Public inquiries and policy design
Public inquiries are a frequent response to policy and systems failures. Here A/Prof Alastair Stark and Dr Sophie Yates (@DrSophieYates) give a preview of their new Cambridge Element on public inquiries and policy design – introducing a typology of four design functions that inquiries perform, and discussing how to design for inquiry effectiveness. Public Inquiries and Policy Design is open access until 28 February 2024.
Our new Cambridge Elements monograph concerns public inquiries as policy tools. It aims to bring together two literatures: it is partly a book about public inquiries for policy scholars, and partly a book about policy design for public inquiry scholars.
We define inquiries broadly as temporary working groups created, mandated and made independent by governments in order to fact-find, hold actors to account or develop policy lessons.
We set out concepts that connect policy design and public inquiries together, but our contribution is also practical. Drawing on empirical examples from a range of international contexts, our intention is to speak to the real-world challenges associated with producing outcomes through policy design and public inquiry processes. We aim to show that policy designers – by which we mean ‘people working in and around government whose primary role is to craft proposals for policy directions’ – have much in common with inquiry members and supporting staff.
A typology of public inquiry functions
One of the book’s main contributions is to propose four design functions of inquiries. Our international examples come from Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and Australasia and they cover a full range of different policy concerns. But regardless of context, these functions stand up as the primary means through which public inquiries show their continued relevance to public policy.
First, the catalytic function – the ability to deliver kinetic energy to lethargic or path dependent policy areas. Here we use the example of the 2011 Productivity Commission inquiry that led to the creation of the landmark Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme. This inquiry dampened potential political objections, particularly around cost, through the delivery of robust evidence that emphatically showed the need for urgent change. The NDIS design synthesised aspects of market and state as it empowers service users to control their own spending and engage in market choice, but still resides within a social insurance model that is delivered by government. This design allowed the NDIS to speak to both sides of the ideological debate in Australia. The report also drew extensively on the voices of people with disability to make the case for change. In these ways, this inquiry played a crucial role in the shaping of the problem definition and the subsequent solution. This capacity is what gives an inquiry its catalytic potential.
Second, the learning function – the ability to deliver a variety of analyses that lead to a range of policy learning outcomes. Public inquiries generate information, craft it into evidence and then translate that into the production of action-orientated lessons which are used as advice for decision makers. Excellent examples of the learning capacity can be seen when new technologies emerge. Across the decades we see inquiries investigating, amongst other things, nuclear energy IVF treatments and artificial intelligence so that policymakers can learn about their emergent risks and opportunities.
Third, the processual function – when inquiries propose very specific blueprints which can build or alter organisational and policy processes. In this way inquiries can alter outcomes without necessarily changing the fundamentals. In South Africa, for example, the State Capture Commission, led by the Chief Justice of South Africa, has investigated cases of corruption involving politicians, public servants and senior figures in state owned enterprises. Across four voluminous reports, the Commission has reported on case after case of corruption and wilful negligence, and its recommendations offer a very specific set of processual blueprints for reform – such as processes for the transparent and competitive appointment of senior public servants.
Fourth, the legitimation function – the ability to deliver support and credibility to policy reform via the use of participatory forms of policy analysis. Here we use an example from New Zealand: the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques. Clearly, this was an inquiry that was going to produce recommendations of a sensitive nature that would have implications for community cohesion. The inquiry therefore created the Muslim Community Reference Group as a means of constructively questioning and criticising aspects of its work and delivering feedback directly from and to the Muslim community. This group fed into the inquiry directly and, at the same time, delivered a very public example of the constructive and positive impact that they could make to contemporary policymaking.
Designing for inquiry effectiveness
Our other main argument concerns designing for inquiry effectiveness – both for those in government designing inquiries (e.g., through the selection of members and the terms of reference), and inquiry members and staff designing inquiry structures and processes from the inside.
We think about effectiveness through the lens of monocentrism vs polycentrism. When it comes to what an inquiry should look like and how it should function, we think polycentrism leads to better policy design outcomes. That is, involving a variety of actors with a variety of backgrounds and ways of understanding the world, and generating data in a number of different ways and from a range of sources. Here are some things that might help:
Multiple chairs with different skillsets and professional histories
Multiple forms of evidence gathering (especially beyond the traditional quasi-judicial inquiry room format)
Multiple venues beyond ‘the centre’ (site visits and sitting in different locations)
Multiple knowledge brokers and knowledge synthesisers
Then, when it comes to recommendations, it is likely that a mix – or plurality – of policy tools will be required and those who design recommendations need to consider them as a package that will affect coherence and incoherence at the delivery stage. Inquiry panels may want to consider using a mix of procedural and substantive instruments with a deliberate focus on the role of each. Second, they would clearly identify which tools are for packaging new policy and which are for patching existing policy. Finally, recommendations would be presented with analyses of the governance architecture that they would sit within most effectively.
However, when it comes to implementation, our argument is the opposite. We argue that monocentric implementation processes, which reduce complexity through the centralisation of responsibility in a limited number of actors, are more likely to lead to inquiry success (think implementation monitors and lead agencies). It’s true that the implementation space will always be a context of plurality because of the fragmented and differentiated nature of modern governance. However, when fewer actors own the reform agenda, hostile environments are less likely to kill off recommendations before they are implemented.
Alastair and Sophie’s Element is open access until 28 February.
Stark, A., & Yates, S. (2024). Public Inquiries and Policy Design. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009286879