The Policy Press, 2009 ISSN 0305 5736 453 DEBATEDEBATEDEBATE Policy transfer: theory, rhetoric and reality Sue Duncan Understanding how policy transfer fits into the business of policy making is a challenging endeavour. The academic literature often oversimplifies complex processes, while government documents tend to be light on explanation of how new approaches to policy making might work in practice. Policy making has been defined as the process by which governments translate their political vision into programmes and actions to deliver outcomes (Cabinet Office, 1999a: 15); this makes it sound like a process that happens in a balanced, logical and ordered way. Models of the policy-making cycle rarely, if ever, do justice to the complex nature of policy making and the processes through which evidence of any kind gets into policy. Similarly, attempts to test the definitions of policy transfer against the real-life challenges faced by policy makers often fail to take account of the real-life issues they face. Page and Mark-Lawson (2007: 49) take a refreshingly pragmatic approach: The term policy transfer might be somewhat misleading. Like heat transfer, or even the transfer of money from one bank account to another, the word suggests the process is straightforward, if not involuntary. It implies a simple movement of a set of policies from one place to another with no (or limited) change of state, as the policy can be clearly recognised as an import from another jurisdiction... policy transfer in this sense is rare. On the surface, the notion of policy transfer makes perfect sense, but, if it is to be of value, the model must reflect the way policy is made and the mechanisms through which it happens. It must also be able to compete with a bewildering array of aids to developing policy, which are now part of the policy maker s toolkit, including risk assessment, impact assessment, horizon scanning, policy costing and use of evidence and analysis. Policy makers tend to assert the importance of their own experience in delivering workable and politically acceptable policies; they see evidence as providing a rationale for an initial policy direction; an understanding of the nature and extent of the problem; suggestions for possible solutions; an insight into the likely impacts in the future, and motivation for adjustment to policy design or implementation (GSRU, 2007). This is, however, contrasted with the reality of policy making, which is described as messy and unpredictable. These perceptions provide an important backcloth for reviewing the policy maker s approach to policy transfer. From 1997, the notion that international examples could help improve policy making was given greater emphasis in government. Think tanks, like Demos and the Institute for Public Policy Research, had already used this approach and Labour
454 Sue Duncan brought into government, experience of working with them in Opposition. Within government, a number of reports promoted new ways of making policy, yet discussion on how to make them work was limited. When the Labour government made a commitment to modernise the policy process, the nine features of modern policy making, set out in 1999, reflected many elements of the broad definition of policy transfer. The term itself is not one of the nine features, but learns lessons from policy experience, evidence-based policy making, policy review, policy evaluation and, in particular, outward looking policy making all contain elements of the wider definition of policy transfer. The Modernising government White Paper (Cabinet Office, 1999a) asserted boldly that one of the key principles underpinning a new and more creative approach to policy making (1999a: 16) was becoming more forward- and outward-looking: This means learning to look beyond what government is doing now;... learning lessons from other countries; and integrating the European Union and international dimensions into our policy making (1999a: 16). The White Paper is big on enthusiasm, but short on practical ideas on how to operationalise the new approaches to policy making. A document published later the same year (Cabinet Office, 1999b) observed that there was still some way to go in drawing on the experience of other countries, but again suggested surprisingly little on how it could be done, beyond giving a few examples where policy had been borrowed from abroad or policy makers had worked collaboratively. The key example cited is the New Deal and related welfare-to-work policy initiatives, which drew on experience in the US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the Netherlands. Although the ideas came to fruition under New Labour, they were already present in Parent Plus (later rebadged the New Deal for Lone Parents), established by the previous administration. The idea was a key element in the incoming Labour Party Manifesto, so is not a pure example of a new approach to policy making by civil servants, but it does illustrate the complexity of the process of drawing lessons from abroad. Interest, which began under the Conservatives, gradually gained momentum and, by the time New Labour came to power, it had already decided to adopt a welfare-to-work policy. There was a strong body of research evidence, principally from the US, which was drawn on in shaping the UK approach, but the transfer was not entirely systematic; Cebulla (2005) notes a process based on site visits, anecdotes and selective reviews of experimental results. In the absence of official guidance, others attempted to produce advice to help policy makers learn from success and failure abroad. The Economic and Social Research Council s (ESRC) Future Governance Programme, directed by Professor Edward Page, examined the scope for drawing policy lessons from cross-national experience; it provided some clear insights into how international evidence was, and could be, used in policy and was potentially very relevant to policy makers, struggling to make use of international comparative data. However, in the absence of an effective bridge between this learning and the world of policy makers and
DEBATE Policy transfer: theory, rhetoric and reality 455 a discussion of how the ideas could fit into existing processes and networks, the programme did little to influence thinking and practice. The Cabinet Office did attempt to develop a toolkit for policy makers. Beyond the horizon: international comparisons in policy making 1 was launched in 2001 and drew on the work of the ESRC programme and Richard Rose, in particular, but the guidance was never widely used and, again, tended to assume that policy making was a consistent and predictable activity. A Cabinet Office review of progress on the modernisation of policy observed that use of international comparisons is frequently considered as part of the wider evidence base and that looking at the experience of other countries was a useful technique in preparing for the implementation of new legislation (Bullock et al, 2001: 72). One of the good examples cited was the reform of the home buying and selling process; today it perhaps better illustrates some of the risks of policy transfer. The National Audit Office devoted just one page of its 120-page report on modern policy making to learning lessons from overseas experience (NAO 2001). Beyond noting that the transferability of policy to the UK is a key issue (2001: 32), it encouraged departments to consider context, costs and resources, implementation and acceptability, but gave no details on how this should be done or why. Professional policy making then remained in the background, until the launch of Professional skills for government. 2 In common with much civil service reform, this new initiative failed to capitalise on earlier work, preferring to start virtually from scratch. Professional skills for government set out the core skills required by civil servants, including analysis and use of evidence, but learning from abroad was not mentioned specifically. Similarly, the Capability Review system, established in 2005 to identify strengths and weaknesses in departments, used bases choices on evidence as one of its assessment criteria; a progress report, published in December 2007 (Civil Service, 2007), identified this as a development area in six departments, suggesting that much was still to be learned. More widely in government, cross-cutting units set up to deliver policy that was both imaginative and joined up, used international examples in a way that more closely resembles the policy transfer model. The studies, conducted by the Prime Minister s Strategy Unit, typically made extensive use of lessons from abroad, for example with regard to adoption and drug dealing. The Social Exclusion Unit used international experience as part of the evidence base for issues tackled by its Policy Action Teams. Its study of teenage pregnancy, for example, set the issue firmly in an international context and made wide use of cross-national data (SEU, 1999). Freed of day-to-day policy responsibilities, cross-cutting units probably come closest to emulation of the systematic approach implied in much of the academic discussion on policy transfer. For the jobbing policy maker, other things may get in the way of the more rigorous policy transfer process adopted by cross-cutting units. The pressure of political timetables and the need for a speedy response to a policy problem means that there is often no time to go through complex processes or conduct rigorous analyses. Drawing on examples from abroad can provide an accessible
456 Sue Duncan source of policy ideas; Page and Mark-Lawson (2007) call this imitation without any lesson drawing. If information is already available, as with the National Literacy Strategy, the task is more straightforward. Following the policy transfer model takes time and politicians often will not wait for the results of systematic reviews or cross-national research, drawing instead on a visit, perhaps supported by a quick review of relevant documents. Actual learning is often ad hoc and unsystematic; close examination suggests that examples of direct policy transfer are limited and the process tends to be less about policy transfer and more about policy triggers, or ideas that inspire a new policy direction. In the case of The New York Miracle, Page and Mark-Lawson (2007) observe that, in practice, in the UK, changes in sentencing and criminal law bore very little relationship to the New York equivalent. The slogan about being tough on crime reflects the sentiments of the New York model, but many of its aspects did not translate comfortably to a UK setting. Experience from abroad enters the political and policy consciousness through different routes; this might be through professional or political contacts, or via research findings, conference papers, books or journal articles. The map of networks is complex and each provides a potential route for information from abroad to enter policy debate. There are a range of organisations that are directly linked to government. Some have a cross-cutting brief; Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Community, for example, collects and publishes information on all European Union member states, while the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which has 30 member countries, provides a setting where governments compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and co-ordinate domestic and international policies (www.oecd.org). Such organisations are a rich source of statistical data both on policy problems and issues and on policy solutions; they also have direct links with civil servants. There are also policy-specific organisations, on which government departments are represented, where common policy issues are discussed and, sometimes, research is commissioned. One such example is the International Social Security Association (ISSA), whose membership consists of institutions and bodies administering social security across the world; broadly similar organisations exist in many policy areas and are a means for civil servants to keep in touch with and contribute to wider policy debate. They are also a means of picking up on policy innovation abroad. Within government, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, with its network of embassies, is an obvious route into information on policy activity in other countries and can act as a bridge to other networks. On a political level, ministers have their special advisors and their links to the Party machine, political colleagues and certain think tanks. Outside of government, comparative social policy, as a an academic subdiscipline, is a growth area, with, for example, the UK Social Policy Association having a subgroup devoted to international and comparative social policy. Academics and researchers with an interest in comparative social policy have well-established fora for exchanging information and debating research findings; these in turn spawn journals and websites, all of which are useful sources of information. While such
DEBATE Policy transfer: theory, rhetoric and reality 457 networks are not part of government machinery, government social scientists (researchers, statisticians and economists) are often linked into these groups and provide intelligence for government on issues, trends and ideas in social policy. Also outside of government are think tanks, which have a track record in drawing on research and experience from abroad in developing innovative policy solutions. Labour in Opposition drew on some of this thinking and brought some of the approaches into government, particularly to the Strategy Unit in the Cabinet Office. None of these networks is distinct and the same information can enter through different routes. Policy makers have their network of trusted contacts in academia as do politicians, and, sometimes, academics are brought into government as special advisors. Government analysts work closely with both policy makers and ministers and are linked into research, statistical and academic networks; they also commission and conduct international comparative research for government. Policy makers have cross-departmental links into both formal and informal networks and sit on a wide range of external committees, some intergovernmental and some with a wider remit; ideas may be exchanged and problems, issues and solutions may be discussed. Similarly, ministers, as representatives of government, sit on cross-government committees and meet their opposite numbers in other countries; in this way, they are exposed to a wide range of ideas from abroad. Lessons from abroad, then, may enter policy debate by a number of routes; this can happen in an ad hoc and sometimes uncoordinated way. But, for the policy maker, they are one of many sources of evidence and, in the absence of useable guidance, either official or academic, they will continue to trust their instincts and use evidence, including evidence from abroad, to supplement their own knowledge, experience and professional expertise. While review of recent policy activity suggests that using international examples has triggered new policy thinking, the rather haphazard approach adopted carries the risk of importing unidentified problems and unintended consequences. It also seems inconsistent with the professional approach to policy making espoused by New Labour and promoted in many government documents. If there is a real political commitment to learning from abroad, more thought needs to be given to how this could most effectively be achieved. Exploring the routes by which ideas from abroad come into government and bridging the gap between academic insight and insider experience might be good places to start. Notes 1 www.nationalschool.gov.uk/policyhub/ 2 See http://psg.civilservice.gov.uk
458 Sue Duncan References Bullock, H., Mountford, J. and Stanley, R. (2001) Better policy making, London: Centre for Management and Policy Studies. Cabinet Office (1999a) Modernising government, London: The Stationery Office. Cabinet Office (1999b) Professional policy making for the twenty first century, London: Cabinet Office. Cebulla, A (2005) The road to Britain s New Deal, in A. Cebulla, K. Ashworth, D. Greenberg and R. Walker (eds) Welfare-to-work: New Labour and the US experience, Aldershot: Ashgate. Civil Service (2007) Capability reviews: Progress and next steps, London: Central Office of Information (www.civilservice.gov.uk/assets/next_steps_tcm6-2936pdf). GSRU (Government Social Research Unit) (2007) Analysis for policy: Evidence-based policy in practice, London: GSRU, HM Treasury. NAO (National Audit Office) (2001) Modern policy-making: Ensuring policies deliver value for money, London: The Stationery Office. Page, E.C. and Mark-Lawson, J. (2007) Outward-looking policy making, in H. Bochel and S. Duncan (eds) Making policy in theory and practice, Bristol: The Policy Press. SEU (Social Exclusion Unit) (1999) Teenage pregnancy, Cm 4342, London: The Stationery Office. Sue Duncan Sue Duncan works as an independent consultant. She is Visiting Professor at the University of Bristol and at the University of Lincoln, UK.