More often than not, the issues that policy workers deal with on a daily basis are highly complex. While much in the theoretical literature (such as the idea of rational decision making discussed in Chapter 1 or theories concerning policy analysis and policy instruments as discussed in Chapter 4) suggests that clarity and certainty should characterise the policy development process, in reality determining the ‘right’ policy response from the vast array of available choices, with access to imperfect information and disparate community views, can be a daunting task.

In recent years the demand has been for ‘evidence-based policy’, which raises questions about what kinds of evidence exist and how it is best uncovered for the purposes of informing public policy. One possible implication of the term ‘evidence-based policy’ is that the contested and uncertain policy process discussed throughout this book can be rendered objective and certain. However, as will be discussed below, while there is no doubt that the collection and analysis of information has the potential to improve the advice provided to policy makers, there is no obligation on policy makers to heed such advice.

No policy should ever be implemented and then ignored. Evaluation is a crucial element of good policy work. Done well, it produces specific advice about the future development – or abandonment – of a particular approach to solving a policy problem. Evaluation can be defined as the process of judging the merit or success of an initiative, that is, an ‘ex post assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of public programs and projects’ (Bovens, ’t Hart & Kuipers 2006: 319). Factors considered in policy evaluation include the merit and value of content, administration, output, and effects of policy (Vedung 2006: 397). Evaluation allows policy makers and managers to assess the impacts, benefits, and failings of a policy or program, to suggest improvements, and to make decisions on its ongoing viability or worth (see Nagel 2002; Rossi, Lipsey & Freeman 2003).

In order to make informed decisions, evaluators need the right information. Evaluation therefore involves collecting or collating evidence, including theoretical evidence, that will enable the results of an initiative to be compared with its stated objectives. In order to facilitate good evaluation, the intended goals of a policy need to be clear, and it is therefore necessary for ministers to state clearly at the outset what they hope to achieve from a given policy.

The work of policy analysis and development is varied and multifaceted. It is rare that any one person, or even any one organisation, is responsible for the identification of a particular problem, the generation of an original solution, the development of a specific proposal and the creation of the necessary support required to see a new policy implemented. These multiple layers of ‘policy making’ allow for a wide range of individuals and organisations to participate in the policy process. While the skills and knowledge required to contribute to different elements of the process may differ, an awareness of other participants is likely to be of use to all involved, if only to ensure that they develop the necessary relationships to ensure that their contribution is supported by others.

This chapter builds on the typology developed in Chapter 5 in order to provide an overview of the actual roles of those involved in ‘doing policy’. In Chapter 5 the abstract roles of policy researcher, policy promoter, policy designer and policy gatekeeper were discussed, but in practice such jobs are never advertised and few in the policy community would identify themselves as performing only one of those functions. In this chapter we describe the actual work of some of the main policy occupations, such as politician, adviser and academic, and in doing so highlight the variety of roles that can be played by individuals in each of those positions.

Policy is where ideas meet action. That is why policy makers need to grapple with both theory and practice. This book provides the foundation upon which students and practitioners alike can analyse the policy process as it is and create the policy process that there should be.

Sarah Maddison and Richard Denniss both have extensive experience not just in researching and teaching the policy process, but also in participating in it, and this breadth of experience defines the approach taken throughout this book. While some chapters are more about theory and others focus more on practice, both elements are interwoven throughout. The book exposes students to the big ideas about policy, but never steers them too far away from the need to develop policy in the real world.

This second edition has been extensively updated and is based on new examples and new evidence. It now includes a chapter dedicated to the task of policy evaluation and is linked to a new website with up-to-date case studies, chapter summaries, links to additional sources, and a flashcard glossary.

Why study policy?

Anyone interested in politics needs to understand how political decisions are made. Behind what we hear described as ‘policy’ on the nightly news and what we read about in the newspaper is a complex process involving a range of players with competing interests, facing an array of pressures. These players may be inside or outside of government, and inside or outside of the bureaucracy. They may come from industry, the not-for-profit non-government sector, unions, professional bodies or from academia. Understanding the way these players interact, what drives and informs them, how they think, and what they do, helps us all to understand and interpret the policies that these complex relationships eventually produce: policies that have implications for each of us in our daily lives. Policy determines where roads are built, how many nurses work in a hospital, what fees you pay at university, how much tax we pay, the price of child care and so on and so on. Policy goes beyond measures of efficiency, effectiveness and political feasibility, with demonstrable effects on citizenship, justice, discourse and democracy (Ingram & Schneider 2006: 169). Almost every aspect of our lives is touched by policy. If we understand how policy is made we have greater capacity to participate in that process, to have our voices heard and to influence decisions. This book will provide students of policy with both a theoretical understanding of public policy and an introduction to some of the real-world challenges and skills involved in working in a range of policy roles.

In the final chapter of this book we will focus on some key areas of policy work that often have wider implications. The first is the question of communication, both internally (in the form of a policy briefing exercise) and externally (to the media and the wider public). The second issue we consider is the importance of professional ethics and public accountability in policy work. O’Faircheallaigh, Wanna and Weller suggest that public accountability regimes have two ethical dimensions: political accountability, meaning that responsible bodies should be answerable for their actions and inactions; and administrative codes of ethics, which require that these bodies observe codes of behaviour both publicly and internally. These two dimensions are related to one another but cannot necessarily, or neatly, be derived from one another, hence they are dealt with separately below (O’Faircheallaigh, Wanna & Weller 1999: 226).

Communication in policy work

Communication is essential to good policy work. Whether the need is to communicate advice to a minister, a decision to the general public, the findings of policy research or the outcomes of a consultation process, good policy needs good communication, both inside and outside government. Such communication takes many forms, from the policy brief and media release we discuss here, to research reports, oral presentations, media ‘grabs’ and appearances before committees of inquiry. Communication is also essential to democracy and therefore to democratic policy making, and has become inseparable from how governments operate. As Sally Young argues, communication:

It would be comforting to think that policy is made by wise and omniscient ministers, advised by well-informed staff responding to commonly understood social problems. From the lofty heights of parliament, ministers would maintain a comprehensive overview of their portfolio, ever alert and responsive to problems as they arise, while developing equitable and efficient policy solutions for the good of all of society. The reality, of course, is somewhat different. Like all areas of policy work, determining which issues should receive government attention is fraught, competitive and often highly conflictual.

How and why issues become policy problems is another complex area of policy studies. One way in which this process is understood is closely aligned with the understanding of policy work as authoritative choice. In this view the transition from problem to policy occurs during the stage in the policy process known as issue identification or agenda setting. A different way of understanding how issues become problems worthy of a policy response sees policy development as a process of social construction. This view acknowledges that politicians and policy workers bring their own values to the policy process, which influences their views about what is valid and relevant and what should command the attention of governments. Policy work in this sense is understood as being concerned with the construction of meaning and on the regimes or technologies of governing (or governmentalities) that underlie the process of problem construction and representation in the policy domain (Bacchi 2009; Colebatch 2006a: 8–9).

The primary focus in this book has been on the knowledge and skills needed by those we have termed ‘policy workers’. In this chapter we extend the discussion beyond those who make policy to those we might think of as participating in the policy process.

As with so many other aspects of the policy process that we have discussed thus far, determining who can and who cannot participate in the policy process is not politically neutral. As Colebatch notes, not everyone with an interest in a policy issue will be granted a seat at the table, and even if they are, they will find that not all seats are the same (Colebatch 2002: 36). Recent years have seen this issue gain significant scholarly and political attention, particularly in light of claims that the Howard government, influenced by public choice theory, made it increasingly difficult for voices critical of that government’s policies to be heard in policy debate (see Maddison & Denniss 2005; Maddison & Hamilton 2007). One reason this issue has been so hotly debated is because of the implications for democracy and democratic policy making. Indeed, as Verspaandonk has suggested, it is a legitimate expectation that a well-functioning democracy will ‘grant citizens the right to be consulted between elections about the work of government’ (2001: 9).

In the introduction to this book we posed what we consider to be the central question that informs the way we think about public policy: What is the role of the state in people’s lives? This chapter will consider this question from a range of different ideological perspectives; from the ‘invisible hand’ of Adam Smith to the central control of Marx. Understanding the way that different ideological perspectives might shape the answer to this key question will help you to develop a richer and more sophisticated understanding of policy work. If we ‘unpack’ this central question we find other questions that we need to think about, such as:

• What is the appropriate role of government?

• How much should governments intervene in the market?

• How much should governments intervene in the lives of citizens?

The way in which any individual, group or political party answers these questions will depend, at least in part, on their ideological perspective.

Ideology, in the sense that we are using it here, refers to a set of ideas or beliefs that underpins a social, economic or political system. An ideology is the worldview that allows an individual or a group both to interpret the way things are and to suggest the way things ought to be. They are ‘guides to political action’ that give us ‘ideals to believe in, goals to strive for and tell for what causes to fight’ (Adams 1993: 6). Ideologies are concerned with what constitutes ‘justice’ in society, with the place of the individual, with the importance of community, with the role of government, with the legitimacy of collective action, with the importance of public ownership and so on.

Why do some problems attract national attention and others pass without comment? Why do governments fail to solve some visible problems, while addressing others that are virtually invisible? This chapter attempts to shed further light on the important, and difficult, policy question discussed in Chapter 6: how is the policy agenda set, and by whom? Chapter 6 focused on the role of language and discourse; this chapter focuses on the role of the media, and the interaction between policy makers and the media. This focus on the media does not mean that the media is essential to the development and implementation of policy, but it does reflect the significant, and growing, importance of the media and the increasingly symbiotic relationship that is developing between the media and government.

While those in power are rarely forthright about their relationship with the media, those who have retired are sometimes more forthcoming. For example, Bruce Hawker, the chief of staff to former NSW premier Bob Carr, provides the following perspective:

He goes on to say:

Governments choose to intervene heavily in some markets and lightly in others. The sale of heroin is forbidden in Australia while the sale of alcohol is heavily regulated. Advertising tobacco in Australia is illegal but advertising junk food to children is allowed. While the choices available to policy makers are often framed in terms of a preference for ‘free markets’ or ‘regulation’, the reality is much more subtle, and more interesting.

This chapter considers the role of economics in influencing the choice between state provision of services, market provision based on a belief in Adam Smith’s (1776) ‘invisible hand’, and the myriad of regulatory structures that can exist in between. The chapter begins with an overview of some major economic concepts that are useful for most policy workers, and considers the economic arguments regarding when markets are likely to be more or less effective in solving policy problems. To conclude, the role of economic language in framing, and influencing, policy debates is discussed.