The ‘public policy cycle’ is a well-established concept. It is typically conceived as a rational decision-making model supported by tools and evidence. While terminology and practice vary, the sequence follows a typical pattern:

• Problem identification, with underlying causes and needs, is analysed to determine whether there is a rationale for intervention.
• Response formulation, using one of the fifty-odd available tools to resolve the perceived problem, and maybe some options appraisal to weigh the pros and cons of alternative approaches.
• Selection of a preferred option, usually at the political or executive level.
• Agreement to implementation, with some monitoring.
• Finally, an agreement to eventually evaluate the policy choice.

However, after twenty-odd years of practice and coaching, I now see the model for what it is – an idealised and positivist view of public policy that is mostly illustrative and chiefly explanatory.

But, I discovered this week that this idealised view of public policy dominates some policy shops.

I know #wtf #dammit #huh? #its2017.

So I asked myself WHY.

Here’s my hypothesis:

• The people who lead these shops frame policy using principal/agent theory while relying heavily on managerialism.
• Instead of the context, these ‘thought’ leaders look for the scientifically correct policy tool.
• They prefer the answer rather than the deep craft of positioning, leveraging and engaging with others,
• They prefer the scientifically correct model rather than the untidy chaos that comes from bringing forth a diversity of views and thoughts to solve a shared problem.
• They ignore and do not study or analyse past experiences. Casual empiricism dominates and values intellectual control over the lived communal experience.
• They prefer the perfectly written brief instead of the obligation and responsibility of leading a strategic conversation with senior officials, the Cabinet and the Parliament.

So while the OECD, EU and Whitehall have spent the past decade successfully challenging ‘positivist’ assumptions of methodological privilege, a small number of our domestic shops sit worryingly in the distant past.

Perhaps this is why politicians – from all sides – increasingly look to advisors from outside the public service for advice.

He tohe puruhi.