Some thoughts on @jo3hill.bsky.social‬'s excellent essay, which argues that a lack of focus and an urge to model success as delivery across multiple objectives underlies repeated Government failures. /1 - ThreadSky

adambell.bsky.social • 13 days ago

Some thoughts on @jo3hill.bsky.social‬'s excellent essay, which argues that a lack of focus and an urge to model success as delivery across multiple objectives underlies repeated Government failures. /1

Reposted from Tom Loosemore

An essay from @jo3hill.bsky.social which can be summarised as "Public interventions need clarity of outcome"
reform.uk/publications...

Comments

stockfttp.bsky.social•13 days ago

I'm rather sympathetic to the argument but the examples less so. ☢️ has problems of cost & build overuns widely. Anglesey failed for economics not language

BNG 10% is a bar so low its almost on the ground. There are though good arguments for letting them pay to discharge the duties

But certainly

stockfttp.bsky.social•13 days ago

I agree there are too many unaccountable organisations that have no incentive to make the system work or to compromise & find solutions; too many cross cutting legal duties that make decisions a nightmare & a court system with a haunting fear that somebody somewhere might make a decision without JR!

adambell.bsky.social•13 days ago

Firstly, this is provocative and you should read it. But I fear Joe has missed a villain here, and that is the role of the Treasury and the Green Book. Impact analyses are the vehicle through which one secures funding from Treasury and therefore there is a strong incentive to make benefits big. /2

adambell.bsky.social•13 days ago

In practice, this means thinking about any possible benefit that can be monetised and bundling it into one's assessment. This then flows back to policymaking by creating a strong incentive to develop policies with such multiple objectives in mind. /3

adambell.bsky.social•13 days ago

You could solve this by mandating that any given IA only measure an impact against a single objective. This would rapidly reveal that a lot of policies are terrible value for money, but would also rule out a class of cross-cutting interventions. /4

adambell.bsky.social•13 days ago

Energy efficiency prescriptions, for example, are an excellent tool for both reducing demand and improving health. Considered in isolation, however, the benefits under one heading might not be enough to justify the cost. /5

adambell.bsky.social•13 days ago

The other problem it is worth considering is the role of the write-round process and Cabinet Government more generally in prompting this kind of thinking. It is far easier to get a policy through write-round if it benefits the objectives of several Departments. /6

adambell.bsky.social•13 days ago

Or, at least, if you can show that you've thought about those objectives too. Solving this might require either a stronger centre or rethinking cabinet government entirely. /fin

worklifeyou.bsky.social•8 days ago

The prioritisation within depts does the opposite of this in SR process. The incentive is to put forward the things that meet your policy goals best if you’re only going to get a few of them, not goals of others.

lucastosborne.bsky.social•11 days ago

📌

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply