For the governors of tomorrow: a "democracy audit" of the policy process.

• Author: Wallace, Derek

Abstract

Work by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on "governance" has provided criteria by which an assessment can be made of the democratic quality of any instance of policy development. I begin by briefly introducing this framework, and then apply it to a recent New Zealand policy initiative--the development by the Ministry of Social Development of the Agenda for Children. I selected this initiative on the basis that it stood out immediately as likely to answer comparatively fully to the criteria for democratic policy making as defined by the OECD. I review the policy process undertaken, the website presentation and links, the official documentation around consultation and reporting, and the minutes of the ministerial advisory group established for the initiative. Close analysis indeed confirms a commendable allegiance to the principles of contemporary democratic governance, and the main purpose of the article is to explicate how this allegiance can be realised in practice. At the same time, areas where the consultation and presentation around the policy fall short, as well as where the OECD framework itself may be suspect, are noted.

INTRODUCTION

Over the last 10 years or so, the term "governance" has expanded its domain of reference from business circles to organisations within the public sector, and, increasingly, has come to substitute for "government" and "public administration" as a way of referring to the activities of the state as a whole. This migration of the term was no doubt influenced by the "reinventing government" movement of the early 1990s, which, among other things, saw a place for introducing business models in order to improve the efficiency and rationality of government (Spicer 2004:357-359).

Subsequently, the term was picked up and endorsed--albeit with a twist in signification--by the OECD. The proceedings of an OECD conference held in Germany in March 2000 and attended by a number of distinguished international scholars from a range of fields offer two main explanations for the suitability of "governance" in governmental circles. (The tendencies these explanations point to would appear to depart from the "teleocratic" or overtly purposive and depoliticising aspirations that Spicer attributes to the promoters of reinventing government.) Firstly, governance is said to symbolise recognition of an increasing demand on the part of the (implicitly national) public to be involved in and consulted on the pressing issues of policy.

Recently, there has been a growing recognition that the ability or power of collective institutions to chart a particular course depends to an increasing degree on the active involvement of the governed. Looking to the future, there are signs that the governed of yesterday could become the governors of tomorrow. This does not mean that every citizen or worker would become a politician or manager. Instead, tomorrow's dynamic societies, less governable by the old methods of command and obedience, may set and achieve both individual and broad social goals by enhancing decision-making capacities generally. (Michalski et al. 2001:7) Secondly, the term is said to reflect the reduced ability of national governments to control the affairs within their jurisdiction. "The growing interdependence of territorial states is itself producing a complex global federation, in which regional alliances are subsidiary instances. In this global transformation of the state, government becomes governance" (Albrow 2001:158).

The trends posited by these alternative explanations appear to be in direct conflict. Unless the globalising trend--assuming it continues--can be led to incorporate the democratic participation of a trans-national citizenry, the tendency towards "active involvement of the governed" can only regress, not advance. On the assumption, however, that the question of how this tension will be resolved is still open, I will be mainly concerned in what follows with the currency of the first explanation: specifically, to investigate whether there is evidence of a clear shift from control towards governance in the New Zealand policy-making environment. Conveniently, a companion publication from the OECD allows the devising of a simple framework for testing the democratic accountability of a policy instance. I will begin by describing this framework, and then assess a particular policy instance--the development of the Agenda for Children--in the light of this framework.

THE FRAMEWORK

Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-making, is addressed to the goal of "strengthening effective, efficient, transparent and accountable government structures" (OECD 2001:14). It defines three fundamental criteria for this strengthening or enhancing of government structures, or "governance" as I am using the term:

* Information is complete, objective, reliable, relevant, easy to find and to understand.

* Consultation has clear goals and rules defining the limits of the exercise and government's obligation to account for its use of citizens' input.

* Participation provides sufficient time and flexibility to allow for the emergence of new ideas and proposals by citizens, as well as mechanisms for their integration into government policy-making processes. (OECD 2001:11)

However, the report's qualification of consultation is problematic: "It is based on the prior definition by government of the issue on which citizens' views are being sought ... Governments define the issues for consultation, set the questions and manage the process, while citizens are invited to contribute their views and opinions" (OECD 2001:12). I would argue that this limitation undercuts the democratic principles supposedly being advanced. More specifically, it shows a lack of appreciation of the extent to which prior definitions and questions, as well as management of the policy process, shape, limit and short circuit the debate about, and development of, policy. They determine who can, or will, be consulted, and whether that consultation will continue or be truncated. These activities are not as objective and transparent as governments, and the OECD, seem to think.

I have elaborated on this point in previous research (e.g. Wallace 1997, 1998, 2000, 2003). The upshot is that public policy documents (and, indeed, other forms of presentation) can turn out to be perfunctory or, at best, educative rather than genuinely consultative. This criticism will inform the following discussion.

THE POLICY EXAMPLE

I will now analyse, according to my interpretation of the OECD criteria outlined above, a policy initiative which, though still ongoing, has been through its main consultation stages and which seemed a good candidate for meeting the criteria. This is the policy work progressed within the Ministry of Social Development and referred to as the Agenda for Children. Further, since web presentation is clearly a significant aspect of what the OECD is calling for in respect of improving democratic governance (I will discuss this further below), it seemed a valuable addition to the study to be able to focus on the quality of web-based dissemination. I therefore looked at the government portal www.beehive.govt.nz in the months following its inception in 2002. Among the initiatives listed during this period, the Agenda for Children stood out for its provision of electronic links that could be made to relevant information, contacts and documents.

Criterion 1: Complete and Accessible Information

Putting aside the question of whether information can ever be entirely complete or objective, there is no doubt that the documents produced during the main flush of policy development for the Agenda for Children were accessible and relatively readable. These documents are light years away from the densely worded policy texts of the past. What has been termed "at a glance" reading, where readers can easily and quickly navigate themselves through a text, is fostered at every point. The following reader-friendly features are apparent:

* sub-headings

* questions (in headings in particular)

* bullet points and enumeration where possible

* signposting (in-text references to the structure and content of the document)

* direct second-person address to the reader

* logical and hierarchical ordering of material

* brevity (documents are noticeably brief--perhaps too brief)

* use of magazine features such as side-bars to avoid cluttering the main text with explanatory material many readers will know

* consigning of more extensive supporting...