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.

The policy process is initiated, researched, refined, driven and implemented by individuals. While the policy cycle outlined in Chapter 4 provides an overview of the process of new policy formulation, this view of the policy process under emphasises the role that individuals play, either on behalf of themselves or on behalf of an organisation, and it therefore overlooks the importance of both the motives and constraints of those individuals. Policy is in fact made through a set of complex interactions between state and non-state actors. Institutions and processes also play an important role in creating the sorts of policy sub-systems (Howlett & Ramesh 2003: 53) within which individuals have the potential to drive, delay, prevent or modify the passage of a policy from idea to implementation.

This chapter begins by outlining the key actors in the policy process and the web of relationships between them, which are understood variably as policy communities and policy networks. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of the wide range of policy instruments available to policy makers, discussing the fact that different policy actors may have different degrees of access to different policy instruments. This suggests that at times the choice of instrument is a function of the sort of policy that actors, or a coalition of actors, is seeking to change.

What should ministers do? Should ministers focus on fixing urgent problems or invest in solving future ones? Should they listen to the experts or should they listen to the voters? Should they deliver a budget surplus or invest in infrastructure? The answers to all of these questions will depend on the advice ministers receive and the way they weight different forms of evidence. How effectively this advice can be put into practice will depend, at least in part, on what consideration has been given to implementation issues during the formulation of the policy. And what improvements are made to future iterations of the policy will depend on the quality of evaluation of the policy. This chapter is concerned with the different aspects of policy work, with a particular focus on the forms of advice that a minister may receive and the ways in which conflicting types of advice might be resolved.

The role of those who give advice to ministers, be it an adviser, a concerned interest group or a constituent writing to a member of parliament, is complex and multifaceted. But one aspect of the relationship between policy advice and policy making is relatively straightforward: only members of parliament can vote on legislation. In relation to the authoritative choice model of policy making that was outlined in Chapter 1, the distinction is clear – advisers advise and members of parliament decide. That said, there are few, if any, members of parliament who would not seek a wide range of expert advice before making a complex policy decision.

Public policy is not made in a void. It is both created and constrained by the political context in which it is developed. To understand how policy is made and where different types of policy work happen requires a developed understanding of the context provided by political institutions. This context is itself a dynamic field, as political institutions and political processes change over time in response to changes in social and cultural values, and changes of government.

This chapter outlines the foundational features of the Australian political system, focusing on the capacity for executive dominance and the role played by the parliament in constraining that capacity. It then considers recent debates about ‘reinventing government’, which concern the size of government and the proper focus of government activity, and the implications of this reinvention for the place of citizens in the policy process. It concludes with a brief discussion of the historical context that underpins Australian political institutions, and the values associated with this history that remain a component of the contemporary policy context.

Thus far in this book we have considered definitions of policy, the political context in which policy is made, and the ideological and economic forces that influence and constrain policy work. In this chapter we build on the discussion in the introduction that considered policy as authoritative or authorised choice and policy as structured interaction to look at some theoretical approaches to understanding how policy is made. The most influential of these approaches is what is known as the policy process model. In the first half of this chapter we provide an outline of this model and address its uses and shortcomings for those engaging in policy work. In the second half of the chapter we outline some of the key theoretical tools that are needed in order to develop a richer understanding of the policy process.

Both the theory and the practice of policy work are central to the broad field of ‘policy studies’. The various sub-fields of policy studies have together produced a vast ocean of theoretical and empirical literature. It is only possible for us to dip our toe into that ocean here, but in doing so we will provide an overview of the key theoretical concerns that have preoccupied the field.