government agreement
it fits the political agenda and, at least, does not conflict with the public agenda
it is within the budgetary confines
it is manageable
it is in coherence with the assignment to develop this policy
455
However, once the policy is on paper and things get „fateful‟, i.e. a decision has to be taken and soon a
point of no return will have passed, often members of the executive get nervous. Especially when the
policy is important, expensive and perhaps controversial (especially important when elections are
close).
In turbulent situations decision making will not be that easy any more.
Very often the executive likes to make a choice between 2 or 3 alternatives. So at some stage in the
process it is useful to present an alternative policy. Alternatives need to be accompanied by a scenario:
what will happen of this policy is implemented. What will happen of the other policy is implemented.
Q.G.2. Styles of decision making
On to practice. How do executives usually take decisions? Do they tend to be rational? It seems to me
this is the ideal, but not the reality. We may discern 5 types. In order to get a policy accepted it is
useful to keep in mind the type of decision procedure that seems to be the executive‟s style or that is
relevant to the situation.
Urgency (Decision rush): a large part of public decision making is dictated by urgency. Some
executives complain that most of the time they are busy extinguishing big and small fires. The
executive may feel forced to decide without much reflection. With minor decisions they even do not
remember ever to have taken a decision, until they get confronted with the minutes of the meeting.
Some executives have a continuous feeling of urgency, or are living under the terror of urgency. Think
of the Obama administration facing a huge financial crisis in 2008. There was hardly a minute to
reflect on decisions that needed to be taken. Postponement often was no option.
Example: in 1997 when Bulgaria was facing massive unemployment due to the closing down of all
communist production facilities, I went to see the minister responsible for social assistance and
employment together with a Dutch consultant who presented a 700-job plan. A clever combination of
intake, testing, training and networking with still existing companies and investors. The minister was
so surprised, he adopted the plan instantaneously. Without studying details, risks? We asked. No time,
we are facing a situation of urgency, was his reply.
Spontaneity: „it suddenly occurred to me....‟. Authoritarian executives are notorious for taking
decisions spontaneously, especially when the policy seems to be of great symbolic importance. The
demolishing of a quarter of the old city of Bucharest in order to create an impressive new city with the
biggest en ugliest building of the world the „ casa poporului‟, the palace of the people, was taken by
authoritarian dictator Ceaucescu in a rush and the implementation started 2 weeks later! Decisions to
nationalize or, vice versa, to privatize are often taken in a rush. And so are decisions about
456
appointments of people, grants to CSO‟s, investment guarantees, cabinet reshuffles, etc. This is what
sometimes is cynically called the „spontaneity model‟. It is based on the assumption that all too often
decision makers act irrationally and are simply unwilling to think of consequences. Spontaneous
decisions may also come from a sudden conversation, experience, television program or a so-called
expert who is providing a piece of advice at a crucial moment.
Example
The life-course-scheme (levensloop regeling) of the second Balkenende cabinet in Netherlands for an
individual pension was clearly not the result of a process of deliberation and judgment. The negative
side effects were numerous.
(see B.de Vries, Overmoed en Onbehagen, Amsterdam 2005)
Expediency (seizing the day): political scientists have observed this behavior occurs rather frequently.
There is a policy plan that the executive wants to carry out, but because of its many implications they
hesitate to decide. Something happens and they use the opportunity to take the decision they had
wanted to take long before. Sometimes because they believe nobody (press) is noticing. Sometimes
because they believe the new circumstances will provide legitimacy. In times of economic crisis
austerity measures prepared long ago, will be taken.
A typical example is the locking of stable doors when horses bolt. Round 2005 nothing was done to
ease the fate of the huge number of displaced persons in Georgia, living in thick concentrations in
some hotel buildings. When miserable fighting occurred with some sad casualties as a result, the
government managed to get the funds to adopt a policy for reintegration.
Sometimes expediency works out well. In many European and American countries changes in public
opinion regarding the use of energy, prompted politicians to adopt policies to favor insulation of
houses and offices, of buying cars with engines that run efficiently and so on.
An ugly example is provided by the 9/11 events in the USA when Paul Wolfowitz and President Cheney
pressed for the invasion of Iraq, a plan they had prepared before and which was not really related to
the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers.
This style is commonly to be found in all sorts of opportunistic politicians. If the wind comes from the
south it is comfortable to travel northwards. Hanging the cloak to the wind will enable you to sing and
dance all weathers.
Conformism (Groupthink): Janis has identified eight indications of what he calls „ groupthink‟.
Individually the members of the executive hesitate. So they seek to reach consensus not on the basis of
rational arguments, but on the basis of fear. What indicates that fear is doing its work?
1. an illusion of invulnerability, excessive optimism and even sometimes a willingness to
take extreme risks
457
2. a belief in group morality
3. a tendency to discount information that does not fit and to filter information that does
not fit the policy
4. a tendency to see the other party as not to be trusted, or even as an enemy
5. a tendency to self-censorship and no inclination to listen to intuition
6. an overestimation of the group‟s consensus
7. a tendency to put pressure on members who hesitate to agree
8. failure to consider risks seriously
9. failure to consider alternative plans
10. failure to develop a contingency plan
In times of tension and turbulence, policy makers should not be surprised if a very well-designed
policy is discarded and replaced by a devastatingly bad policy.
The message is to keep the executive informed during each of the 7 stages of policy development
(see J.Stewart, D.M.Hedge. J.P.Lester, Public Policy, an evolutionary approach, Boston 2008)
Idealism: A style which is not very common in spite of the fact that many politicians profess to be
idealistic and „stay the idealistic course‟ by all means. Those who really do either go to extremes and
sow the seeds of dictatorship or lose the next elections by unforeseen margins.
Example.
In 2012 a new minister of education in Curacao decided to introduce free education for all pupils
within a period of 2 months. The new policy was not only controversial and ill-prepared, there were no
financial means either. So the minister of finance was forced to divert funds from elsewhere, with a
number of negative consequences. Interesting was the idealistic argumentation. From a social-
democratic point of view, so it was argued, all children should be able to follow good education. In
actual fact this was already cared for in Curacao. Children whose parents were unable to pay the
modest school fee and books, were entitled to get a grant anyway. As a result of the introduction of free
education, the rich no longer needed to pay school fees for their children. So in actual fact the new
policy increased inequality, which was against the social-democratic ideals of the minister and the
party of the minister.
Politicians with idealism run the risk of becoming fanatic and blind to the limitations of reality and the
needs and beliefs of people who do not share that idealism.
How should policy experts deal with idealists? Naturally they will point out that some idealist policies
may have undesirable side effects or even adverse effects. But unless they come up with an acceptable
alternative the political idealist is unlikely to be impressed
Growing insight (sometimes called decision by accretion): this way of decision making, so I suggest, is
the most rational way. Listening to different points of view, considering them, followed by opinion
458
formation, listening to again different viewpoint and so on. It is the normal process, which is akin to
„thinking to and fro‟. The problem is that many people expect decision maker to be firm and to „stay
the course‟once a standpoint is taken. However, I would consider that expectation short sighted.
Everybody should always be open to new information and new insights and be willing to incorporate
that into the argumentation.
So the advice from Aristotle is still relevant: Phronesis or situational wisdom: this Aristotelian term
should be introduced into our modern vocabularies. As stated already it is the art of assessing what is
wise, technically possible, culturally desirable and legal, taking into account the reality of the dynamics
of power. The art of governing requires the virtue of finding the middle road, which is always situated
between 2 or more vices. For instance between doing nothing or doing too much.
Phronesis includes idealism and realism, logic of finality and logic of causality, rhetoric and listening,
acceptance of powers that be and courage. Phronesis should be an important characteristic of our style
of decision making.
The similarity between Aristotle and Confucius, living a century earlier (551 – 479 before Christ) on
this point is striking. But more than Aristotle, Confucius emphasized the need to examine one own
motivation. A clarified and honest motivation is conditional to sound decision making! Confucius‟s
commentary on the I Tjing is a great resource book on „ phronesis‟. Incidentally it uses the term
„rectitude‟, meaning: the right sense of orientation, as well as restraint in situations that require
stillness and correct action in situation that requires intervention. But always based on careful
observation and listening.
Q.G.3. How about the matter of political acceptability?
H. Van de Graaf provides a useful framework that we will follow here.
See: H. Van de Graaf, transFORMA course hand outs, Bucharest, 2006.
The practical question is: Will the parliament or local council or executive accept the policy plan?
This is not the civil servants responsibility, but that of the politician, the sponsor in charge. However
the civil servant or the CSO may help the politician making an inventory of possible objections to the
policy plan. The following gives some guidelines on how to make such an inventory.
The inventory starts by reminding that there are four important elements in a policy plan.
There is a problem that has to be solved;
There are goals that, when achieved, provide a solution for the problem;
There are instruments in order to achieve the goals.
There will be costs and there will be benefits, but benefits should outweigh the costs
Given this, five types of objections can be thought of.
459
Opponents may accept both the problem definition and the policy goals, but reject (totally or in
part) the policy instruments. The general strategy in such a case should be to ask for
alternatives from these opponents. Given the analysis of the target group you made under
section 2, it will be relatively easy to say something on the consequences of these alternatives
for the effectiveness of the policy.
Opponents may accept the problem definition but reject the goals. What they think about the
policy instruments is for the moment irrelevant. This will urge you to repeat the Mega policy
choice stage discussed in the previous part of the course. What do additional goals or
alternative goals mean for the solution of the policy problem? How can they be arranged in a
logical and consistent goal tree?
Opponents may accept that a problematic situation exists, but they reject the problem definition.
This will urge you to repeat the Problem finding stage as discussed in the previous part of the
course. May be certain stakeholders that not get the attention they deserved, And what does
this mean for the problem definition.
Opponents may deny that there is a problematic situation. At this stage of the policy making
process this is none of your business as a civil servant. After all it was the politician who asked
you to write a policy paper. If it had been your opinion that no problematic situation existed,
you should have told the politician already during the Assignment formulation stage.
Opponents come to the conclusion that the benefits are insufficient to justify the implementation
Besides this typology of possible objections, what you can try to preview is the following:
- Who will be the parties in discussion both inside and outside the representative body (local
council)?
- Which elements of the policy plan are most likely to encounter opposition?
- Who will be the supporters of the policy plan, or at least of elements of the policy plan?
- Try to quantify opposition and support for the policy plan in terms of votes in the
representative body.
And finally make sure the policy does have political approval and has a sponsor to fully support the
implementation process.
At this point some „prognosis‟ on the part of the policy designer is useful, which includes rhetoric. The
policy should be presented in such a way that it takes into account possible objections, fears, denials
etc.
In other words it needs to be written out and presented wisely, so as to meet the questions and
objections of candidates of opposition.
460
Q.G.4. Writing format. How to present a policy plan?
Writing the policy paper is an important activity. Most policy papers are badly written. Some policy
departments have writers on their staff. Others will ask an external journalist or professional writer to
rewrite the paper as it was written by the team.
Here we present a simple writing format:
WRITING FORMAT Description
To keep in mind Most policy papers are impossible to read. It is advisable to ask
a professional writer or journalist to help in writing the
definitive text.
1.Management
Summary
Concise and easy to read summary, including the main budget
items. Keep in mind possible lack of information, questions,
controversies and objections. Some brief argumentation can be
useful.
Including a tree of policy elements.
2.Introduction Why it was felt that a policy was badly needed
Description of the development process and involvement of
stakeholders.
Do give a list of all stakeholders who were consulted and how
they were consulted.
3.Background Description of environment with figures, statistics, analysis,
quotations etc. This paragraph should clearly conclude why
there is a policy problem and that it needs to be tackled.
4.Problem formulation Short description of different problem perceptions by different
stakeholders and definitive problem formulation. Explain why
the definitive problem definition is acceptable by most
stakeholders.
5.Policy formulation and
objectives
Concise policy formulation with description of „ultimate
objective‟ and why it is coherent with main governmental
policies. Stakeholders should also consider the main objective
of great value.
6.Strategy Description of major strategies and the sub-goals. Explanation
why this particular strategy has been chosen.
Comparisons can be made with similar situations in other
countries and policies that managed to deal with the issues.
Some comparative policy analysis can be very useful.
Followed by a „ tree of objectives‟, with main policy elements.
7.Instrumentation Choice of instrumentation explained. Including
461
methodological considerations.
It is useful to mention policy research to justify the choice of
instrumentation.
8.Assumptions Paragraph on assumptions, side effects (positive and negative)
and mitigating measures to reduce risk. Including support
policies
9.Logframe Elaborated logframe
10.Implementation Organizational structure, HR picture and chart.
Monitoring process
Evaluation scheme (and types of evaluation needed)
Calendar.
11.Budget Detailed budget for all 4 phases
Plus a brief cost-benefit estimation.
12.Final word Conclusion and words of thanks etc
Addenda Terms of Reference
List of stakeholders consulted
Literature
Relevant documents: legal information etc
Etc
See: Young, E. and Quinn, L. Writing effective Policy Papers, Budapest, 2002
Note: regarding the decision process naturally communication with the executive is needed.
Note: it is often useful to motivate and mobilize stakeholders/citizens or a small groups of experts to
back the policy proposal.
Assignment
Draft an action plan how to inform the executive or the parliament or local council about the policy
proposal. What texts (full text or summary) or power point presentations or leaflets are useful. And
also decide who should propose and who should back the proposal.
A next assignment might be to actually present a proposal.
462
H. Critical phase 8: Implementation and monitoring
Nota bene: a full-fledged policy plan that includes an implementation plan still needs to be reviewed
with implementation in view, by the agency that is responsible for implementation. Once it comes to
the point of taking practical and „fateful‟ steps, everything looks different. It is like a carpenter who has
an idea in mind what cupboard he will make. He has made a nice design and imagines how to go
about. But once the saw is in his hand to cut the wood, things start being different. He realizes that
certain parts of the plan he has in mind might not work well. Maybe he should start elsewhere, or cut
the wood differently. And while working he may even change his design a bit. This is also the case
with policies in implementation. By the way, this is not just true for policies, but also for programs and
projects.
The actors? Usually the actor is the (local) government or some civil servants on their behalf. But in
the case of public-private partnerships or public policy partnerships, societal partners like companies
or CSO‟s or other agencies might be in charge of implementation, or in charge of part of the
implementation. Here contracts will be needed.
IMPLEMENTATION
MONITORING
Description Nota bene Status
To keep in mind -
Step 1
General review of the
policy itself
Now we can list some basic
conditions:
Once the policy is
accepted the executive
department should
assume complete
ownership. It is going to
be their policy. Members
of the department should
spend ample time to
study all the ins and outs
of it. To include a
representative of the
policy department,
involved in designing the
policy, can be very useful.
For this person may
Often the team that
developed the
policy (design
team) is a different
one than the team
responsible for
implementation.
However the design
team and
implementation
team usually work
closely together
during the first
(preparatory) phase
of implementation
as a way of
transition
One-off
463
answer lots of questions.
They should also find out
whether this particular
policy is in harmony with
other policies that are
being carried out. If there
is any conflict, the new
policy should someway be
accommodated.
They should go through
the plan step by step and
find out what is needed
and who is needed to take
these steps and, generally
speaking, have a very
critical look at the
implementation plan,
including its calendar and
critical path.
They should provide an
adapted implementation
plan which they believe
will be feasible. This
revised plan should first
be discussed with the
original policy
development department.
For it might be that there
are some
misunderstandings. The
new plan will probably
include some tactical
measures. That is why
this is sometimes called
the „tactical policy‟: the
tactics of implementation.
Make sure there is a
system to monitor
activities (see below)
Make sure there is a
system to receive
464
feedback, to reflect on
feed back and to adapt the
implementation is that is
needed
Step 2
Preparation of
implementation
Next they should have a
critical look at the
organizational structure:
is it adequate? Is their
sufficient
capacity/expertise to
carry out all activities in
due time? Team may hire
members from other
teams and other
ministries to get the
needed support
Is the logistical structure
adequate?
Do all (external)
stakeholders know their
responsibilities? Are they
able to assume these
responsibilities? Are they
will to sign a partnership
contract? If not, what
measures should be
taken? Discuss and sign
contracts with
partners(stakeholders)
who will contribute in the
implementation.
Next step: decide what
information and
communication policies
are needed to which
target groups (incl
stakeholders)
Launch the start
We often see
the executive
department will
make an
adapted
implementation
plan which they
believe will be
feasible. In my
viewpoint this
is perfectly OK
One-off
Step 3
465
Monitoring Time schedule
Actors and/or their
responsibilities
Input
Communication
Method
Output
Feedback, learning and
adaptation
In fact monitoring
is about feedback
and using feedback
seriously and
creatively.
Ongoing
Q.H.1. What advice can you offer regarding realization?
The policy department (or a societal actor like a CSO) developed the policy. (In the future this will
hopefully be done by the Policy Chamber in the Policy House in the future). The executive department
will have to implement. Sometimes implementation is (partially) sourced out to a company or CSO. A
successful implementation is not just a matter of a workable policy and a practical implementation
plan, it is also conditioned by cooperation with the executive department.
It needs to be crystal clear which executive department and/or team within that department is charged
with the realization of the policy. Or whether the realization will be outsourced or, as we have
suggested here, to be a joint responsibility of a „public policy partnership‟ between a governmental
agency and one or more external agencies or CSO‟s. Often a particular agency or company will be
charged with information to the public (and, perhaps, vice versa)
Often policies are complex and involve many different actors within and outside the government. In all
cases it is very advisable to appoint a particular team to carry the coordinating as well as the final
responsibility.
To include a representative of the policy department, involved in designing the policy, can be very
useful. For this person may answer lots of questions.
Basically there are 4 crucial questions the team has to ask:
What needs to be achieved?
> When should it be achieved?
> What needs to be done to achieve this?
> Who will do this?
> Is the actor capable of doing it?
466
Please note again the basic difference between policies as a plan that can be realized and terminated at
a particular moment (often to get a particular institutional arrangement established) and
policies as an ongoing process, either to provide structured services or to gradually improve conditions
in the area of economy, culture etc
So the question „what needs to be achieved‟ can apply to the realization of a particular plan, or to get a
process going.
Now we can list some basic conditions:
The executive department should in all phases be included in the policy development, in an
advisory role. This particularly applies to public policy partnerships. In case of a new law the
legislative lawyers, in charge of designing the new law, should also consult with executive
departments to see to it that there will be no unforeseen practical snags. This is very unusual,
but nevertheless recommendable.
Once the policy is accepted the executive department should assume complete ownership. It is
going to be their policy. Members of the department should spend ample time to study all the
ins and outs of it. Or it should be a joined ownership with external agencies or CSO‟s. And
talking about ownership it might be good to draw attention to the original meaning of the
word, namely „owership‟: so the owner owes something to the public.
The responsible department in the government should also find out whether this particular
policy is in harmony with other policies that are being carried out. If there is any conflict, the
new policy should someway be accommodated. In some countries a policy coordinating body
is charged with this specific responsibility. Many policies are meant to help implement a new
law. The new law was approved by the parliament and cannot be changed anymore. In such
cases policies might be needed not just to implement the new law, but also to provide support
to stakeholders who suffer from it.
The implementing agency should go through the plan step by step and find out what is needed
and who is needed to take these steps and, generally speaking, have a very critical look at the
implementation plan, including its calendar and critical path.
The implementing agency should provide an adapted implementation plan which they believe
will be feasible. This revised plan should first be discussed with the original policy
development department. For it might be that there are some misunderstandings. The new
plan will probably include some tactical measures. That is why this is sometimes called the
„tactical policy‟: the tactics of implementation.
467
The implementing agency should have a critical look at the organizational structure: is it
adequate? Is their sufficient capacity/expertise to carry out all activities in due time? Team
may hire members from other teams and other ministries to get the needed support
We often see the executive department will make an adapted implementation plan which they
believe will be feasible. In my viewpoint this is perfectly all right as long as the policy is carried
out solely by the government. However, in the case of public policy partnerships discussion
with partners is needed. This seems self-evident, but in practice it does not appear to be so.
Do all (external) stakeholders know their responsibilities? Are they able to assume these
responsibilities? Are they will to sign a partnership contract? If not, what measures should be
taken?
Make sure there is a system to monitor activities (see below)
Make sure there is a system to receive feedback, to reflect on feed back and to adapt the
implementation is that is needed. This might be organized as part of the (two-way)
communication plan.
Next they should have a critical look at the organizational structure: is it adequate? Is their
sufficient capacity/expertise to carry out all activities in due time? Team may hire members
from other teams and other ministries to get the needed support
Is the logistical structure adequate? Including financial arrangements and authorization to
sign and report.
Do all (external) stakeholders know their responsibilities? Are they able to assume these
responsibilities? Are they will to sign a partnership contract? If not, what measures should be
taken? Discuss and sign contracts with partners(stakeholders) who will contribute in the
implementation.
Next step: decide what information and communication policies are needed to which target
groups (incl. stakeholders). Communication of any policy, even if it just is a law or an
institutional arrangement, is crucial. The original policy plan may include a communication
plan, but not necessarily. In any case implementation without proper communication is not a
good idea. The communication plan should also be a strategic communication plan, geared to
specific stakeholders at specific moments. And, preferably should be a two-way
communication plan rather than a one-way information plan.
Launch the start
468
Q.H.2. Is the actor capable of doing it?
Sometimes I believe all hinges on this particular question. Laws and policy designs can be close to
perfect, the developing process a joy to all stakeholders who marvelously cooperated, the
implementation plan ingeniously drafted and yet….the results leave so much to wish. Why? Let me
explain.
During this phase in the policy development process we get to the point that we cannot escape an issue
that at first sight seem so awfully simple, but at second sight appear awesome: „will we be able to get
the policy implemented (or law enforced)?‟
We already paid attention to both. But now, during this phase we have got to become serious. That is
why I raise the matter again. Just as every expert in charge of policy development should do once this
stage has been reached. We can see it is the final opportunity to think to and fro.
Above (Q.E.2.4.) we paid ample attention to the question: who may do what? There are policy areas
where outsourcing is just not done. ( areas dealing with financial income, civil affairs, security and
legislation).In other areas cooperation with external partners might be desirable, provided the
fulfillment of a number of conditions, like assurance of quality and the monitoring of performance and
output.
In any case the government should not become dependent on an external agent, whether a private
company or CSO. The parliament is responsible for policy implementation and contracts could be of a
kind that parliament just has to swallow. From a democratic point of view this is undesirable.
A solution often is to work with government owned and controlled companies and foundations.
Especially is particular quality is needed. But this solution is surely not the same as cooperating with
society.
Q.H.3. How can policies be monitored?
What needs to be monitored? Basically 2 aspects:
Process:
The carrying out of activities, taking into account the responsible actors
The timing of the activities (if applicable both start and finish)
The input of means to carry out the activities (including financial and organizational means)
The effectiveness of communication/information to actors and target group
Whether carrying out of the activities went smoothly or whether obstacles appeared
If there were problems/obstacles: what action was taken to overcome the obstacles
What action was taken to mitigate negative side effects
Impact:
The results of the activities, according to the indicators, applicable in different spheres in
society
469
How the policy is effecting the target group (impact )
Possible side-effects: sparking of response patterns, positive and negative, in different spheres
Whether the action taken to mitigate negative side effects, resulted in more positive effects.
Please note: There are several computer programs to set up a monitoring system.
Monitoring should be carried out on the basis of indicators that were identified beforehand.
On the basis of the monitoring report, an official progress report should be written by the executive
department. The progress report will contain a summing up of the monitoring report and will look
ahead.
In looking ahead the question is whether there is any need for adapting the:
- Time schedule
- Actors and/or their responsibilities
- Input
- Communication
- Method
- Output
- Feedback, learning and adaptation
Please note: In fact monitoring is about feedback and using feedback seriously and creatively to adapt
timely and to improve the implementation plan and maybe even the policy.
Note on reporting:
Most people don‟t like reporting, usually because they consider it a waste of precious time. However a
good reporting format will force us to ask critical (evaluative) questions and to plan a next reporting
period wisely. It will also force us to face neglect, problem, lack of commitment and all the rest that is
jeopardizing the effective realization of the policy.
The reporting format may look as follows:
470
Reportin
g period
Planned
activities
Realized
activities
Planned goals
and milestones
(as stated in
previous report)
Realized
goals and
milestones
Problem
s that
emerge
How we
dealt with
the
problems
Goals to
realize in next
reporting
period
Which activities
need to be carried
out to realize the
planned goals in
next reporting
period. Which
additional
input/support is
needed
This brings us to a final issue: the capacity of the implementing agent (whether a governmental
institution or an external partner) to receive feedback, reflect on feedback and take adequate and
timely measures. This issue we also discussed above (Q.E.2.3.)
There are 3 steps to be taken:
An excellent selection procedure, making sure the partner has sufficient critical capacity and is
prepared to make use of that capacity.In any case the issue has to be discussed with the
potential partner, whether internal or external
A proper monitoring system and, in combination with process evaluation, with in-built turn-
around moments. The decision to turn around should be made together with stakeholders and
responsible governmental executive. Turn-around moments take place in sessions with all
stakeholders discussing the progress made. If there are clear indications the policy is not going
to yield the expected results, measures have to be taken.
Contract: in the contract the obligation to make use of turn-around moments and to reporton
the outcome of the discussions should be stipulated . Both for internal and for external
partners contracts are needed.
Note: monitoring means reporting and the question is: report to whom? Probably an executive person
or agency.
Note: it is often useful to ask stakeholders/citizens or a small groups of experts to monitor particular
aspects of the policy.
Assignment
471
This particular paragraph contains some very concrete proposal to monitor. Use these schemes and
focus in particular on indicators. And try to find an answer to the question how to verify these
indicators. Some might be concrete and measurable. Others are more of a qualitative kind. How to
verify?
472
I. Critical phase 9: Evaluation, appreciation and adaptation
Nota bene: there are many different types of evaluation, to be carried during different phases of
policy implementation. Without proper evaluation there will be little or no learning. Adaptation of a
policy should be based on proper evaluation, followed by reflection and learning. Appreciation is
evaluation with values in mind.
The actors? It is often taken for granted that evaluation should be carried out by a neutral, external
actor. Below we shall see this is not necessarily the case. Evaluation might be carried out by the
implementing actors, or by external actors, charged with a particular assignment and paid for it.
Evaluation might also be carried out by any other societal actor (like CSO‟s)on their own initiative.
This also applies to appreciation.
EVALUATION Description Nota bene Status
To keep in mind Evaluation is fashionable. Too often
nobody is clear about the type of
evaluation that is needed during a
particular phase in the policy
implementation. Clarity as to the type of
evaluation is not unimportant.
-
Step 1
Type of evaluation What needs to be evaluated:
The way the process is going or
not going (well)
The methodology that is being
used?
The policy environment in
relation to policies; and vice versa:
The impact of the policy, positive
and negative.
The policy in relation to particular
values: appreciation
For ex-ante
evaluation,
see
paragraph
on critical
review.
One-off
Step 2
Who will carry out
the evaluation?
Should the evaluation be carried out by an
external agency/consultant;
Or can it be carried out by experts inside
To some
extent all
evaluations
One-off
473
the organization?
Next: write a Terms of Reference.
For a clear formulation of the assignment,
you can make use of some of the questions
as given in the paragraph „critical review‟.
are
dependent
on
information
and insight
from
insiders and
are thus of
an internal
character
Step 3
Timing What is the right time of the evaluation?
This depends on the following questions:
Do we want to adapt the policy
implementation (process
evaluation). Start evaluating at an
early stage before it is too late.
Do we want to know whether the
design/methodology is adequate?
Evaluate timely, in order to adapt.
Do we want to get insight into its
effects/impact (wait till the
impact can be measured)
To and
fro
Step 4
Working with results Is the executive going to work with the
results? Adapting the policy? Terminating
the policy? Replacing this policy for a
better one?
Or is the evaluation study just going to be
filed?
Starting the
policy cycle
again.
Ongoing
Q.I.1. Five remarks at the start
There is a wealth of academic literature on evaluation. It is a hobby horse of policy experts, consultants
and policy researchers. Lots of different evaluation methods exist. Still I believe some basic questions
are not yet clear or not yet answerable. Maybe that is why still so many write on evaluation.
474
1. Little academic insight in the value of evaluations
Policies flourish. All governments invest in professional policy development. Evaluations flourish
even more. Most policies are evaluated 2 or 3 times or even more. Most evaluations are carried out
by consultants.
But whereas political scientists have made great efforts to study the process of policy development
and have substantially contributed to the improvement of the process, a relatively small number of
academic studies have been carried out to study the evaluation process or to compare different
methods of evaluation.
So in actual fact there is still little academic insight in the evaluation process and thousands of
consultants experiment with thousands of models, often propagated as uniquely innovative and
meaningful. However, most if not all of the consultant‟s active in this field, have never been subject
to an academic evaluation themselves.
2. External or internal evaluation?
Evaluations are supposed to be carried out by an external agent. This is certainly true for a donor
who wants to know whether the money was spent correctly and whether the sponsored policy or
program has yielded the expected results. However, external evaluations are much more limited
than is assumed. Internal evaluations, if carried out correctly by the people who are themselves
responsible for the policy or program tend to be of great value, though they might be deliberative
biased. It might be in the interest of the actors to present a rosy picture of the policy-in-practice.
That is of course not so helpful. Still, why are most external evaluations of little value?
First of all an external evaluator often has difficulty in understanding the environment in which
the policy that has to be evaluated was carried out. The external agent is dependent on information
from others, notably insiders. Few consultants will either have the capacity or the financial means
to gather information in a really balanced way. In practice they often receive information from a
limited number of informants. A significant part of their understanding of the policy comes from
these informants. They put their words into their mouths, so to speak. But the external agent acts
as the owner of the judgment of the policy
Secondly, precisely because an external assessment is owned by the external agent and not by the
team that is responsible for the policy implementation, the learning effect is limited. That is
exactly what we see. The team, responsible for the policy-in-practice does not fully agree with the
assessment and tends to look at conclusions and recommendations critically.
This is very different with an internal evaluation. The judgment is owned by the team responsible
and is naturally considered to be a learning opportunity.
Can internal evaluations be objective? Not if strict academic standards have to be applied. But the
average external evaluation agent does not use academic, i.e. neutral standards either! Both will be
naturally be biased. There are some good internal evaluation methods. If these methods are
followed strictly, the result is useful. Probably the best solution is a combination. The external
agent will be in charge of the coordination of the internal evaluation. The external evaluator should
see to it that all „internal voices‟ be heard and assessed. At the end the external agent may
comment on the conclusions and recommendations.
475
3. Problems of method: as to assessment of effects
How can we be sure a particular policy is indeed the „cause‟ of the (intended) effects that can be
seen and measured? How do we know this was realized by this particular policy and not by other
policies or trends?
First it can be stated that results of cluster policies are almost impossible to evaluate. For it is a
characteristic per definition that cluster policies consist of a number of (sub)policies geared to
more or less the same objective. How can it ever be established that a particular sub-policy is the
winner?
With other policies evaluators should somehow try to work with control groups. A group exposed
to the policy and a group not exposed. A baseline study should function as a point of reference for
the study afterwards. If the difference is significant it might be concluded that the policy was
effective.
It might....but other factors should not be neglected:
a. The result of the deliberation process might be a new awareness on the side of
stakeholders and target groups and a spontaneous response pattern that is the cause
of the policy success. So rather than the policy it is the policy deliberation that changes
behavior patterns. Put differently, policy deliberation itself can be a powerful force.
b. Good policies may have limited effectiveness because of poor implementation and not
sufficiently committed staff or stakeholder problems. Or vice versa. In other words,
people are crucial success factors.
c. Assumptions that proved to be unjustified or proved to be more powerful than
expected: trends, related policies etc
d. Time: patterns are enfolding and unfolding as policies are being implemented. I
argued for the need of policy imagination. In other words for the need to envisage how
a policy might affect society in the long run, what response policies might be aroused,
positive or negative
To find out which of all these factor actually did the work or were the cause of obstruction is what
evaluation studies have to find out.
4. Formative versus Summative? Short Cycle versus Long Cycle
It is to be recommended to carry out a so-called „formative‟ evaluation long before the program or
policy is terminated. Because formative evaluation may include some useful recommendations
that can be applied if the policy is still being carried out. Not so if it has already come to an end, as
„summative‟ evaluations do. They make up a net-balance of the outcome of a policy. Lots of
extensive „summative‟ evaluation reports are final reports with no impact on the policy that was
evaluated and with very little impact on future policies.
Formative evaluations provide feedback that can be the source of learning and adapting the policy
before it gets derailed. We may call this: short-cycle evaluation.
476
Summative evaluations also provide feedback, but only after a long time. This we may call: long-
cycle evaluation.
Both cycles are useful for any policy.
5. Patterns and evaluation: methodology
From our pattern point of view it has already been pointed out that any discussion on effectiveness of a
policy strongly depends on the impact a policy has on relevant patterns. That is why evaluation
research should take relevant patterns into account and study how specific policy measures or how the
selected policy instruments influence one or more patterns in the short run and in the long run. It is
only from a pattern point of view that insight can be gained as to the impact of possible response
patterns, positive and negative. The evaluator may specifically focus on the way policies influence
pattern dynamics (see MAGIC: Q.A.2.8.) leading to pattern adaptation, or further unfoldment, or on
the contrary to pattern change and enfoldment.
Q.I 2. Which are the 5 basic types of evaluation?
Apart from the difference between formative and summative, we may distinguish between the
following types of evaluation:
a. Process evaluation: focuses on all aspects of the policy implementation process. It basically
asks questions on the following issues:
Was the implementation carried out according to the original plan? If not, why was it
done differently? A whole range of questions is connected: was there timely and
sufficient input, was the monitoring system followed etc. So in actual fact it is not just
asking whether everything was carried out according to the implementation plan, but
ii is also offering an assessment of the implementation plan./
Which unexpected problems occurred during the implementation, were the
responsible people aware and what action was taken to solve these problems? Was the
action adequate?
Was the commitment of actors involved in the implementation sufficient? Actors like
the sponsor, the responsible civil servants, stakeholders and agencies responsible for
parts of the implementation.
Was an optimal use made of synergism with other policies? If not, what could be done
to improve synergism.
Were costs well calculated? If not what is the reason the budget was insufficient?
Please note that process evaluations are particularly useful during the process. As a formative
evaluation. For the process can then be improved. Process evaluation results might be discussed
during turn-around sessions, organized by the implementing partner, possibly resulting in a revised
implementation plan.
477
b. Facilitation evaluation: in retrospect, were the methods, used to develop and implement
appropriate, adequate and effective? Did they effectively facilitate and do their work as a
catalyst? Naturally facilitation evaluation will focus on methods, technique, as well as on
methodology behind the use of methods and techniques. Facilitation evaluation may refer to:
The deliberation method that was followed
The policy design method, with special attention to :
i. Environmental mapping, agenda analysis and problem finding
ii. Response patterns: were they sufficiently taken into account?
iii. The way scenario‟s were developed
iv. The way alternatives were developed
The methods of instrumentation: the mix of instruments as well as the specific
instruments applied, with special attention to creating a social support basis
The method of implementation:
i. with internal and/or external actors each with their own responsibilities;
coordination and co-operation methods
ii. method of monitoring, reporting and using feed back
c. Evaluation of the policy environment: meanwhile we understand that policies do not
operate in a vacuum.We have emphasized again and again that society is not only responsive
to policies, but is also a platform of numerous actors who carry out their own (often implicit)
common policies, who desire to cooperate, ignore or obstruct. Evaluation is not identical to
analysis of the environment, but on the basis of analysis we may estimate and evaluate the
relative friendliness of the environment regarding the policy. Here we do not just focus on
policy actors, (stakeholders who play a role in policy implementation), but on actors and
patterns in general. Evaluation of the policy environment will pay attention to:
The existence of common policies and whether they will support or obstruct the
policy-in-intention (should have been considered during the „critical review‟ or even
before starting to consider the policy-in-intention) or the policy-in practice. During
the implementation process all sorts of hidden common policies may come to life, that
were not really visible beforehand
The attitudes and intentions of all sorts of actors who have some dealings with the
policy-in-intention or policy-in-practice
Trends in different spheres, whether these be of a cultural, social-structural, religious
or economic-financial kind, or a combination of several.
d. Impact evaluation: the fourth remark on „problems of method‟ is applicable here. It is
carried out long after the introduction of the policy or after completing it. Once we have a clear
vision of the policy environment we can start evaluation the impact of the policy. This
sequence is better than the other way round. However, in policy evaluation the 2 often go
together. I believe it is to be preferred to separate the two. Jumping to impact evaluation
478
straight away, may either lead to a much too positive judgment of the policy (ignoring the
existing policies that support the policy), or too negative a judgment due to the fact that
existing resistance is insufficiently considered. With impact evaluation the different spheres
should be taken into account. It does not suffice to say that a financial-economic policy should
be considered solely in the context of the market sphere. Naturally it will have an impact on
other spheres. Impact evaluation may focus on:
Impact on stakeholders and target group: with specific attention to patterns that they
adhere to. The policy may adapt a pattern, strengthen it, make it obsolete, replace it or
undermine it. All with many different outcomes.
Impact on policy environment in general (based on the results of the analysis and/or
evaluation of the environment)
Impact on related policies and policy domains , possibly in other spheres.
Impact on trends of different kind, as manifest themselves in different spheres
Impact on main actor and their interests (sponsor, government)
Please note that on the basis of the different evaluation results, the other results may have to be
reconsidered. This is easy to see. For imagine that an evaluation of the policy environment shows that
a number of unforeseen common policies were at loggerheads with the main policy goal or method.
And imagine the results of the process evaluation and facilitation evaluation were very negative. In
view of the hostile policy environment is becomes very understandable that the method was
inadequate and the process ineffective. In other words: evaluation is an activity on different levels that
interact with one another.
And note also that on the basis of these findings a general cost-benefit evaluation may be carried out.
e. Appreciation: finally the question can be asked whether the policy is in harmony with core
values of the executive and/or the target group. Sometimes the evaluator is free to express his
own opinion about the policy referring to universal values.
Evaluations deal with policies as courses of action and their effects. That is (more or less) the
realm of the rational and technical: the effects of facilitation. But all policies spring from
deeper sources, from values, convictions, interests, anxieties, feelings of resentment or a
genuine concern with righteousness and inclusiveness. In other words: patterns. That is why
appreciation is important too. Policies may also be viewed in the perspective of power and
interest, ignorance and short sightedness, values and worldview, inclusiveness and
exclusiveness. That is what appreciation is meant to be. Appreciation views the policy as a
partner in dialogue with the moral order. It studies the impact it has on the physical, social
and cultural environment.
In general appreciation (or appreciation type of evaluations) focuses on:
Cultural values of value hierarchies: is the policy in harmony with the existing hierarchy or
creating tensions
479
Religious values: some policies my upset the religious convictions of a part of the
population, like some gender policies
Economic priorities: growth in general or growth of a particular sector of the economy
Distributional equity and income distribution: how does the policy affect the distributional
pattern? Does it increase or decrease inequality and distributional equity? Factors that
might be at stake include location, ethnicity, income categories, gender and occupation.
Ecological impact: naturally this includes biodiversity, water quality, air quality, habitat
quality etc.
Infrastructural effectiveness: some policies may have an adverse effect on infrastructural
arrangements
Appreciation allows the appreciator to apply his own world view or moral order to assess a policy. At
the same time the question is of course raised if not somewhere and somehow a standard value or
norm can be found that is convincing and agreeable to al large majority of people. My personal answer
comes close to the idea of a „moral order‟ . Robert Pirsig is trying to put in words what he as an
amateur technician is experiencing when he practices engine maintenance. He notices that his desire is
to achieve a measure of „quality‟. We all do if we are in a serious mood. What is quality? When do we
know we have achieved it? Is it a characteristic of the product of our hands? Yes, but that is half the
story. There is also the quality of the work in process. It is concerning this relationship between man
and the surrounding world or objects he is working on and working with, that Pirsig has something
original to contribute. Or he notices that the quality of our work depends on the relationship we have
with the environment, whether we manage to focus on it and be entirely attentive to the way it
responds to our work. Suddenly he realizes that this relationship of acting and responding is the
crucial thing. If this relationship functions well, something new is being created. A syntropic process
takes place. His conclusion: „The Quality which creates the world emerges as a relationship between
man and his experience. He is the participant in the creation of all things‟. The term Quality points to
the moral order. Or rather is a way to name the moral order. If we focus on policies, we should ask the
question: how is this policy related to the environment. If all policies somehow interfere in the lives of
people (whether target group or non-target groups does not matter here, the question is justified if the
interference is beneficial in the short run, the long run for all people involved. What is the policy
doing? Does it have a syntropic value? Does it have the potential of quality? Talking about the moral
order is talking about the question whether a policy in a particular policy environment has a creative
and constructive impact or a destructive impact. The moral order is about creation and development.
Immorality is destructive.
See: Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, 1974, p369 ff; and Erich Fromm, The Anatomy of Human
Destructiveness, New York, 1973
480
Q.I.3. What type of evaluation methods are appropriate in wich situations?
It is trendy to make ample use of statistics and quantitative methods. However, the usefulness of
quantification should be put in perspective. Above we already discussed „the „poverty of empiricism‟
and the „vanity of evidence‟. (Q.B.1.5.) Please consider also the each policy is working or not working,
dependent on the interpretations of the policy by (groups) of actors and target group. Let me start with
an example:
Personal experience 1: foundation education in the Caribbean („funderend onderwijs‟)
Together with a colleague Carla G. we were supposed to evaluate a new educational policy for the
Netherlands Antilles, to be introduced and implemented on 6 Caribbean islands. Late 20th century.
The idea was to radically restructure basic education, making it more child-centrered, stimulating
equal chances for development. In actual fact we were supposed to evaluate the process of introducing
the educational policy on the different islands. It was still in its beginning phase. Was it going
according to plan and was it going well? Very quickly we discovered the policy environments on the 6
islands were very different. Different languages, different school systems, different common policies to
deal with current (youth and family) problems, different attitudes to the central government, different
local policies, different executive capacities of the local commissioners charged with education,
different capacities of teachers and directors and so on. We noticed the policy environment was hardly
taken into account by the policy designers. We also noticed that attitudes towards the agency, located
in Curacao, that was charged with the introduction of the policy was very different.
We were supposed to base our evaluative conclusions on empirically verifiable facts. Well, the facts
were quite clear and not so promising. Most of the planned milestones were not reached at all. To
establish this fact was a matter of counting. And different figures could be combined, compared,
interrelated and so on. A rather gloomy picture emerged. Much more interesting though was the
question „why‟! Yes, why? Partly because of poor planning by the central organizing agency, partly
because of poor results by supporting agencies (for instance the development of educational materials
was lagging behind, adequate legislation was missing), partly because of poor training results, partly
because of poor communication and poor instructions and, last but not least, partly because of poor
understanding of the policy by teachers and school directors. So we discovered.
This last factor was surprising. We discovered that quite a few teachers and directors had their own,
biased interpretation of the new policy. As we were asking questions to find out what they understood
and what not, we noticed something else. As they were trying to answer our questions, they started to
think about the essence of „foundation education‟. Attempting to answer the question, they were
discovering what the essence in fact was. On the spot, during the interview. In other words, the
evaluating questions stimulated thinking and reflection and in quite a few cases the respondents got
more insights and understood the meaning of the policy much better after the evaluation than before.
So what were we measuring? During the interviews some teachers and directors started to realize the
481
trainings were insufficient. This too came as a surprise, especially to the organizers of the trainings, for
they had handed out questionnaires after the training and the results were positive. We however
discovered most of the trainings were simply inadequate. Surely because the teachers who followed the
trainings discovered they were still unable to put things into practice once they were back I the
classroom.
And the impact? Poor again. Pupils and parents complained about confusions and bad education
results. This was not surprising given the facts about poor organization, poor training, poor
communication and poor other matters. However on one of the islands things went much better. Why?
Because the schools and teachers had decided to look for creative solutions themselves. For instance
writing their own teaching materials, organizing their own discussion sessions about the policy, as well
as organizing regular sessions with parents. And also, the local education commissioner was of the
opinion that it was in het advantage to make it a success. So she supported the process wholeheartedly.
In other words, a different policy environment made all the difference. A questionnaire handed out to
pupils showed, not surprisingly, the parents and pupils from that particular island were significantly
more positive than parents and pupils from other islands.
By the end Carla and myself wondered who was doing the evaluation? We or they? The answer was
clear: we had acted of facilitators of evaluation. The respondents, in other words the actors, did the
evaluation themselves. On the basis of the questions that we posed. They also suggested lots of ideas to
improve the process of introducing the new educational policy. That is why we finally concluded that
we were conducting a type of „participatory evaluation‟, i.e. the actors themselves were evaluating the
process they were engaged in. The facilitators‟ role is to start the evaluation as a process and to ask the
right questions in order to stimulate reflection and evaluation, hopefully leading to insight.
After carrying out many different evaluations in many different countries, I have come to a number of
conclusions regarding methodology and methods:
Quantitative methods (surveys with standardized questions) are very useful as a basis for
impact evaluations, as well as process and facilitation evaluations in case of large numbers.
Naturally such methods should make ample use of indicators which have been identified at
the start. Sometimes the formulated indicators lack validity or are insufficiently verifiable. In
such situations, new indicators have to be identified and agreed upon by the different
stakeholders. According to my own experience this is quite often the case and it can be the
cause of an unpleasant dispute with the policy actor who has entrusted the assignment to the
evaluator.
Using comparable control groups to find out whether the implementation of the policy makes
a difference, is very useful for impact evaluations. But such control groups are very difficult to
find. We discussed this matter above. (Q.I.1)
Qualitative methods (like personal in-depth interviews, focus groups and desk studies) are
almost always needed to complement the qualitative data. For such data need to be
interpreted and by the actors themselves. In depth interviews and focus group interviews
482
almost always lead to unexpected insights about reasons why the policy is successful or not. To
carry out a facilitation evaluation they are indispensable.
The actual evaluation of the policy is almost always based on information, insights and
suggestions that come from actors who were interviewed. That is why evaluation studies by
nature are participatory. This does not means the external and relatively independent
evaluator should not have any say in the conclusions to be drawn. He most likely does see
things that actors do not see. It can be compared to the „Johari window‟. The policy actor
(„owner‟) may see this, other stakeholders may see that, the external observer or evaluator may
be in the position to see something the other do not see and no doubt there are aspects to the
(impact of or process or method of) the policy that nobody is aware of
Personal experience 2.
Long ago I was involved in the evaluation of a UNDP program to combat poverty on some of the
Caribbean islands. I was hired as a junior assistant. As a team we prepared a number of questionnaires
to carry out a survey. The idea was to produce „evidence based insight‟. At a certain moment a Belgian
consultant arrived who also was supposed to be part of the team. He appeared very skeptical about our
work. I vividly remember him saying: „we better go around and just ask all stakeholders some simple
questions. For sure they provide us quickly with the answers we are now trying to find via a
complicated and tiresome route‟. The team leader disagreed. We proceeded the way we had planned.
The Belgian expert was shaking his head. The result was a tiresome process with very little insight as a
result. By the end we decided to have a sort of brainstorm session to see whether we might formulate
some additional conclusions. It soon became apparent we all agreed about the reasons the policy had
so little impact on most of the islands. But there was no empirical evidence to support our conclusions
and so the team leader decided not to mention this in our final report. The Belgian consultant was
furious. And, in my opinion, rightly so.
Q.I.4. Can we think of some indicators of quality of sustainability? Or of its syntropic conditions?
Usually indicators are of a quantifiable nature. Surely, indicators need to be verifiable by means of
reliable sources of verification. However, on top of that, whether mentioned or not in the logframe,
there are always some general indicators that tell us whether a policy works and work in a sustainable
way, without substantial conflict.
Let us see again what William Ross, who coined the term „prima facie‟ duties, may contribute to the
matter. Earlier I suggested these „on-first-appearance- duties‟ are especially helpful as a checklist that
tells us whether we are on the right track. Of course, it could well be that in a particular situation one
of these is more urgent than another and should get priority. When we appreciate policies, we are not
considering the practical consequences. This utilitarian habit is needed for evaluation, but with
appreciation we move to the sphere of values and duties. Here we consider policies as partners in
483
dialogue with the moral order. That is why I refer to Ross, the non-utalitarianist, in this chapter. His „
prima facie‟ duties include: justice as fairness and equal opportunities, promote well-being
inclusively, i.e. even including the natural environment; fidelity to commitment to people and words;
the prohibition to harm anybody, followed by the intention to repair if somebody suffers from an
activity. Ross also lists gratitude and self-improvement, but these are difficult to transmit to the public
sphere.
In other words:
(1).Does the policy respect equal rights of all people, irrespective of age, gender, family
background, nationality, race, language, religion and intelligence?
(2).Does the policy decrease or increase income equality?
(3).In case of conflicting interests, is the policy fair to all stakeholders? And if some
stakeholders might suffer harm, will there be support policies to compensate for that harm?
(4).Does the policy contribute to a healthy symbiosis with the natural environment?
Supporting adequate patterns; i.e. adequate in relation to the existing policy environment.
And a related issue, which is nevertheless not without ethical dilemmas as we shall see below:
(5).Does it seem likely that the policy will manage to fulfill its promises? Or is it too ambitious?
Or is the policy even a „must‟? And how about confidentiality?
The first issue does not need to be discussed here again. The entire process of fair policy deliberation,
as discussed above, is an attempt to include all actors and stakeholders which might be affected by the
policy. It therefore is an answer to the first issue. As this was one of the main subjects of the course we
do not need to elaborate further.
If public policies should be serving the public good, they should be support equal opportunities for all
citizens indiscriminately. In other words they should be characterized by inclusiveness.
The second issue needs some elaboration, though it is closely related to the first issue. Recently lots of
studies were carried out to gain insight in the costs of inequality and the conclusions all point in the
same direction. (some were discussed above) Now it starts dawning upon us that withdrawal from
community life and a decrease in „trust‟ is one of the costs of inequality. Larger differences in material
circumstances create greater social distances, feelings of superiority and inferiority increase. „Growing
inequality makes us all more neurotic about image management and how we are seen by others‟ is the
conclusion Wilkinson and Picket are drawing. They have tried to dig even deeper, studying the mental
effects of inequality. Their assumption is that outward wealth and inner worth are intertwined. The
wealthy develop feelings of superiority and tendencies to dominate others. The poor develop feelings of
inferiority and submissions. They fit like a zipper. They also compared numbers of cases of mental
illnesses, erosion of trust and excessive consumption in societies marked by inequality and societies
marked by equality. The outcome is stunning. In unequal USA personal depression and narcism seem
to occur significantly more frequently than in relatively equal societies. They conclude that disorders
such as anxiety and depression might indeed be a response to the experience of subordination. Vice
484
versa wealthy and powerful people rapidly develop a „sense of entitlement‟, meaning that they feel
entitled to some privileges. Also they tend to be less generous. So their final conclusion is that „greater
inequality redoubles status anxiety, damaging mental health and distorting personalities….wherever
people are on the social spectrum‟.
Acemogliu and Robinson carried out a very thorough analysis of the impact of „extractive institutions‟
on society. Although it is difficult, if not impossible, to empirically prove that extractive or exclusive
institutions have a negative effect on the functioning of society, causing much tension, and that
inequality in general has a negative effect on mental health and social relations, their reasoning
appears to be very convincing to the observing and sensitive mind.
See: Daron Acemogliu and James A. Robinson, Why Nations Fail; the origins of power, prosperity and poverty. London 2012;
R.Wilkinson and K.Picket. The Spirit Level: why greater equality is better for everyone, 2010; and Timothy Noah, The Great
Divergence, America‟s growing inequality crisis and what we can do about it, 2012; W.D.Ross,The Right and the Good, 1930.
The observations are not new of course. Most religious teachers have pointed out the same. More
recently one of the fathers of sociology, Georg Simmel wrote about the vicious circles that money is
luring us in. It is a devastating analysis of the impact of money on our spiritual health. In societies
where financial transactions increase, the value of the individual decreases, is his statement. The
‟value‟ of a person becomes dependent on his possessions and value on the labor market. What is even
more problematic is the effect it has on the self-esteem of people. When everything boils down to
money, it is money that tends to indicate which measure of self-esteem is „real‟. It also undermines
trust and without a minimum of trust a society just cannot function. Half a century later historian and
sociologist Jacques Ellul studied the obsession with money, leading to inauthentic existence of
individual people as well as to non-transparant relations between people and between people and
societal institutions. Money even tends to determine cultural trends. So in actual fact we are no longer
capable of making existential and responsible choices. Ignoring thousands of more recent studies that
point in the same direction, we may draw a conclusion.
If public policies should be serving the public good, rather than increasing inequality as a major or as a
side effect, they should contribute to a decrease of inequality.
See G. Simmel, Philosophie des Geldes, Köln, 1900; J.Ellul, L‟Homme et l‟Argent, Paris 1953.
The third issue we also paid attention to. The deliberation process should include all stakeholders and
see to it that none of them will be done harm. If there is a risk involved that indeed some stakeholders
be harmed, support policies must be in place for compensation. For instance, if a new environmental
policy to reduce emission of CO2, some companies might suffer from this measure and may even have
to close down, leaving a number of people unemployed and shareholders with empty pockets. Such
measures are unacceptable unless support policies, like a social plan, are put in place to provide
support.
485
The fourth issue is quickly becoming a hot issue as well. In my opinion the first who convincingly
pointed out that symbiosis is the foundation of life, was biologist Lynn Margulis. Her „Symbiotic
Planet‟ is a milestone. The book contains a summary of her biological insight that life is symbiotic at
the core. Without symbiosis there is no life and no evolution of life. By the end of her book she
discusses our human attitude towards the Earth. Her viewpoint is striking. „To me, the human move to
take responsibility for the living Earth is laughable – the rhetoric of the powerless. The planet takes
care of us. Our self-inflated moral imperative to guide a wayward Earth or heal our sick planet is
evidence of our immense capacity for self-delusion. Rather we need to protect us from ourselves‟. She
is asking for honesty. „We need to be freed from our species-specific arrogance….Our tenacious illusion
of special dispensation belies our true status as upright mammalian weeds……..often newly evolved
beings grow and expand rapidly by exploiting energy, food supplies……but population expansion
always ceased because none can eat or breathe its own waste‟. So we have to take care of our own life
and future. „ We cannot put an end to nature….we can only pose a threat to ourselves‟. Lots of scientists
have followed this line. In Holland Peter Westbroek, a renowned geologist, published The Discovery of
the Earth, in which he argues that modernism is a dominating force, making us behave as
autonomous beings destined to plunder the planet „as if goldfish in a bowl were to dream of mastering
the oceans‟. However we do not own our world. All we can and should do is to become aware and to
adapt to its dynamics, „like surfers continually adjusting themselves to the waves‟.
Today there is much talk of sustainability. I suspect Lynn Margulis would consider the term ridiculous.
Who decides about sustainability? What we should do is to use our brains to see how we can co-exist
with all other living creatures of the planet as well as with „Gaia‟ herself. Our patterns and policies
should somehow be in harmony with Gaian patterns. We plan. Gaia does not plan though. “ Gaia
patterns appear to be planned but occur in the absence of any head “ she writes. So we should observe
and take Gaia patterns into account. This too is policy imagination.
I prefer to use the term „ inclusiveness‟ to „ sustainability‟. Inclusiveness applies to human actors and
entities as well as to nature. Do our policies take nature into account? That is the question. But let us
be a bit sharper. It is not a matter of including or excluding nature. It is a matter of including nature
and including human kind or excluding human kind by trying to exclude nature. We need to
deliberately include nature for 2 reasons. The first is self-interest. For if we don‟t, we slowly commit
collective suicide. To be aware of Gaia patterns is to protect ourselves, our own well-being in the long
run. The short run, the hit and run, is insignificant. Just destructive short-sightedness. The second
reason is respect. The lack of respect for life is one of the most bewildering characteristics of „modern
man‟. It is hubris at its height, leading to a one-dimensional mechanistic attitude which is exploitive
and in the long run destructive rather than creative. For us, modern men, human rights are of
paramount importance. But human rights without respect for nature, is like admiring a house built on
quicksand.
If public policies should be serving the public good, they should include nature and be geared to
patterns of nature as well. We may state: good policies have a creative facilitation effect.
486
See: Lynn Margulis, Symbiotic Planet, 1998, p124 – 128; P.Westbroek, De ontdekking van de aarde, het grote verhaal van een
kleine planeet, 2012. There were other who pointed to the symbiotic character of life and the need to adjust human and societal
life to nature, notably Bernard Charbonneau: Le Systeme et le Chaos, critique du developpement exponential, Paris 1973 and the
somewhat related Person/Planet, the Creative Disintegration of Industrial Society, by Theodore Roszak, New York 1979; and of
course the well-known Gaia, a New Look at Life on Earth, 1979 by James Lovelock who coined the word ‟gaia‟,which appeared
in the same year as Roszak‟s study.
The fifth issue rarely gets ample consideration under this heading. All too often an ambitious
government is eager to fulfill its political campaign promises and starts working on policies which are
indeed attractive and yet unrealistic. Or a government facing upcoming elections is trying to make a
good impression by adopting totally unrealistic policies. Evaluation studies might show that a
particular policy is unlikely to yield the promised output. No promises should be made that cannot be
fulfilled, lest trust in government will be undermined and public support to policies get weakened.
Above we also discussed the issue of policy measures that attempt to change behavioral habit (like
driving thought red traffic lights) that cannot be checked. This leads to tolerance of misbehavior and
„ridiculization‟ of government. Often this is the matter with demosclerosis. It is better not to promise
anything when you are uncertain if you will be able to fulfill a promise. Likewise this is the case with
policies.
There is a vicious snag here. It happens often, too often perhaps, that an evaluator is hired to bless a
policy-in-practice. The evaluator is expected to conduct an evaluation research according to academic
standards, but draw conclusions that are pleasing in the eyes of the executive. This should not happen,
but it does happen. Sometimes subtly, sometimes rudely. It happens with individual evaluators and it
happens with evaluators who work for a big consulting company. The company may have
compromised itself in advance by helping to finance a political campaign. Consultants/evaluators who
are strictly independent may encounter unpleasant situations. Hopefully many will be ready to face
them. Discussing such situations with other consultants I try to put forward that it is very much in the
interest of the public and the public good to be provided with honest and independent feedback. The
consultant may be hired by the political executive as his client and be tempted to please the client, but
a closer look into the matter will point to the fact that political executive is or should be in the service
of the public. Also, a good evaluation study will pay ample attention to stakeholders and their
opinions, which might be quite different from the opinion of the executive. Stakeholder involvement in
the evaluation will support an honest approach.
Public policies should be feasible and realistic and function as creative facilitators. It is the
responsibility of the executive to communicate to the public that realistic policies with realistic
objectives are a better way to spend public money than ambitious policies that yield little or nothing.
Evaluation studies should be carried out independently. This too is in the interest of the public. For the
public as well as the executive deserve honest and independent feedback.
Personal experience 3 and 4:
487
Again Curacao. I was charged with evaluating the support provided by the Association of Netherlands
Municipalities to the Caribbean islands of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Association had been
providing support over many years in almost all areas of public service to all 6 islands. Apparently
around 50%were viewed as relatively positive by the recipient island government and 50 % as
relatively negative. The time had come to finish the report and submit it to the client, which was acting
on behalf of the relevant ministry in The Netherlands. As I was preparing the final draft, a delegation
from the Association from the Netherlands turned up in Curacao. At one point in time the head of the
delegation took me apart and „demanded the report to be positive‟. After asking him what he meant, he
snarled at me and said: you know what we expect from you. I replied: tell me. His answer: if you write
anything which is negative I will make sure you never get such a job again in your life. When I asked
him to put that on paper, he became very aggressive telling me he would submit an official complaint.
But he did not issue a complaint. I did and the client told me that I should not hesitate a minute to
draw the conclusions that were fair. And so I did.
Romania. The World Bank needed an evaluation of a policy to reform agriculture in Transilvania as
they were (partly) financing the policy. One of the civil servants of the Ministry of Agriculture was in
charge of hiring the consultant. The assignment was given to a Romanian consultancy whose director,
A, I knew very well. He asked me to help him carrying out the evaluation research. We elaborated our
initial plan and submitted it to the ministry. That particular afternoon that we had to defend the
submitted plan, we were asked a number of rather ominous questions, by the civil servant and an
expert advisor. The atmosphere in the room deteriorated minute by minute. It was clear that she
wanted to be sure we were going to help the ministry to obtain a follow-up grant from the World Bank
and the ministry needed us to get that grant. At a certain moment A asked her deliberately naïve: and
what will happen if our conclusions are critical or negative? Her answer: by now you should know what
we expect from you. We also sensed that there was another consultant company who might be hired if
we appeared troublesome in her eyes. In fact she hinted in that direction. When we discovered that
the expert present during the meeting actually was working for that consultancy, we decided to back
out.
Is there a conclusion to be drawn? Lots of conclusions, but the main one is that evaluation tends to be
a tricky matter. Not unlike financial audits. But as financial audits are basically one-dimensional,
evaluations are multi-dimensional and more complicated. If there is a lesson to be learned it is that the
evaluator should get a crystal clear picture of the assignment as to its scope, method, stakeholders to
be interviewed, questions to be asked, indicators to be used.
Personal experience 5: confidentiality
Romania again. The EU-delegation needed to evaluate its communication policy to the public of
Romania. Again A‟s consulting company was hired and I was asked to help him carrying out the
evaluation. It was supposed to be both an evaluation of the process, the method and the impact.
Everything seemed to be clear and we started. After some time we organized a briefing with the client
488
and presented some tentative conclusions. We expected some panic as it was clear that some of the
companies hired to carry out parts of the EU-PR campaign was poorly done. To say the least. To our
surprise they were not surprised to hear this. To make a very long story short, they proposed that we
would submit 2 reports. One confidential report with the critical conclusions regarding some of the
companies who did not perform well and the neglect of the responsible EU civil servant who did not
notice it or preferred to turn a blind eye (was he bribed?) to be used internally; and another report
with less specific conclusions to be published. In this „public report‟ we were invited to conclude that
particular parts of the communication policy were not effective, without mentioning the names of
people and companies responsible for it. We decided to accept the proposal, provided we would not be
asked to formulate our critical conclusions diplomatically, that we were allowed to speak our mind
freely and clearly. Thus was agreed and decided.
After the presentation we suggested that it would be wise to find out whether some criminal offenses
had taken place. Whether it was investigated we were never informed about. So I do not know whether
we dealt with the case wisely. Maybe we did, maybe not. It is a point for discussion.
In principle evaluation reports should be made public, like so many other reports and documents in
the realm of public governance. Public governance should be transparent, lest it is no longer public
governance in the real sense of the word. However there can be situations that publication of critical
conclusions are extremely painful to some people or organizations. Doing so might be seen as a type of
shaming. In such cases the executive could indeed decide not to make it public. For that would be too
painful and even counterproductive. Or decide to take legal measures.
Final conclusion: evaluation is not without complicated moral ramifications. Every evaluator should
be aware of this. It also means that various stakeholders, most notably the client, might put pressure
on the evaluator. This of course involves risk. The honest evaluator might unjustifiably be put to
shame. So prior to embark on any evaluation course, make sure you are able and willing to deal with
pressure.
Q.I.5. Under what conditions should policies be adapted or be terminated?
First a remark on adaptation as a result of monitoring and reporting. This type of adaptation often can
hardly be called adaptation of the policy. It is more an adaptation of the implementation program. But
it is positive that sometimes monitoring results do lead to learning and adaptation.
Adaptation as a result of evaluation is often quite a different matter. And above all it is complicated
matter if the public has been involved in developing the policy. For if that is the case, the political
executive cannot just say: let us adapt something. Such adaptations should be discussed with
stakeholders. That is why it is useful that stakeholder consultations on policies take place regularly, for
489
instance in the policy chamber. If not, a new deliberation process should be started up again, going
through the entire process of inviting and informing stakeholders again.
Adaptation may be the result of some policy conflict. A particular stakeholder might feel to be harmed
by the policy. Maybe the policy is considered to be infringing on his rights. In such cases policy
mediation is a useful way of finding a solution. That solution has to be worked out, leading to an
adaptation of the policy. Often a support policy will be adapted to meet the needs of the disadvantaged.
Adaptation might also be a matter of changing the instrumentation of the policy. More or different
communication, different financial incentives or adding an institutional arrangement to the
instrumentation. Sometimes new or other regulations have to be introduced. Or a support policy is
needed to mitigate negative side effects.
In many cases adaptation, in the sense of reducing the policy, goes almost unnoticed. Very often a
clustered policy or a comprehensive policy just is too difficult or too expensive to be carried out
entirely. Without notice only a part of the policy is implemented. The result is a shift towards a more
simple and incremental model. In some cases the evaluation shows that the intended policy was too
ambitious. As a result the executive deliberately decides to go incremental. In fact this happens very
frequently.
By noticing this, we have already moved to the issue of terminating policies. Indeed some policies will
fade out and be terminated almost unnoticed. But it might also be a deliberate decision to terminate a
policy or part of a policy. This is not always easy. Because quite a few people and organizations have
become dependent on the policy, being responsible for the implementation of it. Others are
beneficiaries who need to be compensated, or will demand compensation. Sometimes people get so
familiar with the policy that they consider it part of the natural world, the world taken for granted
indeed. Especially when particular policy is firmly based on legislation. For instance all types of
national health insurance policies, as introduced long ago in Scandinavian countries. Or the right to
express oneself in a referendum as in Switzerland. Generally speaking termination of policies is not
something that the political executive finds attractive. Rarely does it produce acclaim. This is even
more strongly the case if legislation has to be changed.
Important in the termination process is also the issue of embeddedness, whether in institutions or in
patterns (ideology or world views), notably the pattern of the political party in power. The more the
policy is seen to be an expression of that pattern, the less likely it is that it will be terminated. But
institutional embeddedness is another fact of importance. Institutional arrangements, as we stated
above, stimulate embeddedness and hence rigidity. There will be more vested interests of parties and
people who will resist termination. Others will argue that we can never be sure of the future. So
terminating the policy right now seems wise, but how about the future? Isn‟t it stupid to thrown
something away that might be useful tomorrow? In other words, well-embedded policies are
characterized by resilience. On top of all that are the costs of initial development of the policy, or the
490
long tradition of maintaining a policy in combination with the costs of termination. Imagine the
abolition of military service in lots of European countries. All listed arguments were amply used in
policy discussion about military service.
The political executive which is also the instigator of a policy often is unwilling to consider
termination. Even adaptation is seen to be a type of defeat, an acknowledgement of failure. For they
fear a reproach from the electorate.
And last but not least, there is the issue of priorities. Changing situations may lead to changing
priorities. A financial crisis almost always leads to changing priorities and hence to the termination of
policies that are seen to be of less essential relevance.
See on this issue: Michael W. Bauer, The Policy Termination Approach: Critique and Conceptual Perspectives, Berlin, 2009
(taken from internet)
My own personal experience shows that civil servants and CSO‟s often are quite willing to accept that a
particular policy, even one that they earnestly wanted, is failing. They are open for discussions on
adaptation or termination. It is the political executive or the parliament that hesitates to make such
decisions. „Stay the course‟ sounds more masculine and appears more convincing in their eyes. This
attitude is sustained by fear.
The only way to overcome fear is communication with those you fear, in other words with the
electorate, with the stakeholders. And so we are back to where we started: the importance of policy
deliberation. Individual citizens and CSO‟s and any other entity in all spheres of society surely have
their interests, but they also know the government‟s capacity is limited. Choices have to be made. And
as always people are willing to accept choices that might even be unpleasant, as long as they are
informed, and invited to express opinions, to be consulted, to have a say in the matter. That is why
policy adaptation and termination just like developing new policies needs to be done in consultation
with stakeholders.
And that is also why delegation of responsibility is useful. Put all policy development in the hands of
the political executive or the parliament, and the fear of failure will work as an insurmountable
obstacle to good governance. Spread responsibilities and put some authority to develop into the hands
of policy departments or even chambers of a policy house, and it will be easier for the final political
power to consider a proposal for adaptation or termination of a policy that does not work well or is no
longer needed.
Q.I.6. Some concluding remarks
Roughly speaking you find here an interpretive or constructivist approach focusing on definitions of
reality, a non-rational approach focusing on non-rational factors and a critical approach focusing on
491
power positions. Each evaluator will choose his own approach. There is no such thing as one best way
for all situations. Conclusions will be fuel for new discussions between different approaches.
But there is common ground. The critical approach is focused on power and interest. The interpretive
approach is focused on power and meaning as well as their intertwinement. It is broader and more
open to other factors than just material interest. The non-rational approach is suggesting that other
factors play a crucial role as well and contemporary populist movements show this approach has a
point. But it can easily be combined with an interpretive approach. In the end all approaches agree
that a crucial yardstick for any policy is whether the policy is serving exclusive interest or to what
extent a policy can be viewed as inclusive. Please note that the more inclusive a policy is, the more
likely it will stimulate sustainable development. This is the discussion that in my personal point of
view appreciation studies should be aiming at.
Policy cycle
Formative evaluations (short-cycle) can be extremely useful in that they take place during the
implementation process. That means something can still be changed, rendering the policy more
effective.
Sometimes a summative evaluation is seen to be a waste of time and money. This is not the case. New
policy designs or the prolonging of existing policies or the termination of policies may benefit from
what is learned from summative evaluations (long-cycle). The policy cycle consists of two cycles which
are both indispensible instruments.
Comparative policy evaluation
That brings us to a final question: how are the executive and/or the department of policy development
going to learn from evaluations in general? This sounds like an academic question and it is. The
answer is that very little research is carried out to study policy evaluation conclusions, whether
process, methodological or impact evaluations, and their impact on the political executive. So some
collaboration with universities faculties in the area of evaluation research is very useful. However, it
seems to me that all too often the executive will just see whether they may benefit from evaluation
conclusion or not. Benefit should the be understood in terms of political expediency.
However, the more citizens and stakeholders become actively involved in policy development, the
more critical they will be towards the political executive. And, vice versa, the more likely it is that the
political executive will listen to the public. That is what democracy is all about.
See for similar and slightly different approaches to evaluation: Bingham, R.D. and Felbinger, C.L., Evaluation in Practice: A
Methodological Approach, Washington, 2002; Fischer, F. Evaluating Public Policy, Chicago, 1995; Mohr, L.B. Impact Analysis
for Program Evaluation, Chicago 1988; Kuypers, G. Beginselen van beleidsanalyse b, Muiderberg 1980
Note: evaluation might be assigned to the evaluator by the executive. But not necessarily
492
Note: participatory evaluation is by definition evaluation carried out in cooperation with
stakeholders/citizens or a groups of experts or civil servants or politicians
Assignment
If you are involved in monitoring or implementing a project, you might attempt to carry out an
evaluation, of process, method, impact or of the policy environment (followed by appreciation). A very
useful exercise would be to carry out an evaluation of the policy environment and to ask yourself which
of the conclusions could be used to adapt and improve your own policies.
Or different teams may carry out an evaluation of the policy of another team.
493
By way of conclusion: the policy architect
We have come to the end of the course. Is there any final conclusion to be drawn? Reading through the
syllabus you will have noticed that implicitly or explicitly the policy expert was addressed. In actual
fact the syllabus is meant to contribute to the formation of the policy expert, whether working for the
government as a civil servant or executive, or working for a CSO or trade union. What is needed to be a
good policy expert?
The policy expert needs to understand the dynamics of society and I have suggested to view society as
a network of patterns within 4 different spheres. The policy expert needs to take pattern dynamics into
account, for any policy will impinge on the patterns of society and hence provoke a response. The
response can be positive or negative. But the policy expert should anticipate and imagine what
responses might be sparked by a particular policy.
For sure the policy expert should also be able to understand and analyze existing policies, assess them,
compare them (internationally) and draw useful conclusions for the present. I do not believe in copy-
paste work. Strictly speaking there is no such thing as „evidence based policy knowledge‟. We are not
dealing with static societies, nor with societies of rats or robots. We are dealing with dynamic societies
of men, who like to think twice, reflect, respond, dream and set goals. Good policies are by definition
„novelty geared‟. No situation is identical to another situation. History is like a flowing river.
Developing policies is not something the policy expert can do in his office, sitting behind his desk. The
policy expert needs to discuss matters with stakeholders and individual citizens, be open for their ideas
and have the creativity to combine them into a policy, acceptable by all stakeholders. That is why I
compared the policy expert with an architect, a policy architect. Like other architects he has to find
solutions for all the demands and desires of his clients and put them together into an integrated
design. Some stakeholders are easier than others. Politicians are very eager to produce results that will
impress some stakeholders. But maybe that is not so helpful or useful from the point of view of the
public good. So the policy expert must manage to convince the politician that other stakeholders have
wishes too. Some of these stakeholders are notoriously quiet, like ex-prisoners, children, disabled,
elderly, poor, unemployed, or wrongly employed people (forced labor). The policy expert should keep
his eyes open to all, for good public policies should by definition be inclusive policies.
The policy architect does more. For policies have to do with society. Like laws and together with laws
policies provide a meta-framework for society to functional well. Some policies interact positively
whereas other interact negatively, jamming developments that are of public interests. As a policy
architect the policy expert must think of a healthy societal development. I have argued that society
should be inclusive, providing room for all to develop. Cooperation is a must if we desire to survive
together on this planet. We cannot afford parasitic behavior. We are in need of symbiotic behavior. In
the end the art of policy development is the art of roomification. Roomification is needed for people
and patterns to develop healthily without harming others or colonizing the space of others.
We may compare society with a body, complicated because of the many elements and elements of
elements it consists of, the complicated dynamics between elements and patterns and most of all
because of the infinite complexity of its collective reflection capacity. Like physical bodies it functions
because of its symbiotic capacity. However, there are moments that some elements start behaving like
494
parasites or malignant tumors. Powers and policies need to be developed to combat parasitism. The
worst scenario is neglect and negation. The policy expert should be attentive and able to look ahead
and imagine what might happen if a particular trend is not stopped at an early stage.
Like a good architect he has developed the ability to roomificate and make sure the house will function
well for all who are supposed to live their lives individually and together in a relatively meaningful way.
495
APPENDIX
Policy development process: what, when, who
496
Characteristics present policy environment Indication governmental strategy
Goals governmental agreement
Mission ministry
Vision ministry
Indication stakeholder strategies
Stakeholder goals
Main policy lines
Policy goals
Related policies
trends
Characteristics present new policy environment
Characteri
stics
policy
environme
nt
Goal
formulation
Scenario’s
Alternative
plan
Tuning
Instrumentati
on (after
research)
Indicators
assumptions
Critical
pre-
evaluatio
n
Decis
ion
proce
ss
Implemen
tation
organizati
on
Implemenata
tionplan
budget
Agenda’s
Politcial
Public
Professiona
l
Civil
servants
problems
497
498
Personal checklist by way of Questionnaire
This questionnaire is meant to be a check list to find out which of the 5 policy roles suits you best:
Idealist or ideologue
Advocate (loyal to a political party)
Technical or professional policy expert
Manager of policy development and implementation process
Communicator or facilitator
Define for yourself these different roles and point to some essential features. Of course you can use the
information from the chapter on „roles of policy experts. Now you are ready to answer the questions.
The idea of this questionnaire is to answer the questions, reflect on your answers and draw your own
conclusions as to the role that suits you most.
Q 1. As a policymaker, you will need different skills. Among them:
- The skill to manage and supervise the policy process from agenda setting to decision-
making and implementation.
- The skill to develop a clear view on a policy proposal‟s consequences and to convince both
politicians and colleagues of that view.
- The skill to promote the interests and aims as set by the political leadership.
- The skill to conduct a deliberation process with stakeholders in society
- The skill to remain objective and non-partisan under all circumstances, notably with
regard to the selection of policy goals and instruments.
- The skill to act as an expert advisor to the political leadership in your specific policy field.
Rank these six skills, assigning „1‟ to the skill that is in your view most important, and assigning, „2‟, „3‟,
„4‟, „ 5‟ and „6‟ to the other skills in decreasing order of importance. Look at your hierarchy and ask
yourself the question which role suits you best.
Q 2. What specific expertise is in your view more important for a policy maker?
- expertise on the subject matter of a certain policy proposal,
- expertise on the (management of) policy development process
- expertise on the policy decision process
- expertise on the impact of policies on society
- expertise on policy models and instrumentation
499
Rank these 5 areas of expertise from 1 – 5 and ask yourself again which of the roles suit you best.
Q.3. What is in your view more important loyalty for a policy maker?
- loyalty to the political leadership
- loyalty to (particular) stakeholders in society
- loyalty to the policy department (director and/or colleagues)
- loyalty to your (policy) professional peer group
- loyalty to your own policy viewpoints
Rank these 5 areas of loyalty from 1 – 5 and ask yourself the same question.
Q.4. What should a policy green paper - policy proposal - be first of all?
- An expert-advice on how to act in given circumstances.
- An adviser to the political leadership on how they can best attain their goals.
- An essay to promote new ideas and/or new course of action.
- The demonstration that the proposed decision is the best decision under the given
circumstances
Please rank these four characteristics of policy papers, assigning „1‟ to the characteristic you prefer
most, and „2‟, „3‟ and „4‟ to the other characteristics in decreasing order of preference..
Q.5. What is in your view more important for a policy green paper:
- Sound (policy) argumentation to get it accepted
- clever argumentation to get it accepted
- that it proposes effective actions to solve a certain problem
- that it supports a sound decision-making process?
- To inform the wider public (including stakeholders)
Rank these 5 areas of loyalty from 1 - 5
By reflecting and responding to these questions you have a clearer idea as to where your focus of
interest, loyalty and expertise is. And you may find out for yourself which role is the one you will feel at
home with.
If selecting people for the policy department, you may keep this questionnaire in mind to find out what
should be expected from the candidate.
500
Glossary
Activities (or means or instruments) are policy elements or pursuits to engage in, which are
deliberately designed as „causes‟ of desired ends.
Actor (or policy actor): An individual or (political) institution who takes responsibility for (part of)
the policy (sometimes the owner), who includes it on the agenda of the decision making body, and
who, after approval, takes responsibility for (part of) the policy‟s implementation. Policies may have
more than one actor.
Advocacy : is an attempt made by an individual or groups of citizens or CSO‟s to influence public
policy, including the use of financial means, or to get an issue on the agenda.
Advocacy groups are groups of citizens who attempt to influence the general public as well as public
policy makers and politicians about the nature of particular problems and possible solutions.
Agogical approach: working methodically with people taking into consideration that, unlike things
and animals, they can be challenged to make up their own mind. Agogical approach makes use of the
maieutic and elenctic methods.
Appreciation: an evaluation of a policy from a value (or ideological) perspective.Appreciation is an
expression of a policy evaluation in dialogue with the moral order. should be aiming at inclusive and
sustainable development.
Citizens consulting committee: a committee consisting of (some 15 citizens), reflecting the
population, which is regularly consulted by the executive or team responsible for a policy in a
particular policy domain. The committee may give advice, feedback, as well as come up with new ideas.
Citizen‟s jury: a jury of (some 15) selected citizens who are invited to express their judgment on a
moral policy issue or dilemma
Clustered policy method (or Mixed-Scanning method:): approaching a problematic
environment with a variety of policies or policy measures aimed to solve specific parts of the problem
together.
Collaborative democracy: democratic governance as a joint effort of relevant stakeholders, which
engage in a deliberation process and develop, carry out and evaluate policies together (see also „public
policy partnerships and dual democracy). Often seen as the counterpart of representative democracy.
501
Common policy: Common policies emerge naturally in society and are usually geared to the benefit
of a particular group of citizens (or other entities like private companies) and carried out by private
actors. Many common policies are hardly elaborated, they are unwritten laws of society. Often they
consist of activities that are just taken for granted. If they are specifically meant to respond to the
impact of an official public policy we speak of „response policies.
Communication as a policy instrument: any activity that attempts to change behavior patterns of
people by means of words, like communication, dialogue, information, training, education etc.
Consensus conference: series of events to discuss a hot policy issue in order to reach consensus
regarding the approach and sometimes the methodology by the end. Binding or unbinding advice
prepared by a relatively small multiform group of people (reflecting the population, as well as experts)
meeting at a conference by the end of the process.
Consensus council: council of citizens and experts charged to come up with unanimous advice on a
policy issue
Constructivist policy approach (see Interpretevist approach)
Contextual knowledge: is related to a position in society. According to the local pattern or context,
people have a particular view and knowledge of their situation, taken for granted, assuming their way
of reasoning is natural and legitimate. In order to understand contextual knowledge, concrete actors
have to be taken into account.
Contextual policy method: adjusting an existing policy framework and gear it to new requirements
flowing from a changing environment, or to prevent problems likely to emerge as a result of
environmental changes. It also refers to policies that are geared to local contexts.
Corporatism: the socio-political organization of a society by institutionalized interest groups who act
in close collaboration with the government (often authorized by the government) on the basis of their
common interests
Cost-benefit analysis: an estimation of the flow of costs to develop and implement a policy
compared to an estimation of future benefits, in order to determine the return of investment.
Craftsmanship: the ability to use a technique or method conscientiously, taking the response from
environment into account. ( see also quality)
Creative policy council: council consisting of citizens, experts and civil servants to brainstorm on a
difficult issue and come up with several creative policy solutions
502
Critical policy approach: a type of policy analysis, focused on the influence of power structures
that determine which policies to develop. The critical approach is based on the assumption that society
is or should be a platform of interrelated people who discuss matters of common interest on the basis
of equality.
Critical review: a review or evaluation (ex ante) of the policy plan which is performed before the
implementation starts. Often carried out by a team that was not involved in the development process.
The results of a critical review should be used to improve the policy.
Deliberation process: the process of developing policies in (open) dialogue with citizens,
stakeholders and politicians, looking at issues from all perspectives, with the aim to develop a common
judgment. The policy dialogue is called the deliberation process.
Deliberative polling: asking a statistically significant number of citizens to express their opinion on
issues both before and after receiving specific information on the issue. Thus the dynamics of opinion
formation can be analyzed.
Demosclerosis: a state of government characterized by substantial though ineffective input or
participation of citizens and interest groups
Distributive policies: are meant to distribute goods, services and financial disbursements among
the population or members of an organization (to distribute the cookies of welfare), or vice versa, to
distribute duties and contributions fairly.
Dual democracy : a democracy which combines institutionalized representative democracy with
institutionalized ways of getting stakeholders involved, i.e. participatory democracy.
Ends or goals or objectives are intended „consequences‟ of deliberately selected activities. If the
goal is complex, it is usually divided into several sub goals. Sub goal: same definition, but subordinate
to the main goal. Often the term „concrete goal‟ is used, meaning a goal that is a concretization of the
ultimate goal or objective.
Evaluation: an activity to determine the measure of effectiveness, efficiency, usefulness and impact
of a particular policy. Evaluation may concern the implementation process, the facilitation
effectiveness of the policy or the wider impact of the policy on society and its different spheres.
Evidence based policy practice uses available international and past practical and professional
experience and research to develop new policies.
Ex-ante evaluation: see critical review
503
Ex-post evaluation: evaluation after an important policy activity has been completed. Usually this
term applies to projects and programs with a clear end.
Facilitation: the methods and techniques to be applied to implement a policy.
Facilitation evaluation: an evaluation of the „technique‟, method, methodology or technology of the
facilitation of a policy (or instrumentation)
Federalism: a public governmental structure consisting of several regional or lower scale
governments with their own executive branch (and often a legislative branch as well) that have agreed
to assign a number of governmental functions to a central or federal government. In this structure
power is divided and lower scale governments are more than representative bodies of the central
government. They can respond directly to local (policy) needs.
Financial policy forecast: the expected costs of policy implementation for a period of 3 -5 years, or
even more.
Financial incentives, policy instrument, can both be positive and negative (incentives, taxes,
penalties etc, to avoid „free riding‟); intended to reward desirable behavior and punish behavior that is
considered to be bad. Financial incentives can also be used for distributive purposes.
Focus group method: some 10 – maximum 20 participants (often homogenous) getting together
for a guided in-depth interview, intended to explore a particular policy issue. Useful to find out how
and how strongly people feel about the issue and which response pattern might be expected.
Formative evaluation: an evaluation carried out during a policy process to make up the balance of
positive and negative effects at a particular phase in the process in order to make improvements
Governance: the coordinated exercise of administrative and legal authority to manage a country‟s
affairs in all spheres. This includes processes and institutions through which citizens and
stakeholders articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations, and mediate
their differences.
Government: the institutional system with administrative and legal authority by which a nation or
community is governed by means of laws and public policies. The government has the authority to
develop and enforce laws and policies.
Green paper: a tentative and open ended consultation document of policy proposals, issued by the
government for debate and discussion, without any commitment to action. Useful in combination with
504
other consultative arrangements. Like the more elaborated white papers (see below) green papers are
seen to be important facilitators of participatory democracy.
Implicit policy (or tacit policy): Policies-in-practice include common practices that were never
deliberately intended to be deliberately designed policies. We may call such practices „implicit policies‟.
„This is how we have always been doing this‟, „our common practice to proceed‟
Inclusive and exclusive policies: An inclusive policy takes all or as many as possible stakeholder
interests and values into account. Exclusive policies serve the needs and interests of a particular group
of stakeholders, neglecting the needs of other stakeholders.
Incremental policy method: adjusting existing policies to solve specific problems and to take away
some obstacles in order to increase effectiveness
Indicator: a quantitative or qualitative factor that provides an indication regarding the actual results
of a particular policy activity. Indicators are used to monitor the implementation process.
Information policies are based on the assumption that people are open to listen, learn and change
their behavior according to the information received.
Impact evaluation: an evaluation to measure the impact of a policy on the policy environment.
Institutional councils: Fixed number of stakeholders are represented in the institutionalized and
lawful organization and regularly consulted for advice or approval in a particular policy domain.
Institutional policies are basically institutional arrangements. They put executive power into the
hands of particular agencies or institutions.
Instrumental policy: Process policy directed towards a specific goal within a limited period of time
to be considered as a complicated „instrument‟ for long term policies.
505
Introductory policy: process policy to introduce a new and often complicated or risky long term
policy.
Integral policy method (or rational-comprehensive method or synoptic): developing an
encompassing, consistent policy framework to restructure the environment, according to some valued
ideas
Integrity: the correct and legitimate use (and lack of abuse) of position in public administration,
geared to the public good
Interpretive policy approach is based on the idea that human society is the result of joint efforts
to construct a reasonable and livable reality.(sometimes called constructivist approach)
Local knowledge: locally relevant knowledge of local people, of individual citizens who often have
useful experience, expertise and creative solutions to offer.
Logframe (or logical framework): a matrix that shows how the all policy elements relate to one
another according to the logic of finality as well as to some other characteristics, like side effects,
indicators, assumptions
Logic of finality: assumes that goals that people have in mind for a large part explain their behavior.
In policy science logic of finality shows how different activities relate towards one another as means
towards ends
Legitimacy : in political science: situations and mandates which are in accordance with the law and
democratic principles
Legality: in political science: situations, regulations, decisions and mandates which are in
accordance with the law
Mediation (policy mediation): an interventionist activity aimed to reconcile two parties with
conflicting positions (towards a policy)
Method (methodical): a tested (sometimes professionally or academically tested) and commonly
accepted effective way or procedure of getting something done
Methodology: the system of reasoning and argumentation that underlies the choice of method
Mixed scanning method: see clustered method
506
Monitoring: observing the way a process is going over a period of time, by means of concrete
indicators.
Motive : Any reason given by the policy actor why particular goals or instruments are desirable.
Non-rational policy approach is based on the idea that non-rational factors determine our
preference for a particular policy, ranging from ideological factors to collective emotional factors.
Non-violent communication: open type of communication in which the communicating actors
refrain from putting pressure on one another or from any type of covert or overt intimidation or from
taking particular assumptions for granted.
Novelty based policy practice acknowledges history as a continuous process of enfolding and
unfolding patterns, which lead to desirable or undesirable new situations that need to be taken into
account, anticipated and creatively responded to. Devising novelties is a syntropic activity.
Objective directed analysis or diagnosis: desired ends illuminate the present situation and make
us aware of what is lacking. They often determine the diagnosis of the present. In Aristotelian logic the
causa finalis is not just useful for instrumental thinking about how to get somewhere, it strongly sparks
a discussion about the present.
Participatory democracy: see collaborative democracy.
Pattern: or framework is a natural or deliberate arrangement of elements that provide orientation in
different situations, followed by advice how to handle situations. In the social science patterns are seen
to be configuration of a diversity of elements which include assumptions about life and preferred
values and objectives, norms and habits, judgments as well as sets of ready-made solutions. Patterns
serve as frameworks to make sense of life.
Phronesis or prudential or situational wisdom: the art of producing quality and more specifically to
produce policies with quality by taking into account the needs of the environment, by weighing pros
and cons of a policy measure, anticipating its possible effects, of assessing what is both wise,
technically possible, culturally desirable and legal. Sometimes called „sagacity‟ or „state craft‟.
Policies-in-intention: policy designs that is approved by the executive but not yet carried out.
507
Policies-in practice (sometimes called: Policies-in-implementation) are policies that have been
approved by the executive and are now being implemented by civil servants and, possibly, partners in
society.
Policy: a joint course of action in order to realize a „political‟ objective, i.e. for the public good, or to
shape the social environment according to some values.
Policy chamber: institution to advise the minister, responsible for a particular policy domain on
policies (see policy house)
Policy design (sometimes called: Policies-in-intention): the result of working out a policy design.
These are to be found in policy white papers, neatly described and elaborated in terms of goals to be
realized, strategies to be adopted and activities to be carried out.
Policy development is the art of responding creatively to the policy discourse by improving,
adapting and harmonizing patterns of behavior, or even initiate new ones in order to create a more
coherent environment which serves the public good and includes the interests of stakeholders.
Policy discourse: the body of communication, consisting of conversation, discussion, dialogue and
reflection, that leads to opinion formation regarding a political issue.
Policy house: is the institution, separate from government and parliament, where stakeholders meet
for policy deliberation and basic development of policies (the political agora) to advise the government
on policies. It ensures the institutionalization of different deliberation arrangements. It is divided in
policy chambers parallel to the ministries of the government.
Policy imagination: the ability to translate personal problems into pattern problems, to develop
policies to adapt or change dysfunctioning patterns and to foresee the emergence of response policies
as well as the concrete ramifications for the policy and take measures in anticipation. Proper policy
imagination is both „ evidence based‟ and „novelty geared‟.
Policy instrument: a facilitating instrument, seen from the perspective of a particular pattern, is any
type of activity that is intended to cause a desired end
Policy instrumentation (or facilitation): the selected mix of policy instruments to implement a
policy (laws and regulations, financial incentives, communication and institutional arrangements)
Policy legitimation: the acceptance of a policy by the legitimate authority (government, backed by
parliament and based on a legal foundation)
508
Policy map: a map that indicates which different policies in different domains exist (or are being
developed), how they overlap and/or support each other, as well as where supporting policies are still
needed to achieve maximum synergy.
Policy mediation: an attempt to enter into dialogue on a controversial policy issue that is causing
harm to one or more stakeholders, with the aim to find common ground on the issue and a solution
which takes the interests of the different actors (stakeholders) into account
policy paradox: when a policy activity is having an adverse effect, a backlash or when the intended
beneficiaries of a policy turn out to be the (unintended) victims of the policy.
Political agenda: of political parties with sometimes a consensus in the parliament regarding
important issues (not solutions)
Polyarchy: a political system in which power is dispersed among a multitude of stakeholders with
competing interests
power: „the capacity to define situations as problematic or as non-problematic‟; or ; the capacity to
predict the intentions of others while keeping one own intentions hidden‟; or just simply „the capacity
to limit the alternatives of others‟
Problem: A discrepancy or gap between the existing situation and the desirable situation. In other
words: a gap between „what is‟ and „what should be‟ (according to the policy actor)
Problems tend to be formulated in the negative (this or that is wrong) but may also be formulated as
challenges.
Process evaluation: evaluates all aspects of the policy implementation process.
Process policies: Characteristic of such policies is the very specific and concrete goals. Process
policies are directed towards such very specific goals, by means of mixed instrumentation.
Professional agenda: professional often have an expert vision, based on researchand experience, of
what needs to be done, improved, adapted or adopted in a particular policy domain,
Program: financial frameworks with numerous activities to be carried out during a limited period of
time, all directed to the specific objectives of the program.
Public agenda: difficult to understand because it tends to be very dynamic or rather enigmatic.
Different actors (media, political parties, CSO‟s, trend experts, public opinion researchers) claim to
know. However it tends to be both dynamic and evasive;
509
Public hearing: a meeting open to all citizens where policy ideas are presented to the public and
citizens are invited to ask questions and suggest ideas and give feedback. Public hearings can be
organized by region or district.
Public servant agenda: public or civil servants either in charge of policy development or the
implementation of policies often have their own idea what needs to be done, improved, adopted or
adapted
Public policy partnership : partnership between representatives from public administration or
government on the one hand and CSO‟s on the other hand to develop relevant policies together and
possibly implement the policies together as well, followed by evaluation.
Quality: the result of the ability of an actor to take the (potential) response of the environment into
account when working with a method, technique (policy) to change that environement. Good policies
are characterized by quality.
Quango: quasi-autonomous non-governmental organizations, which fulfill a public service.
Rational-comprehensive method: see integral policy method
Rectificatory justice: Rectificatory justice or redistributive justice is concerned with rectifying
transactions where someone had been treated unfairly, or unjustly, by another.(see distributive
process)
Regulations: policy instrument, intended to limit the discretion of individuals institutions or
agencies, compelling to the desired type of behavior.
Regulatory policies make ample use of regulations. Regulations dominate this type of policy.
Representative democracy: a form of government based on the principle of freely elected people
(by means of free elections) to represent the people in a parliament, charged with the responsibility to
see to it the government is serving the public good. See also: dual democracy
Response policies or patterns: common policies (see „common policy‟) which are meant to
respond to the impact of a public policy in implementation.
Roomification: is the art to ensure that all citizens and all legal entities in society have „space‟ to
develop themselves without hampering others, today and in the future.
510
Scenario: a synopsis of a projected course of action, or a developmental model, based on an imagined
course of development.
Service level monitoring: simple questionnaires to hand out to clients/customers of public
administration. Results of regular feedback from clients can be used to improve quality of service and
improved client-friendliness.
Social support basis: the needed basis of support that is provided by stakeholders of a policy if they
adopt response policies which are in harmony with the policy
Sounding group: an informal group of citizens and/or stakeholders who get together to respond to
some new policy ideas, sometimes followed by discussion. Regulations concerning the selection
process are often lacking.
Sphere: domain of activities and institutions geared to a distinctive set of valued goals. In society we
may distinguish between 4 main spheres: oikos, market, middle field and government.
Sponsor: a policy actor who is the individual or institution directly responsible for promoting a
policy, providing ultimate support at the background; usually an executive, often a governor or
minister
Stakeholder: An individual or group of individuals or any institutional entity (like a company, CSO
or church) that is somehow involved in the problem and/or effected by the policy activities and/or
included as a partner during the implementation process.
Stakeholder agenda: all stakeholders have their own particular agenda in according to their
interests and objectives.
Subsidiary principle: the organising principle that preferably and if possible matters ought to be
handled by societal stakeholders and/or lowest or least centralized competent authority, closest to the
target group and in consultation with the target group (stakeholders) Not to be confused with
federalism.
Summative evaluation: an evaluation carried out at the end of a policy process to make up the
balance of positive and negative effects
Synergetic policies: policies that complement, support and strengthen one another.
Synergetic policy method: at a crucial moment adapting an existing policy in such a way that more
desirable changes in the same en related policy domains follow naturally or logically:
511
Synoptic method: see integral method
Systems model of the policy process focuses on the way input, demands and feedback from inside
and outside the government are processed by the political system and used to develop, evaluate and
redefine policies.
Time schedule: Dates and times provided in the policy paper for the implementation of means or
instruments, resulting in a prediction of the moment of achievement of the goal.
Thinking to and fro: during the policy development process a particular activity might have to be
repeated at a later stage in the process due to new factors and/or new insights that emerged during the
process. (this in contradistinction to an ongoing activity or an activity that can be rounded off)
Tree of policy elements (or tree of objectives): It is meant to provide a visual picture of the
main policy elements in their „relationships of finality‟.
White Papers: elaborated policy proposals, sometimes used to test public opinion about the issue.
They are sometimes considered to be the tool of „participatory democracy‟. In some countries white
papers are used to inform the citizens, prior to making a final decision regarding a policy.
512
Literature (used substantially in this syllabus). Additional literature to illustrate points is
mentioned in the text.
Nota bene: I used my own, somewhat non-conformistic style for footnotes
Aarts, N. and Woerkum, van C. Strategische Communicatie, principes en toepassingen, Assen, 2008
Acemogliu, D. and Robinson, J.A., Why Nations Fail; the origins of power, prosperity and poverty.
London 2012;
Alford, J. and O‟Flinn, J., Rethinking Public Service Delivery, Managing with External Providers, 2012
Alvarez-Gomez, M., Die verborgere Gegenwart des Unendlichen bei Nikolaus von Kues, München,
1968
Amaro, N., Decentralisation, local government and citizen participation in Cuba, In: Cuba in
Transition, Washington ASCE, 1996
Amenta, E. and Skocpol, T. , States and Social Policies, in Annual Rev. Sociology, 1986
Amenta, E. and Skocpol, T. , Taking Exception‟, in Castles, F.G. (ed) „The Comparative History of
Public Policy, Oxford, 1989
Anderson, J.E., Public Policymaking, Boston, 2006
Ankersmit F., Klinkers, L. (ed), De tien plagen van de staat; de bedrijfsmatige overhead gewogen,
Amsterdam 2008
Anscombe, G.E.M., Intention, 1957 (Harvard ed 2000)
Aristotle, Politeia, VII, 12, transl B.Jowett, Oxford, 1905
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Engl. ed 1999
Arter,D., Democracy in Scandinavia, Consensual, Majoritarian or mixed, Manchester 2006
Arter, D., Scandinavian Politics Today, Manchester 1999
Baalen, C.van (ed), Polarisatie en hoogconjunctuur, Het kabinet De Jong 1969-1971, Meppel, 2013
Bakan, J.C., The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, 2004.
Barber, B., Strong Democracy. Participatory Politics for a new Age, Berkeley 1984
Bardach,E. A., Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem
Solving, 2011
Barthes, R., Mythologies suivi de Le Mythe, aujourd'hui, Paris, 1957
Bauer, M.W., The Policy Terminsation Approach: Critique and Conceptual Perspectives, Berlin, 2009
Bauman, Z. , Postmodernity and its Disontents, Cambridge 1997
Bauman, Z. , Liquid Modernity, Cambridge, 2000
Bauman, Z. and Donskis, L., Moral Blindness, The Loss of Sensitivity in Liquid Modernity, 2013
Beck,U., Die Erfindung des Politischen. Zu einer Theorie reflexiven Modernisierung, Frankfurt am
Main, 1993
Becker,U., Europese Democratieen, vrijheid, gelijkheid en soevereiniteit in prakijk, Amsterdam 1999
Berg, J.Th.J.van den, Molleman, H.A.A., Crisis in de Nederlandse Politiek, Alphen a/d/Rijn 1974
P.Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T., The social construction of reality, New York, 1967
Berger,P.L. and Kellner, H.F., Sociology Reinterpreted, an Essay on Method and Vocation, 1981
513
Berlin, I., Four Essays on Liberty, Oxford, 1969
Bevir, M., Democratic governance, Oxford, 2010
Bevir, M., Governance: A very short introduction. Oxford, 2013
Bingham, R.D. and Felbinger, C.L., Evaluation in Practice: A Methodological Approach, Washington,
2002
Bloom, A., The Closing of the American Mind, New York 1987
Bohm, D. ,Unfolding Meaning, London, 1985
Bohm, D. and Peat,F.D. , Science Order and Creativity, 1987
Bouckaert, G., Peters, B.G., Verhoest, K., The coordination of the Public Sector Organization: shifting
Patterns of Public Management, 2010
Broek A.G., Dwarsliggers, schaamteloos leiderschap, Haarlem 2013
Bruhn, J.G., Mixing Apples and Oranges, Sociological Issues in the Process of and Academic Manager,
in Clinical Sociology Review,16/1/4, 1998
Buckminster Fuller, R., Critical Path, New York 1981
Butler, D., Adonis, A. and Travers, T. Failure in British Government: The Politics of the Poll Tax,
Oxford, 1994
Buono A. F., Bowditch J. L. The human side of mergers and acquisitions: Managing collisions between
people, cultures, and organizations. San Francisco, 1989
Capellen, van der tot den Pol, J.D., Aan het Volk van Nederland, 1781 (edition 1966, Amsterdam)
Chang, Jung, The Empress Dowager Cixi: The Concubine who launched Modern China, 2013
Cannadine,D., The Undivided Past, Humanity beyond our differences, New York, 2013
Chapin, H. and Deneau, D., Citizen involvement in Public Policy-making: Access and the Policy-
making, Ottawa, 1978
Charbonneau, B., Le Systeme et le Chaos, critique du developpement exponential, Paris 1973
Charbonneau, B. ,Je fus, essay sur la liberté, Opales, 2000
Chin, Ann-Ping, The authentic Confucius: A life of thought and politics. New York, 2007
Cicero, De Officiis, 44 BC, (Engl translation On Duties, 1960)
Cobb R.W. and Elder C.D., Participation and American Policies: The Dynamics of Agenda Building,
Baltimore, 1972
Cobb, S., Narrative „ Braiding‟ and the role of Public Officials in Transforming the Public‟s Conflicts,
from Narrative and Conflict: Explorations of Theory and Practice, Vol 1,1, December 2013
Coggan, Ph., The Last Vote, The Threats of Western Democracy, 2013
Coltman, L., The Real Fidel Castro, London, 2003
Comte-Sponville, A., Petit Traité des Grandes Vertus, Paris 1996
Confucius, Analects, (transl Lun Yü), Oxford edition, Londen, 2000
Crawford, K., East Central European Politics Today, Manchester, 1996
Crick, B., Democracy, a very short Introduction, Oxford 2002
Crick, B. (ed), Citizens: Towards a Citizenship Culture, Oxford, 2001
Crince le Roy, C., De vierde macht, Den Haag, 1976
Crozier, M., Le phenomene bureaucratique, Paris, 1963
Dahl, R.A. , Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, 1971
514
Dahl, R.A., Democracy and its Critics, London, 1989
Davies,P., The Cosmic Blueprint, New York, 1988
Davis, Ph., Reading and the Reader, Oxford, 2013
Dearing, J.W., Everett, M.R., Agenda-Setting, Thousand Oaks, 1996
Deutsch, M. and Coleman, P., The Handbook of Constructive Conflict Resolution, Theory and Practice,
San Francisco, 2006
Deutsch, M and Krauss R.M., Theories in Social Psychology, New York, 1965
Dickinson, H, Peck, E., Managing and leading in inter-agency settings ; Better Partnership Working,
2008
Dogan, M. (ed), The mandarins of Western Europe, The Political Role of Top Civil Servants, New
York, 1975
Doorn, van J.A.A., Overvraging van Beleid, in „Nederlandse Democratie, Amsterdam, 2009
Dookeran, W., Power, Politics and Performance, A partnership approach for development, Kingston
2012
Dryzek, J., Discursive Democracy, Politics, Policy and Political Science, Cambridge 1990
Dryzek, J., Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance, Oxford, 2010
Dubnick, M.J., Bardes, B.A., Thinking about Public Policy: A problem solving Approach, 1983
Dunn, J., Democracy, A History, 2005
Dye, T.R., Understanding Public Policy, New York, 2002
Easton, D., A systems Analysis of Political Life, New York, 1965
Easton, D., A Framework for Political Analysis, Chicago 1979
Ek, G. van, Mens en Maatschappij tussen Chaos en Kosmos, Utrecht 1997
Ellul,J., L‟Homme et l‟Argent, Paris 1953
Ellul, J., Propagandes. Paris, 1962
Ellul, J., Fausse présence au monde moderne, Paris, 1964.
Ellul, J., L'illusion politique. Paris, 1965
Ellul,J. , Métamorphose du bourgeois, Paris, 1967
Ellul, J. , Le bluff technologique, Paris, 1988
Elster, J. (ed), Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge, 1998
Elvander, N., Intresseorganizationer I Dagens Sverige, Lund, 1969
Espada, J.C. , European Disintegration? The Sources of Extremism; in Journal of democracy, 2012.
Etzioni, A., The Active Society, A theory for Societal and Political Processes, New York, 1968
Etzioni, A. , A Responsive Society , 1991
Evenson D., Revolution in the balance: Law and society in contemporary Cuba, 1994
Farrar, C., The origins of Democratic Thinking: The Invention of Politics in Classical Athens,
Cambridge, 1988
Ferguson, A., An Essay on the History of Civil Society, 1767 (Philadelphia, 8th ed, 1819)
Fest, J.C., Das Gesicht des Dritten Reiches. Profile einer totalitären Herrschaft. München, 1963
Fest, J.C. , Ich nicht. Erinnerungen an eine Kindheit und Jugend. Reinbek, 2006
Fischer, F., Evaluating Public Policy, Chicago, 1995
Fisher, R, and Ury, W., Getting to Yes, 1981
515
Fishkin,J. , When the People Speak. Oxford, 2011
Foote, R. Predictors of Youth Aggression, Port of Spain, 2010
Forester,J. , Dealing with Difference, Dramas of Mediating Public Disputes, Oxford, 2009
Fromm, E., The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, New York, 1973
Giddens, A., The Constitution of Society, 1984
Giddens, A., The Consequences of Modernity, London 1992
Giddens, A., Turbulent and Mighty Continent, What Future for Europe?, revised and updated edition,
London, 2014
Goggin, M.L. Bowman, M.O.M., Lester, J.P., O‟Toole, L.J., Implementation Theory and Practice:
Toward a third Generation, New York, 1990
Goffman,E., Frame Analysis, New York, 1974
Goffman, E. , Forms of Talk, Oxford, 1981
Goldmann, L. , Le dieu caché, étude sur la vision tragique dans les Pensées de Pascal et dans le théâtre
de Racine, Paris, 1955
Gore, A., The Future, Six Drives of Global Change, New York, 2013
Goyder,G.A., The Just Enterprise, 1987
Graaf, van de H. and Hoppe, R., Beleid en Politiek, Een Inleiding tot de beleidswetenschap en de
beleidskunde, Bussum, 1996
Graaf, van de H. and Bulaj A. (ed), Cine se teme de democratie? A manual for participatory policy
development, Bucharest 2005
Granet,M., Chinese Civilisation, London, 1951
Gray,B., Framing and Reframing of Intractable Environmental Disputes, 1997
Gregory, J., Scandinavian Approaches to Participatory Design, Tempus, 2003
Guba, D.K., Analyzing public policy: Concepts, tools and techniques, Washington 2001
Guehenno, J.M.,The End of the Nation State, transl of: La fin de la democratie, 1993
Habermas, J., Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Frankfurt am Main 1981
Hajer, M.A., Wagenaar, H. (eds) Deliberative Policy Analysis, Understanding Governance in the
network Society, Cambridge, 2003
Harding,V., There Is a River: The Black Struggle for Freedom in America” ,1981
Hay, C., Why we hate Politics, Cambridge, 2007
Havel, V., Naar alle windstreken, (transl Do ruznych stran,) 1989
Heclo, H. & Madsen, H. , Policy and politics in Sweden: Principled pragmatism, Philadelphia 1987
Hedges, C., The World as it is, Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress, New York, 2009
Held, D., Models of Democracy (1987), fully revised 3rd edition (2006)
Hertz, N., The Silent Takeover; Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy, New York 2001
Hopkin,J., Conceptualising Political Clientelism, Political exchange and Democratic Theory, London
206
Howlett, M., Designing Public Policies, Oxon, 2011
Huberts,L., Anechiarico,F. and Six,F., Local Integrity System, World Cities Fighting Corruption and
Safeguarding Intergrity, The Hague,2008
Huizingea, J., De mensch en de beschaving, Den Haag, 1946
516
Ignatieff, M., Isaiah Berlin , 1998
Jackson, T., Prosperity and Growth, Economics for a finite planet, 2009
Jacquet,J., Is Shame Necessary? New Uses for an Old Tool, New York 2015
Jaspers K., Nikolaus Cusanus, Muenchen, 1964
Jenkins, J.C., and M.R., The 9 Disciplines of Facilitation, San Francisco, 2006
John,P., Making Policy work, 2011
John,P. , Sarah Cotterill,S., Richardson, L., Moseley, A., Stoker G., Wales, C., Smith, G., Liu, H.,
Nomura, H., Nudge, Nudge, Think, Think: Experimenting with Ways to Change Civic Behavior , 2013
Jouvenel, B. de,De la souverainité: à la recherché du bien politique, Paris 1955
Kahneman, D., Thinking fast and slow, New York 2011
Karenga, M., Maat, the Moral Ideal in Ancient Egypt, New York, 2004
Kaufmann, D., Myths and realities of governance and corruption, World Bank Report, 2005
Keane, J., Violence and Democracy, Cambridge, 2004
Keane, J., The Life and Death of Democracy, London, 2009
Kingdon, J.W., Agenda‟s, Alternatives and Public Policies, New York, 1995
Kleiman, M.A.R., Calkins J.P., and Hawken, A., Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone needs to
know, 2011
Klijn, E.H. and Koppejan J., Interactive Decision Makin and Representative Democracy, in Heffen, O.,
Kickert, W. and Thomassen, J., Governance and Modern Society, Dordrecht 2000
Kittay, E.F., Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure, Oxford, 1987
Klamer,A. , In hemelsnaam!, over de economie vn overvloed en onbehagen, Kampen, 2005.
Kolko, G.M., Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916, New
York, 1962
Koopman,E., De Oliekoning, Hugo Chávez en de linkse revolutie in Latijns-Amerika, Amsterdam 2011
Kristensen, B., Welzijn in Patronen, Amsterdam 1992
Kristensen, B. ,Vooronderstelling, intentie en begrip, uitgave Windesheim Zwolle, 1993
Kristensen, B. , Een kwestie van grenzen, over integriteit in openbaar bestuur, 2008.
Krugman, P., America‟s taxation tradition, International New York Times, 30/3/2014
Kuypers, G., Beginselen van beleidsanalyze a and b, Muiderberg 1980
Lascoumes, P., Le Gales, P., Introduction: Understanding Public Policy through its Instruments, From
the Nature of its Instruments to the Sociology of Public Policy Instrumentation; in Governance, An
International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, , Vol 20, nr1, 2007
Lasswell,H.D., A preview of policy sciences, New York, 1971
Lauwers, J.A. (ed), Scandinavian Democracy: Development of Democratic Though and Institutions in
Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, 1958
Laws,D. and Rein,M., Reframing practice; in Hajer, M.A. and Wagenaar, H. Deliberative Policy
Analysis, 2003
Lederach, J.P., The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace, Oxford, 2005
Leeuw, van der K., Confucianisme, Amsterdam 2006
Lejano, R.P., Frameworks for Policy Analysis: Merging text and context, New York 2006
Locke, J., Two Treatises of Government, 1690, new edition London 1999
517
Loen, A.E., De Geschiedenis, haar plaats, zijn, zin en kenbaarheid, Assen 1973
Lovelock, J., Gaia, a New Look at Life on Earth , Oxford 1979
Lukacs, J., At the End of an Age, London, 2002
MacKay, D.M., The clockwork Image, London 1974
Marcel, G., Les hommes contre l‟humain , 1951, réédition Fayard, Paris 1968;
McLaughlin, M.W., Learning from Experience: Lessons from Policy Implementation. In: Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1987
McCool, D., Public Policy Theories, Models and Concepts, New York, 1995
Marazzi,C., The Violence of Financial Capitalism, Bellinzona, 2011,
Margulis, L., The Symbiotic Planet, Amherst, 1998
Martelaere, de P., Taoisme, De weg om niet te volgen, Amsterdam 2006
May, P.J., Reconsidering Policy Design, Policy Analysis 7, no 2
Mellucci, A., The Playing Self: Person and Meaning in the Planetary Society, Cambridge 1996
Merleau-Ponty,M., La Phénoménologie de la perception, Paris, 1945
Micheletti,M., Civil Society and Sate Relations in Sweden, Avebury, 1995
Mill, J.S., Consideration on Representative Government, 1861
Miller D.,Deliberative Democracy and Social Choice. In: Political Studies (Special Issue: Prospects for
Democracy) 1992
Mills C.W.,The Sociological Imagination, London, 1959
Mintzberg,H., Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations, 1983
Mintzberg, H. and Quin, J.B., The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts and Cases, 1996
Mohr, L.B. ,Impact Analysis for Program Evaluation, Chicago 1988
Montesquieu, de C., De l‟ Esprit des Lois, 1748
Moon,J., Corporate SocialResponsibility, A Very Short Introduction, Oxford, 2014
Moran,M., The Regulatory State in Britain: High Modernism and Hyper-innovation, Oxford, 2003
Mounier,E., Introduction aux existentialisms, Paris, 1962
Mullaly, B., The new structural social work: Ideology, theory and practice, Ontario 2007
beperkingen voor goed bestuur in de Caribische Rijksdelen, Oisterwijk, 2011
Naerebout, F. ,Griekse Democratie, Democratische politiek in het klassieke Athene, Amsterdam, 2005
Nagel,S., Policy Analysis Methods, 1999
Narayan, J. A., Plea for the Reconstruction of the Indian Polity, 1959
Nauta,O., Explaining Poor Governance, in Goed Bestuur in de West; Institutionele en
maatschappelijke
Newman, J. (ed), Remaking governance: Peoples, politics and the public sphere, 2005
Niebuhr, R., Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study of Ethics and Politics,1932
Nisbet,R., Sociology as an Art Form, London, 1976
Noah,T., The Great Divergence, America‟s growing inequality crisis and what we can do about it, New
York, 2012
Oakeshott,M., Rationalism in Politics, 1962, in Rationalism and Politics and Other Eassys, 1991
O‟Connor, M.K. and Netting, F.E. Analyzing social policy, Hoboken, 2010
O‟Keefe D.J., Persuasion. Theory and Research, Newbury Park, 1990
518
Olson, M.L. , Logic of Collective Action, Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, 1965
Osborne D. and Gaebler T., Reinventing Government : How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming
the Public Sector. New York, 1993
Ostrom,E., Governing the Commons: the Evolution of the Institutions for Collective Action,
Cambridge, 1990
Parkinson, J. and Mansbridge, J., (eds) Deliberative Systems, 2012, Cambridge University Press.
Parsons, T. ,The Social System, New York, 1951
Parsons,T. ,On the Concept of Political Power, in: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,
Vol 107, 3, 1963
Petkovic,K., Interpretive Policy Analysis and Deliberative Democracy: must we politicize analysis?,
Zagreb, without date
Philippou, S., Oscar Niemeyer, Curves of Irreverence, London 2008
Pierson,P., Dismantling the Welfare State. Reagan, Thatcher and the Politics of Retrenchment,
Cambridge 1994
Pikkety, Th., Le Capital au XXIe siècle, Paris 2013
Pirsig,R., Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, London, 1974
Polak, F.E., The Image of the Future (translated and abridged by Elise Boulding), 1973;
Polanyi, K., The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of our Time, New York,
1944 (2001)
Polanyi, M., Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, Chicago , 1958
Ponsioen, J.A., National Development, a Sociological Contribution, The Hague, 1968
Popper, K. Conjectures and Refutations, London, 1963
Popper,K., Unended Quest, 1992, London 1992
Portney, K., Approaching Public Policy Analysis, New York, 1986
Purdum, T.S., An Idea wgose Time has come, Two presidents, Two Parties and the Battle for the Civil
Rights Act, 1964, 2014
Putnam, R.D., Bowling Alone, The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York, 2000
Putten, van J., Haagse Machten, Verslag van een onderzoek naar de totstandkoming van 8
regeringsmaatregelen, Den Haag, 1980
Putten, van J., Politiek, een relistische visie, Utrecht 1994
Quine, W.V.O., From a logical point of view, Cambridge 1961
Rawls,J., A Theory of Justice, Cambridge Mass, 1971
Rauch, J., Demosclerosis, The Silent Killer of American Government, 1994
Reinhart,C.M., Rogoff K.S., This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly, 2009
Risen,C., The Bill of the Century, The Epic Battle for the Civil Rights Act, 2014
Risse, Th. and Engelmann-Martin, D., Identity Politics and European Integration: The Case of
Germany, in Pagden,A., (ed) The Idea of Europe, From Antiquity to the European Union, Woodrow
Wilson Centre, 2002
Romein, J.M., The dialectics of progress; transl of De dialectiek van de vooruitgang in: Het onvoltooid
verleden, 2nd ed 1948
Roopnaraine, R. , Sharing, Solidarity and Togetherness, in: The Sky‟s Wild Nose, Leeds, 2012
519
Rosenstock Huessy, E., Speech and Reality, Norwich, 1970
Ross, W.D. ,The Right and the Good , New York 1930 ( Oxford University Press, 2002)
Roszak, Th., Person and Planet, the Creative Disintegration of Industrial Society, New York 1978
Rougemont, de D. , Penser avec les Mains, 1936
Ryan,A. ,On Politics A History of Political Thought, from Herodotus to the Present II, 2012
Salamon, L., The Tools of Government, A Guide to the new Governance, 2001
Sandel, M.J., What Money Can't buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, New York, 2012
Sartre, J.P., L‟ Existentialism est un humanisme, Paris, 1946
Savater,F., Diccionario del Ciudadano sin Miedo a Saber, Barcelona, 2007
Schön,D.A., Generative Metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy‟ in Metaphor and
Thought, A.Ortony ed, Cambridge, 1983
Schön D.A.and Rein, M., Frame Reflection, Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies,
1995
Schutz, A .,On Methodology of the Social Sciences, in Schutz,A., Collected Papers I, The Hague, 1971
Sen, A. , Identity and violence ,2006
Sennett, R. ,The Craftsman, 2008
Sennett, R., Together, The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation, London 2012
Shavit,A., My Promised Land, The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel, New York, 2013
Sheldrake,R., The Rebirth of Nature, The Greening of Science and God, 1991
Sheldrake, R., The presence of the Past, Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature, Vermont, 1988
Simmel, G. ,Philosophie des Geldes, Köln, 1900
Simmel, G., Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. 1908 (5th ed; 1968)
Sklair,L., Organized Knowledge, St Albans, 1973,
Smart, I.I. , Affirmative Action and West Indian Intellectual tradition, Port of Spain, 2004
Smith, G., Democratic Innovations : Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge, 2009
Spear, J.H., The Actively Drifting Society, in Wilson C. McWilliam (ed), The Active Society Revisited,
2006
Stegeren, van W.F., Welzijn en emancipatie: ontwerp van een emancipatorische andragologie, Meppel,
1982
Stelzner, M.A., Learn all about white papers, 2008
Stewart J, Hedge, D.M., Lester, P., Public Policy, An Evolutionary Approach, Boston, 2008
Stiff, J.B., Persuasive Communication, New York, 1994
Stokes, S. C., Dunning,T. Marcelo Nazareno M., and Brusco V. Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The
Puzzle of Distributive Politics, Cambridge 2013
Stone,D., Policy Paradox: The Art of political Decision making, New York,2002
Strasser, S., Bouwstenen voor een filosofische anthropologie, Hilversum 1965
Szoboszlai, G. (ed), Democracy and Political Transformation, Theories and East-Central Realities,
Hungarian Political Science association, Budapest, 1991
Thomas, W.I., The unadjusted girl. With cases and standpoint for behavior analysis. Boston, 1923
Tocqueville de A., Democracy in America, 2000 (transl. of De la Democratie en Amerique, Paris, 1835
Todd, E. ,La Chute finale, Essai sur la décomposition de la sphère soviétique, Paris, 1976
520
Todd,E., Explanation of Ideology: Family Structure & Social System, 1985 (original La Troisième
planète, 1983)
Tonkens, E., Mondige Burgers, Getemde Professionals, herziene versie, Amsterdam, 2009
Tsygankov, A.P., The Strong State in Russia, Development and Crisis, Oxford, 2014
Tynyanov, Y., The Literary Fact, in Modern Genre Theory, ed. David Duff, Longman Critical Readers,
Essex, 2000, pp.29-49 (transl. taken from Y.Tynyanov, Problema stikhotvornova yazyka, Leningrad,
1924)
Uhr, J., Deliberative Democracy in Australia: The Changing Place of Parliament, Cambridge, 1998
Verbiest, E., Andragogie: dialoog en verhaal, Lisse, 1984
Verhoeven, C., Het besef, Woorden voor denken en zeggen, Baarn 1961
Virilio, P., The Administration of Fear, 2012
Viroli,M., Republicanism (transl. Republicanesimo, 1999), 2002
Vries, de J., Ontstaan en Groei van de Economische Systemen, Amsterdam 2011
Want J., Corporate Culture, 2007
Welch,D., Power and Persuasion, 2013
Westbroek,P., De ontdekking van de aarde, het grote verhaal van een kleine planeet, 2012
Wiemer, D. L. and Vining, A. R., Policy Analysis Concepts and Practice, 1989
White, M.J., Political Philosophy, A Historical Introduction, Oxford, 2012
Wiggins, D., Ethics, Twelve Lectures on the Philosophy of Morality, London, 2006
Wilkinson, R.G. and Picket, K., The Spirit Level: why greater equality is better for everyone, 2012
Wilson, E.O., The Future of Life, 2002
Woerkum, C.M. J., Communicatie en Interactive Beleidsvorming, Alphen, 2000
Wu X., Ramesh, M., Howlett, M., Fritzen S., The Public Policy Primer: Managing Public Policy,
London 2010
Yamaki, Kazuhiko, ed., Nicholas of Cusa: A Medieval Thinker for the Modern Age, 2001
Young, E. and Quinn, L., Writing effective Policy Papers, Budapest, 2002
Young, L, and Everitt, J., Advocacy groups. Vancouver, 2004
Yu, Dan, Confucius from the Heart: Ancient Wisdom for Today‟s World, NewYork, 2009
Zhang, WeiWei, The China Wave,: the Rise of a civilisational State, New York, 2012
Zwart, R. ,Visie, passie en lef, Wie is de man achter het succes van Aruba? Een openhartig gesprek met
premier Mike Eman, Curacao, 2013
