Permission-based policy-making - Are we seeing a retreat from evidence-based policy-making? And what might be taking its place?

The past decade has seen a largely unquestioned view that public policy should be evidence-based. And who could question it anyway? It seems so obvious.

But it has not been a completely smooth journey. There have been times when it feels more like policy-based evidence-making, as researchers have desperately sought for data that can be used to justify a pre-determined course of action. Then there is the time it takes. And the cost! Then how often have we heard our more practical colleagues complain that much of the evidence is too theoretical, or hypothetical.

Some of the evidence sits uneasily with political realities. Remember Professor Nutt? He was dismissed from his post as Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs following an acrimonious and public disagreement over the re-classification of ‘recreational’ drugs. Although others disputed this, Professor Nutt portrayed his sacking as a clash between scientific evidence and party politics.

More straightforwardly, some evidence-gathering activities have been casualties of the cuts. Council, Police forces and other public bodies have had to close research teams, data observatories or policy centres, and contracts to gather information have in cases been cancelled or curtailed. The ‘Place Survey’ has been cancelled; the ‘Citizenship survey’ is the last. None of these were perfect, and we don’t detect people in the streets demanding their retention, but they are symptomatic of a degree of retreat from an emphasis on good evidence-gathering.

So what is happening to policy-making? If it’s not based on evidence, what else is there? Is it possible to discern from the behaviour of the Government ... or local authorities ... a new style of decision-making? Does proposed legislation provide clues? Here’s a possible answer.

We call it permission-based policy-making. By this we mean that the test for a particular policy option is less the evidence that is adduced, but more the extent to which it is acceptable. Surely this is what the referendum provisions of the Localism Bill are about. It is the thinking behind changes to the accountability of the Police and the National Health Service. It is also the inspiration for wanting to radically reform Town Planning. Look closely at some of the policy papers produced by the Conservative Party before the last Election, and a common theme is opposition to what was seen as imposed solutions from unelected quangos or bureaucrats. It might be evidence ... but we don’t like it! It spelt the end for Regional Development Agencies, and much else.

But the problem of seeking permission is, of course, whose acceptance do we seek?

Some cases are simple enough, and where issues are geographically-based, an elected body can speak with legitimacy on people’s behalf. But as representative democracy no longer reflects a large majority of the community, we will witness direct democracy at work. Polls and Referendums will become common-place.

Some issues are of national significance. Parliament speaks for us here, surely. So the Government is modifying the role of the originally-independent Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) to ensure it is subservient to the elected Minister. Or take a policy change of importance. When DEFRA proposed changes to the management of the Forestry estate, the ensuing consultation exposed a degree of with-holding permission, and Prime Minister Cameron swiftly revoked the exercise.

None of this suggests that public approval becomes the sole determinant of policy. It has always had an influence. But note how much more central to decision-making it is becoming, and how communities – either geographic or communities of interest - are drawn into a dialogue about change that affects them.

Consultation is a vital tool in determining whether permission is forthcoming, and as the Courts have recently emphasised, a consultation is only effective if is informed by complete, honest and unbiased information.

So evidence may be very important after all.

Trigger points

• Are local authorities and other local public agencies cutting back on evidence-gathering?
• Is your own organisation changing the emphasis on evidence-gathering?
• Have they effective means to gauge community opinions? Is there a new-style, flexible citizen panel in existence? Themes from this Topic will be considered in greater depth at the Institute's NEW-for-2012 training course – Public engagement 2012, delivered by Davy Jones.

This is the 197th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement