By Nicholas Chesterley

In the 1930s and 40s President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered around thirty fireside chats. These were a series of radio addresses on the Great Depression and World War II that were a crucial part of his leadership in that turbulent time, helping calm and reassure the country. When asked to do more of them, though, he declined: he could not spare the four or five days of hard work and preparation that he required for each talk.

It is hard to imagine anyone, much less a world leader, having four or five days of uninterrupted time to dedicate to a single task today, facing as we do a constant stream of emerging news, technology, and social media updates. And the present can have pressing, urgent needs. But it can also crowd out more long-term challenges, from pandemic preparedness to resource overuse, climate change, natural disaster preparedness, and the impacts of automation and population aging. While a focus on short-term issues is understandable, long-term issues left unattended often get worse.

Book Cover: Future-Generation Government

I recently published a book, Future-Generation Government, that draws on my background in and insights from behavioural science to propose possible strategies that could help us balance the scales and encourage future-focused policies and the anticipation of future crises. Below I provide four strategies that could help governments avoid the short-term trap and better focus on the future.

First, we need to make the impact of our decisions on the future obvious. For the same reason measuring energy use reduces household energy consumption or measuring calories can affect diet, measuring our long-term national wealth, not just short-term gross domestic product, would make the future more salient and so nudge us to take action on long-term issues. “What we measure affects what we do,” as economics Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen along with economist Jean-Paul Fitoussi observed. And our long-term wealth includes not just our physical capital, but also our natural capital, the health and education of our populations, and even the quality of our institutions, all of which could be better measured.

The UN Inclusive Wealth project, for example, helpfully studied inclusive wealth: the total produced, human, and natural capital in 140 countries. While almost all countries saw their GDP increase over the time period studied, inclusive wealth increased at only half the rate of GDP, and almost a third of countries saw a drop in their inclusive wealth, often due to natural resource extraction. Countries that used only GDP to assess their performance would have a misleadingly positive idea of how things were going.

Hubble telescope

Second, we can make it easier for governments to focus on the future by carving out space and time for it in how we make decisions. Introducing decision heuristics and guardrails around our decisions can remind us to consider the future in many different ways. Dedicated teams can stay focused on the future when short-term priorities derail other efforts, diversity among decision-makers can help deliberations better assess and anticipate future consequences, red teams can challenge decisions on whether they consider the future enough, and foresight exercises can consider whether decisions are suitable for a wide range of futures, all helping remind us of the future and nudge us to consider it as policy decisions are made. Professor Michael MacKenzie, for example, has suggested governments should issue posterity impact statements to subject all their decisions to future-regarding scrutiny, complemented by institutions or other actors that can delay or derail actions that might be harmful to the future. Embedding these and other elements in how decisions are made can further increase the salience of the future and make sure it is not neglected. 

Third, governments can commit to long-term measures. Just like someone freezing their credit card in ice to prevent impulse spending or setting up automatic deductions from their paycheck to increase retirement saving, governments can introduce commitments to the future, effectively introducing a cost to deviating from the long-term path. For governments, that could include constitutional requirements related to the future, though doing so can also limit future flexibility, as well as setting up institutions to provided a dedicated voice for future generations in government deliberations.

Finland’s Committee for the Future, for example, is embedded in its Parliament and nudges Finland towards long-term thinking, complementing a range of long-term institutions within its government. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund supports the sustainable use of oil revenues so that future generations of Norwegians can continue to benefit even after the oil runs out. Setting up an institution focused on long-term considerations can provide more space for long-term thinking and give it more independence from the short-term pressures faced by governments.

A final strategy is to experiment and iterate. The future is inherently uncertain; no one knows for sure what will happen, especially in our fast-changing world. Attempting to decide everything in advance is a recipe for trouble when new challenges will no doubt arise. Instead, we need to try something, test it, then rinse and repeat. Scale up what works and cancel what doesn’t. To do so, we need to give our governments the space to say they don’t know all the answers, adapt as they go, and to fail as they seek to identify what works best.

This isn’t easy, but there are interesting examples elsewhere, from the extensive experiments run by the UK Behavioural Insights Team and the U.S. requirement for departments to develop learning agendas to the Chinese introduction of special economic zones to test new approaches to economic policy, among others. Testing multiple options can take advantage of the short-term pressure for results by providing early wins for potential announcement based on what works best.  

Svalbard Seed Valut: Mari Tefre/Global Crop Diversity Trust

We can also learn from past successes. The Global Seed Vault in Svalbard seeks to protect the genetic heritage of our crops against future crises. Sometimes referred to as a doomsday vault, it is designed to survive a loss of power, the melting of the ice caps, the many roaming polar bears, and even the force of a missile or asteroid strike, a long-term investment in the future. Recent efforts to measure natural capital have strengthened our ability to understand the wealth represented in our forests, wetlands, and natural ecosystems. Finland’s Committee for the Future has been in place since 1993 and appears to have had a significant impact on long-term thinking in Finland, while Wales has a Commissioner for Future Generations which seeks to make sure that the needs of present generations are met without compromising those of the future. There are many others.

These strategies and others can help us shape our institutions to better consider the future, building fire-proof houses instead of just putting out fires. Even small improvements can build up over time and nudge our decisions to be more long-term. As the world changes, we need to test and try new forms of decision-making and governance in order to adapt our systems and societies to the modern world and focus on what matters most.

Nick Chesterley is a behavioural economist and public servant. He completed his PhD in behavioural economics at the University of Oxford as a Clarendon Scholar and SSHRC Doctoral Fellow and has held a range of leadership roles in government.

Want to attend an event? Write a Policy Making Today post?

Email us at policymakingtoday@gmail.com or sign up below.

By Ryan Androsoff, Sharon Ayele, Neil Bouwer, Jonathan Craft

Innovation in policymaking is not for the faint of heart. That’s what a group of public servants emphasized in the second of two dialogues on policy innovation convened by policyready & IOG in Ottawa. Like the morning session with senior executives, the afternoon session with policy innovators from around the government recognized the deep status quo that hampers innovation. However, the afternoon discussion was animated by stories about pushing against that status quo, finding workarounds, building coalitions, and, sometimes, watching promising ideas die quietly.  

This post reflects how those in the room were innovating in the policy space notwithstanding the structural, cultural, and resource constraints that can limit innovation. It shares their ideas for reform, what senior leaders can do to facilitate policy innovation, and concludes with reflections on what we heard across both sessions.  

With government reform and modernization on the agenda in Ottawa these days one thing was clear - efficiencies and simplifications are needed but won’t go far enough. As one senior official put it, “risk aversion is a feature in government not a bug”.  To address that, those innovating already emphasized the need to create positive innovation spaces, to avoid buzzwords and focus on operationally aware and outcome driven policymaking. Across both sessions there was a sense that more needs to be done to improve the essential instruments and processes of policymaking, to shift incentives and clarify rules, and to embed policy innovation into core public service architecture and practice.

courage graffiti mural

Rules, Culture, and Courage

It did not take long for the deep status quo to show up again.  The mix of participants in the afternoon pointed to many well known challenges in Ottawa policymaking circles: a culture of risk aversion, a web of rules (both real and perceived), inflexible and cumbersome instruments and processes. Many bemoaned how quickly the lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic had been forgotten. Like an elastic band everything had snapped back to the status quo. We want to innovate,” they said, “but we’re scared of failure. So we lower the targets instead of pushing for better results”. Another said that even with strong evidence, public servants often hesitate: “You can bring the data, you can show the success, and people will still say no—because it’s safer to stick with what we know.”

Others described trying to launch bots and tools using public information, only to be warned internally that “this is a risk to the organization”. Even when tools were built using in-house software, the same culture and structures of the deep status quo made innovation hard.  

The difference was however that this set of participants were often not making or changing rules but were on the interpreting end. Time and again, people shared stories about being told “you can’t do that”, only to dig deeper and realize the rule didn’t actually exist. One participant explained “I always ask: ‘Show me where it says that.’ Most of the time, people can’t. The barrier is a made-up rule”.

Others nodded. In fact, they said, the lack of clarity about what’s actually allowed creates more fear than the rules themselves. Central agencies may issue flexible policies—but unless departments understand them, they still default to the status deep status. As one person put it: “The only thing worse than not following Treasury Board directives is following them—because people read them wrong and then enforce things that aren’t even real.” 

The afternoon session also unmasked the often personal costs of innovation with many in the session pointing to how they had to challenge rules, they had to manage up, they had to be the entrepreneurs and push or else innovation would never happen. Using tools in new ways, clarifying rules, pushing for space to innovate - requires courage and resolve.

Policy Innovation that Works - and Why

Many innovators in the room spoke about the need to go beyond catchphrases and buzzwords.  Policy innovation happened when there was space, trust, and when it was grounded in the heavy lifting of policy and program design and delivery.  

For example, one participant urged that every federal program include a minimum spend on experimentation—not just for research’s sake, but to identify the friction points that only emerge when real users try to engage with the government. Another, like the senior leader, pointed to Grants and Contributions instruments noting that “All grants and contributions (G&Cs) should be results-based within four years.” Why? Because right now, as they said, “You can fail for ten years straight and still look good—so long as your financial records are perfect.” Another summed up the feeling in the room well saying “We don’t need perfection. We need persistence, coalitions, and just enough freedom to try”.

A host of examples were shared about how policy innovators tackled the deep status quo, hacked the bureaucracy, and built coalitions and appetite for more policy innovation. They came from various departments and sectors but often flagged the role of getting the right teams together, clear mandates (or room to manoeuver within mandates), and supporting institutional levers.

Reflecting on building a new program in Finance one participant explained the breakthrough:“We had a clear ministerial mandate, a small team with the right skills, and a ton of political will. That alignment made it possible. Another shared how they helped build new terms and conditions under the Treasury Board Secretariat policy to allow for outcomes-based payments. Instead of paying organizations to deliver activities, they were paid only if they achieved pre-agreed results. It was radical for the government—and it worked.

sled dog team

Proof of concept was necessary, but not sufficient. Incremental approaches that started with small experimentation and innovation were often noted. Many spoke of innovating in policy and then using results as a flywheel to get access to more latitude, resources, or buy in. For example, one participant drew on a skilled trades training example. It was hard to convince employers to release two employees at first. But after showing the impact that training in dyads had on productivity, safety, and retention through a quasi-experimental study, the model scaled up from hundreds of participants to thousands.

Often you do not have the political will, sometimes results do not lead to buy-in or permission for more risk taking, sometimes you do not have the team or resources.  The conditions might not always be ideal, but participants shared how they moved policy innovation forward by:

• Building parallel teams. A few talked about creating small internal units with a different mandate. These teams had time to focus on transformation while the “main business” ran as usual.

• Getting the right mix of people. One called these folks “can-do simplifiers”—financial officers, HR advisors, legal analysts who help solve problems rather than block them.

• Bring people in early. Rather than convincing people after the fact, some found that including finance, HR, and IT teams from the beginning made it easier to get approval later.

• Build coalitions, not just arguments. One speaker said: “I used to think I could just show the data and yell until people did the right thing. Now I know you have to build a team—even with people outside your comfort zone.” One speaker referred to “trojan mice”—small, stealthy efforts that sneak change under the radar. These efforts work best when they're backed by quiet persistence, strategic communication, and a willingness to “eat glass”—to suffer through the hard, unglamorous work that innovation often requires.

What Senior Leaders Can do

mother duck & ducklings

After our morning discussion we asked the group of policy innovation leaders from the afternoon session how senior leaders could support innovation? The answer was a lot, including:

• Take real risks—and protect your teams when they do. One speaker said they launched a new tool internally, and within five minutes, someone came to their office warning it was a risk. If they hadn’t known their ADM would back them, they wouldn’t have dared.

• Say yes to something imperfect. Leaders were urged to approve “version 1” of a proposal, with the promise to revisit it in 6–8 months. Stop vetoing without explanation. One person said, “We don’t mind disagreement. But when one person silently derails a project after months of work, it kills morale.

• Tie funding to compliance with innovation standards. For example, departments should only receive delivery funding if they meet user experience or digital service standards.

• Learn from users—and your own processes. Multiple speakers called for executives to spend time on the frontlines, experiencing the systems they oversee. One called this the “undercover boss” approach. “Let them file a procurement request and see how painful it is,” someone joked.

• Write policies that are clear, concise, and actively taught. Rules mean little if no one understands or trusts them. One speaker said, “Just posting a directive online isn’t enough. The job isn’t done until departments know how to use it.”

Reflections from the day: spaces & practices for policy innovation

The sessions made clear that policy innovation isn’t optional anymore. Whether it's because of public expectations, complex problems, or digital realities, everyone agreed: the government must do better at seeding, scaling, and sustaining policy innovation. Both groups said: “We don’t have a shortage of ideas—we have a shortage of follow-through, support, and infrastructure”.

The dialogues surfaced that the spaces for policy innovation had declined, often shoehorned into specific initiatives or pilots. That more needed to be done to create not just labs and innovation hubs, but spaces in teams, units, and branches for those directly connected to the policies and programs to push for innovation. Building infrastructure for innovation must be a priority for senior and mid level leaders. 

Yet, everyone agreed that risk aversion and fear of failure are more damaging than anything else. Addressing that cultural piece - how to enable policy innovation in practice requires leadership, better communications, and spaces for innovation to happen.  It also requires courage from those at the top, but also those who are designing and delivering policies who are best placed to keep pushing the system and innovative practices.

The sessions put a light on the leadership, trust, but also courage and structural and cultural practices that can be decisive for policy innovation. Should the government review G&C, probably.  Can senior leaders create more space for policy innovation? Yes, but they need the right incentives as they are also being pushed and pulled in too many directions.  Policy innovation can’t live only in labs or pilots—it must be embedded in regulatory frameworks, service systems, and financial tools.

Across the two sessions there was candor, some laughter, and a quiet recognition that everyone in the room shared some responsibility in being more innovative. And not just for the sake of innovation, but because real people depend on it.

Ryan Androsoff is Vice-President, Learning and Leadership Institute on Governance

Sharon Ayele is Coordinator and Administrator, Learning at the Institute on Governance

Neil Bouwer is a long time policy leader in the Government of Canada. He is currently a Visiting Professor of Practice at the Max Bell School of Public Policy.

Jonathan Craft is Associate Professor at the University of Toronto and founder of www.policyready.ca

Want to attend an event? Write a Policy Making Today post?

Email us at policymakingtoday@gmail.com or sign up below.

by Sharon Ayele & Jonathan Craft

From Destination to Discipline argued it’s time to develop a discipline of public service policy innovation in Canada. That the deliberate adoption of new ways to develop and implement public policy shouldn’t be the exception to the rule but central to how Canada’s government makes public policy.

Against this backdrop Policy Ready and the Institute on Governance brought together public servants in Ottawa to explore the state and future of policy innovation in Canada. We discussed how to foster, scale, and sustain meaningful innovation across government in a period of government transition.

Two sessions were organized with a morning session including senior policy leaders with deep experience and a system wide perspective. The afternoon session featured a range of policy practitioners from across the front lines of federal policy innovation. These conversations brought into focus why policy innovation is so challenging. What it takes to make innovation happen, to scale it, and to sustain it as part of how the public service operates. 

This post shares key insights from the morning session. A second post will do the same from the afternoon session along with some comparative insights from across both conversations.

“No getting around Westminster”: Structure, Culture, and Incentives 

The coffee had barely been poured before the conversation turned to structural and cultural conditions that constrain policy innovation within the federal landscape. 

The deep status quo.

Canada’s Westminster style governing arrangements give us a professional public service and ministerial responsibility - but also a fragmented institutional ecosystem with complex rule-based authority and accountability arrangements.

Many spoke about how muddy accountability and fragmented authority make advancing policy hard - and innovating even harder. Policy issues no longer fall in clear categories, with neat and tidy accountabilities, but often span multiple departments and units and branches within them. While innovation was possible, too often energy and resources were being sunk on coordination, navigation, and management of the policy process instead of innovating within it. 

The public service is a ‘guardian institution’ as one participant put it. It promotes rules based accountability and avoids risk by design. Some pointed to how a host of restrictive rules have already been dismantled to enable innovation but others lamented the long shadow of the perception of rules as stifling policy innovation. Rules existed or must exist somewhere that prevented innovation. The deep status quo at work.

An underwater statue garden

Senior leaders widely recognized that public service culture was problematic. It incentivizes compliance, reporting, and monitoring - not policy innovation. Many, unsurprisingly, pointed to risk aversion. This was a senior leader's challenge with those in positions of authority needing to better recognize the risks in not taking risks and needing to better incentivize staff to normalize policy innovation. But executive compensation, program design, and funding cycles were systematic barriers that created a culture averse to policy innovation too. 

This was not just all ‘inside baseball’ either. Senior leaders were clear that when a partner, another order of government, or a community needs support—for example, to improve health, housing, or for economic development —it often has to figure out how to navigate the government maze. That there are often multiple government programs and departments, often with their own forms, deadlines, and reporting requirements. 

The conversation however was not all doom and gloom. Policy innovation happens.

Seeding, Awakening, and Scaling Policy Innovation 

Senior leaders were quick to point to the COVID-19 pandemic or global financial crisis as examples of when a crisis facilitated policy innovation. The group recognized the need to sustain a mindset and practices for policy innovation in absence of crisis. 

For some this was a matter of awakening the latent capacity in the system. Helping public servants ask questions to confirm rules really existed or to work within the system to innovate. Convening skills were highlighted with more than one participant talking about the need to bring together teams, branches, and even departments and ministers to help ensure a ‘no surprises’ environment and to lay groundwork for policy innovation. 

Someone watering a garden

Many bemoaned the persistence of "pilotitis"—small-scale experiments that never matured into broader reforms. Senior leaders stressed the need for structures and accountability mechanisms that allow successful innovations to be mainstreamed and scaled. Pilots that do not show promising results need to be wound down but without penalizing those who experimented. Likewise, while ‘digital’ was seen as having eclipsed ‘innovation’ it had materialized mostly through innovations in service delivery. There was a need to seed innovation sooner ‘upstream’ in the policy process.

The importance of aligning evaluation functions with innovation goals was highlighted as a way to embed learning and drive accountability for experimentation. Many also identified the need to modernize concrete policy tools - like grants and contributions (G&C) agreements. These instruments (and their guidance) were flagged as inflexible and inconsistent. Several participants describe how these instruments made policy innovation difficult particularly when working across government or with specific types of non-government partners. G&C have been reformed before but participants were clear that further reforms, informed by contemporary policy practice, were needed to drive innovation.

A slew of innovation examples were discussed. They ranged from systemic finance reforms in the wake of the global financial crisis to small experiments that tested mentorship training in the skilled trades. The latter started with just a few hundred apprentices but grew to reach over 25,000 across the country as evaluations showed it worked and convening helped secure opportunities to scale it.

There was capacity and opportunity within the system - but senior leaders needed to help incentivize it, could nurture it when it was nascent, and had to work to scale innovations.  

The discussion helped crystalize what could reinforce and stimulate more policy innovation:

• Embedding innovation in daily work through institutionalized directives and targets creates real incentives to experiment and innovate in the policy space. The directive on experimentation was highlighted as were various innovation prizes and working groups. Case studies and examples were also identified as helping socialize and normalize innovation in everyday practice.  

• Cross-Sector and Horizontal Collaboration: Many called for deeper integration across departments and with non-governmental actors. Proposals included policy incubation hubs within each department, human resource reforms to foster interdisciplinary teams, and innovation partnerships that include the private sector and academia. Examples were shared of community-focused funding mechanisms and collaborative horizontal policy initiatives.

• Embedding Innovation in Organizations: One particularly impactful example was the National Research Council’s model, which mandates that 20% of researchers’ time be spent on experimentation. This built-in time, along with domain expertise and funding, creates a sustainable model for continuous innovation.

• Redesigning Core Instruments: There’s a need to rethink foundational elements of government such as grants and contributions (G&Cs), regulatory processes, and procurement systems. Innovations like "sludge audits" and outcome-based funding were presented as tools to simplify and streamline burdensome procedures.

• Leadership, Accountability, and Trust: Trust—both internal and external—was noted as critical to advancing innovation. Encouraging executive-level engagement with front-line service experiences and operational policy staff needed to happen more. Additionally, participants underscored the need to clarify and support accountability to empower risk-taking.

• Strengthen Convening Practices: to enable policy innovation by bringing together the needed teams, units, and departments early. To highlight the value proposition, find consensus, and demystify innovative policy practice.

Innovation isn’t always about building something new. Sometimes, it’s about stopping what doesn’t work anymore—and making space for something better. The morning ended not with big conclusions but with more questions and a recognition that innovation in the policy space requires ongoing commitment and that senior executives have a particular role to play in taking on the deep status quo.

Sharon Ayele is Coordinator and Administrator, Learning at the Institute on Governance

Jonathan Craft is Associate Professor at the University of Toronto and founder of Policyready.ca

Want to attend an event? Write a Policy Making Today post?

Email us at policymakingtoday@gmail.com or sign up below.

By Neil Bouwer

Long road image byJoe Gardner

Notwithstanding heroic efforts and notable examples of policy innovation, Governments need to fundamentally increase their capacity for policy innovation. Today’s policy environment is famously characterized as “VUCA”, which is to say, “volatile, uncertain, chaotic and ambiguous”. It seems obvious in this context that Governments need to constantly innovate their policy practices to better confront novel and complex challenges, as well as to take advantage of an ever-expanding menu of potential practices. And in the current environment of emergent Artificial Intelligence, new foreign threats, economic uncertainty and transitions of government, the appetite for fresh thinking seems particularly high. 

In the dynamic times we exist in, and in the face of constantly rising citizen expectations, the cost of inertia is rising. Policy innovation is no longer optional. It is a means to ensure sustainable public sector stewardship. Without policy innovation, the public sector will not just fail to be excellent, it will fail to be competent.  

Policy innovation is the deliberate adoption of new ways to develop and implement public policy. It is not novelty for novelty’s sake. It is a way to adapt policy directions and policy actions to new conditions: such as technological disruption, demographic shifts, and environmental pressures. It is also a means to respond to rising citizen expectations for inclusion in public decision-making, as well as frictionless, mobile, and digital delivery of Government programs and services. Policy innovation includes the use of novel policy instruments (like behavioural nudges and X-prizes), new approaches to policy development (such as design thinking, data analytics and citizen assemblies), with a commitment to organizational learning, usually in the form of experimentation and piloting.

We are not starting from scratch

Image: Federal, Provincial & Territorial declaration on public sector innovation

The Government of Canada has a rich history of bold policy innovation. The 1970s were marked by the rise of universal social programs, new national institutions, and partnership funding with community organizations. The adoption of the Charter, consumption taxes, free trade with the U.S., new major federal-provincial/territorial transfers, and environmental regulations are all examples of large-scale policy innovations from the 1980s. The 1990s brought management-by-results, service transformation, and select new public management instruments (such as the commercialisation of airports and air navigation services, and radio-spectrum auctioning). The 2000s saw the introduction of design thinking, the digital channel of service delivery, product development, data analytics and now, of course, artificial intelligence. In 2017 Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial governments even issued a joint “Declaration on Public Sector Innovation”.  Many of these examples of policy innovation were backed by research, modelling, and experimentation. Many used new policy instruments and approaches to effectuate change. And in these ways they can be considered ‘policy innovations’.

In recent years, many federal departments and agencies have produced noteworthy examples of policy innovation:

• Impact Canada is working with over a dozen Departments to use challenge-based grants and behavioural insights to advance policy objectives in the areas of renewable energy, climate action, public health, housing, and misinformation.

• The Public Health Agency of Canada and the Privy Council Office, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, used behavioural science insights to shape public communications to support the uptake of vaccines and other preventive health behaviours.

• The Canada School of Public Service’s Digital Academy moved beyond conventional training to host multi-disciplinary teams in a “digital accelerator” that practices user-centred design and agile methods.  It also worked with other departments to pilot the use of natural language processing and “rules-as-code” for regulators.

• Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has experimented with AI-assisted triage in visa processing in low-risk areas – freeing resources to focus on more complex and higher-stakes cases.

• Service Canada has introduced robotic process automation to create efficiencies in repetitive, low-value added processes in order to avoid the cost of increasing caseloads.

• Major regulators, such as Transport Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, have moved away from prescriptive regulatory approaches to more technologically-neutral systems-based approaches that provide safety while allowing for appropriate innovation by regulated parties.

• And many departments and agencies established innovation hubs and labs to support innovative practices and pathfinder projects.  In 2017 the Government created a formalized Government of Canada policy community, which has also supported policy innovation, most recently under the rubric of “adaptive policy-making”.

While such examples are laudable, we need more comprehensive change to meet the rising expectations of citizens and to fulfill the potential of new approaches and instruments to create public value. 

Avoiding ‘pilotitus’

However, efforts to pursue policy innovation have to contend with institutional antibodies – risk aversion, compliance with the status quo, capacity for change management, and lack of sustained follow through.  In many departments and agencies this has resulted in “pilotitus”, the accumulation of pilot projects that fail to scale and generate meaningful change. Heads of departments and agencies have been designated as “Chief Accountability Officers” in a way that encourages risk-averse behaviours and which places compliance with the status quo above the quest for future business value through novel means. For all the recent talk of innovation, the Government’s capacity to incorporate and scale new approaches today remains deeply uneven.  Government is more often a “cautious follower” rather than an “innovation leader”.

Image of red paper plane out of line with white paper planes. Stock photo by Vecteezy

Government needs a culture of disciplined policy innovation—one that marries curiosity with stewardship, and experimentation with follow-through. Three shifts are key:

1. From heroic ‘one offs’ to systemic learning and application. Pilots and prototypes are important – because they inspire and inform. But unless they scale into programs, they become ‘innovation theatre’. Departments and Agencies need mechanisms for continuous learning that are hard-wired into program design. Internal program evaluation resources should be reorganized to deliver more rigorous and independent analysis, and to provide insights based on real-time business intelligence.

2. From rules-based alignment to empowering differentiation.
   The self-imposition of hard-and-fast rules on complex and dynamic organizations stifles the adoption of experimental methods and the scaling of new approaches that can produce demonstrated results.  Central agencies should adopt principles-based approaches and reward senior leaders for innovating.  Service monopolies such as Shared Services Canada and Public Services and Procurement Canada should be reconsidered.  Deputy Heads should empower managers who experiment, measure results and most importantly scale successful new approaches.

3. From fragmentation to common purpose. Many policy innovation efforts are isolated. What’s missing is a clear articulation of an agenda for policy innovation. The Government should refresh the commitment to policy innovation it made in the 2017 federal provincial-territorial declaration.  The Privy Council Office and Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat should take a leadership role, along with the Policy Community Partnership Office.  They should ensure Deputy Ministers are expected and empowered to pursue disciplined innovation. We need to catalog promising policy formation practices, policy instruments, and policy experiments.  We need to raise the expectation on the public service to provide bolder advice, to incorporate modern tools and approaches, and to produce evidence in the form of experimentation and business intelligence.  There should be greater communication about the experience of policy innovators, including an annual report on policy innovation.

Policy innovation is not a destination. It is a discipline. And like all disciplines, it demands practice. Moving forward, there is a need for policy leaders to understand where we need to invest in learning, how we can best support innovative practices, and how we scale the practices that work.

The transition(s) taking place in the Government of Canada provides an excellent time to take stock of the current state of policy innovation and to articulate future directions. In particular:

• What are some promising approaches to policy innovation that should be shared across the Government?

• How can we best support innovative policy practices in the Government of Canada?  Are there legal, policy or other barriers that need to be removed or revisited?

• How can we best support the scaling of successful experiments?

• What does success look like?

Neil Bouwer is a long time policy leader in the Government of Canada. He is currently a Visiting Professor of Practice at the Max Bell School of Public Policy https://www.mcgill.ca/maxbellschool/our-people/visiting-professors-and-scholars/neil-bouwer

Want to attend an event? Write a Policy Making Today post?

Email us at policymakingtoday@gmail.com or sign up below.

Written by Amanda Tam

The involvement of non-state actors is now crucial for much collaborative policymaking and governance. Indonesia is a country that illustrates the interplay between state- and non-state actors furthering our understanding of the nature of collaborative policy practice. That is, where governments often work through networks and engage with non-state actors, as mandated by law. Networked governance structures can have advantages over hierarchical or market-oriented structures, which include information sharing and innovation strategies that emerged from interactions between multiple actors. However, these governance arrangements require unique non-state capacity deployment.

While the policy capacity of the state has been extensively studied, the role of operational capacity of the non-state actors remains understudied. The question of whether it is critical could be examined through looking into two organisations — one which has strong operational capacity and the other lacks so, and whether having the operational capacity enables such an organisation to achieve policy success in the long run.

Bandung City, Indonesia. Photo by Fikri Rasyid on Unsplash

Is ‘operational’ policy capacity still important post-crisis where the government-initiated policy formulation? Is operational capacity required for the non-state actors to give recommendations in collaborative policymaking process? Does the law-making process require the operational capacity of the non-state actors to provide such a well-rounded and holistic input? The existing literature has argued that the failure of networked governance is often when the actors do not have the operational capacity, but is this also the case for the non-state actors?

The case below will focus on Indonesia, but this analysis is also applicable for the study of operational capacity of the civil society organisations in other countries. As the operationalisation of organisations relying on an ad-hoc participation might still be deployed in some areas by organisations lacking resources. Some mitigation strategies and recommendations to tackle these issue are provided below.

Policy Capacity, Operational Policy Capacity, and Non-state actors

Policy capacity is defined as the competences and abilities of the state actors to perform their policy functions. It refers to the skills and abilities that enable the state actors to carry out their activities and roles in the government, such as making the decisions out of the many options or managing diverse stakeholder interests. Such a definition leaves a gap in the capacity practice of non-state actors in policy making, such as advocating their own findings on the specific issue to inform policy making.

Operational capacity is often under-examined and only partially theorized as it relates to supplies outside of government. It refers to the management structures within the organisations that help them to mobilise resources necessary to carry out policy tasks. This includes the structures of separate divisions or departments, or thought leadership and coordination systems that help inter-department communication, further allowing organisations to collaborate with external stakeholders, providing innovative thoughts and ideas for the policymaking process.

Indonesia’s Response to the COVID-19 crisis: The Tale of Two Organisations

Analysis of Indonesia's response to the COVID global pandemic helps unpack the capacity issues raised above. The management of COVID–19 has been deemed ineffective, as the country recorded the highest cases and death rates in Southeast Asia, and only second to India in Asia.

Despite the countries’ neglect of expert knowledge, there are two notable organisations which continually gave their inputs and recommendations to the government and demanded better regulation: LaporCOVID-19 (ReportCOVID-19) and the Center for Indonesia’s Strategic Development Initiatives (CISDI) with varying degrees of operational capacity.

Indonesians waiting for covid vaccinations

LaporCOVID-19 is an ad-hoc non-governmental organisation which aims to supply the number of cases via data gathering infrastructures and mechanisms permeated into the local government. The analysis of statistical information is the product of their analytical capacity, and coupled with their political capacity, they were able to stop planned paid COVID-19 vaccination. Their operational organisation relies on the voluntary participation of the citizens in reporting COVID-19 cases.

CISDI, similarly, provided recommendations to the government on the ‘population prioritisation’ in the government’s vaccines roll-out. Their political capacity is also exhibited via building coalitions with the same stakeholders and media outreach through their framing strategies that enable the government to pay heed to their recommendations on the different COVID-19 issues. The most striking difference with LaporCOVID-19 is that CISDI has its operational capacity, such as most of the staff are hired through contractual agreement. Furthermore, the staffing and leadership is shown through the management of the healthcare cadres that they trained to assist the local health offices.

CISDI was able to train and mobilise healthcare cadres and gave them technical training to implement a smooth vaccination program in the local healthcare centres, further collaborating with the West Java province. This further provides a more holistic and well-rounded CSO-type of crisis management, whilst collaborating with the state. On the other hand, LaporCOVID-19 relied on the voluntary ability of citizens to report their cases on vaccination and further implementation training is not evident.

The presence of operational capacity contributes to such a holistic advocacy approach. Such an implication also extends to the country where non-state organisation seems to be relying on the ad-hoc participation, in which limited participation on the policy analysis and collaborative implementation is due to the lack of incentives for the staff to provide their resources. For instance, some organisations might be relying on the volunteers to collect data on the ground and might lose some opportunities of deploying the staff’s capacities beyond collecting, for instance, for dissemination and analysis.

Capacity for Advocating Health Reform Post-Crisis

figurines with pills

The Government of Indonesia in 2023 launched a new health law that aimed towards ensuring an even distribution of healthcare workers across archipelagos, strengthening the primary healthcare system and the provisioning of advanced health technologies. The law was created through the omnibus approach, which removes public participation because it aims for a fast process. Such a lack of participation has been criticized by LaporCOVID-19 and CISDI but through different approaches.

The LaporCOVID-19 only produced one analytical statement on the problems of the health law, demanding for the law to be revoked. Their analytical capacity seems not to be aligned with the government’s policy agenda and driven by the lack of operational capacity that would enable the long-term staff and managerial team to understand broader contexts better. Indeed, the organisation did not evolve into a new form in 2023 due to its ad-hoc nature, and still relied on voluntary mechanism for the team management. The limited number of teams, after the pandemic resolved, could be attributed to the low number of knowledge products generated.

On the other hand, CISDI has given numerous analytical products (it is observed that there are a minimum of five press releases or policy briefs produced) about the limitation of the health law. They provide more inputs on how to improve some clauses in the law to better accommodate a wide range of stakeholders in the health system, such as the healthcare cadres. The resultant outcome was that the government responded and changed the clause that reflects CISDI’'s recommendation. Operational capacity can be attributed to the success, as it allows for the ongoing stakeholder engagement and tailored communication.

So what? Implications for Policy Practice

Operational capacity seems to be driving organisations to have stronger capacity for managing resources and mobilising evidence to create numerous policy briefs and press statements for the government. The presence and provision of contractual staff enables them to also connect with key stakeholders via the dissemination of their knowledge products or appropriating the windows of opportunity to insert their evidence through monitoring the progression of health policy issues.

Therefore, organisations that are still operating in an ad-hoc capacity could further:

• Hire grant-seeking professionals to ensure the continued funds for operational management of the organisation. This can include professionals with project management backgrounds.

• Ensure continual professional development for their contractual staff to enhance its adaptive capacity to meet current policy needs, such as responding to the policy or advocating for certain causes.

• The end of a specific crisis should be seen as the strategic timing to swiftly change the organisation’s mission statements and further elaborate long-term activities post-crisis.

Amanda Tan is the recipient of Monash Indonesia Inspire Doctoral Scholarship Program (IIDSP) and pursuing a doctoral degree in public policy studies at Monash University. Her research seeks to examine the strategic capacities of brokering organisations.

Want to attend an event? Write a Policy Making Today post?

Email us at policymakingtoday@gmail.com or sign up below.

By: S. Ashleigh Weeden, Wayne Kelly, Joel Templeman

It might seem self-evident, but it is essential to start any discussion about contemporary policy making with the reminder that digital technologies now impact every facet of how we live, work, and play. Digital technologies are no longer - and, arguably, never were - separate from or layered on top of the policy process, but both theoretical and pragmatic discussions of policy still often treat them as add-ons, at best. This has produced a tangled web of issue-specific interventions, politically motivated investment decisions, and challenging tensions between different policy objectives, resulting in interventions that might make sense in isolation but which ultimately frustrate or impede interventions in other areas. This is known as policy incoherence.

Policy Incoherence​

Policy incoherence is what happens when interactions between sectors or portfolios are not accurately accounted for or addressed - whether through ignorance, underestimation, or intentional dismissal. Policy incoherence happens most frequently when incongruent goals, values, or power-dynamics collide and is often typified by clashes between economic policy with broader policy agendas, but it can also result from competing agendas among different orders of government. Climate policy agendas versus energy or industrial policy agendas are often used as examples of the former, while municipalities striking direct policy agreements with the federal government in order to by-pass provincial policy agendas might be seen as an example of the latter. It is worth noting, however, that policy incoherence/coherence is not a binary between ‘good’ coherence and ‘bad’ incoherence. Actors, both inside and outside government institutions, can and have used policy incoherence to their advantage by operating in the gap created by the combination of policy incoherence and a lack of attention from those most responsible for it. For example, in Ontario, there are more than a dozen definitions of ‘rural’ used in various policies and programs - and savvy strategists in some local governments have sometimes used these competing definitions to argue for eligibility in programs that may not have initially supported them. Others have found ways to operate in the murky waters of interjurisdictional infighting by striking agreements with the federal government directly if provincial policies work against local goals and plans.

While one might argue that strategically exploiting policy incoherence is a maladaptive coping mechanism, it is often the only pragmatic way of navigating a policy landscape that has become so complex and poorly organized that it resists structural and practical reform. This will remain the case unless or until policymaking institutions are able to configure a system where each actor and relationship in the policy process has clear lines of responsibility, authority, accountability, capacity, and resourcing that are easily understood by those outside the system itself.

​The federal and provincial governments across Canada have continued to struggle to create effective policy coherence between digitally oriented interventions and policy work. Despite nearly fifty years of policy statements on digital technologies, from infrastructure to applications, it remains unclear whether digital policy investments have meaningfully supported social policy goals. Often, digital policy portfolios have been largely captured by either internal facing ‘digital government’ concerns or by an obsessive orientation towards private capital and economic development. Canada’s failure to meaningfully move the needle in the telecommunications field, particularly in rural broadband access and uptake, is perhaps the strongest example of this dynamic, as the majority of investments in this file have never actually been evaluated for their effectiveness and still remain focused on transferring public money to private capital to build critical infrastructure (that largely remains unbuilt).

Digital policy has, unfortunately, come to represent policy-based evidence making in many cases, where a digital solution is offered before a problem is ever fully analyzed or where concerns about digital technology are siloed away from broader policy agendas. For example, why is separate legislation targeting fraud or harassment depending on whether it happens ‘online’ or ‘offline’? Digital interventions, investments, policies, or programs are often found scattered throughout government in various portfolios, but rarely aggregated and viewed as a whole, resulting in inefficiencies. Disconnected policies result in disjointed outcomes.While governments are rightly concerned with the way digital considerations influence and impact service design and delivery, they often fail to account for the ways in which digital interventions, policies, and programs could support other policy portfolios – or, alternatively, how ineffective application or incorrect assumptions about digital technologies and programs could prevent the achievement of those goals.

Digital Equity and Today’s Complex Policy Making Realities

Current considerations of ’digital equity’ tend to focus on access or adoption of technology but rarely consider or directly evaluate the multi-directional implications and impacts of social policy on digital policy, and vice versa, as a matter of equity. Sometimes, the focus on physical infrastructure or connectivity can prevent critical assessment and management of other crucial aspects of digital policy, such as why and how it is used to support service delivery, workforce and skill development, social inclusion priorities, or integration with every other portfolio. For example, in the current housing crisis, there have been many initiatives announced to support affordable housing; however, those policy interventions may have been strengthened by integrating or supporting parallel programming/investments that ensure new housing developments are built with fibre-to-the-premise (FTTP) (meaning fibre-optic infrastructure is connected directly to an individual premise, rather than to a shared hub or other mechanism that dilutes its efficiency). Taken even further, that FTTP could be a publicly run network or managed through wholesale access, or any number of other strategies that would help address faults in the Canadian telecommunications market.

Assumptions about the appropriateness of digital service delivery as equivalent to other service delivery mechanisms and/or failure to consider the implications of digital-delivery-by-default on in-situ service delivery can produce equity concerns (for example, if all services are assumed delivered via digital mechanisms, what happens when some services require ’in situ’ infrastructure or when direct contact between front-line government services and communities are lost/altered).

Many governments have adopted a practice of presumed inevitability about digital technologies that has precluded the interrogation of important questions throughout the policymaking process, such as: is a digital approach the right approach or have we considered non-digital or non-technological approaches? The result is that public policy can become a coercive tool that insists on participation in a digital process that people and communities may not need or want, or which materially affects their ability to achieve their actual goals.

Finally, incoherence across the broader policy ecosystem makes it difficult, if not impossible, to meaningfully analyze and evaluate the impact of digital policy interventions on broader public policy goals, and vice versa, sometimes simply because no one actually knows how the various points in the system interact.

At the time of writing, there appears to be limited exploration of these dynamics in Canada at senior policy making tables or in public administration research. The resulting tangled web of well-intentioned policies and missing evaluating literature invites Thomas Dye’s foundational question for guiding public policy analysis: does the government actually know what it is doing?

Unfortunately, it would seem, the answer is no.

Developing improved  coherence requires focused evaluation to address disconnected digital policies across all orders of government through whole-of-government considerations of what, exactly, policymakers are trying to achieve and questioning why, whether, when, and how digital technologies should or could be used to achieve those goals.

S. Ashleigh Weeden, MPA, PhD is a Post-Doctoral Researcher with Brandon University and a Research Associate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (Ontario).

Wayne Kelly, PhD is the Director of the Rural Development Institute at Brandon University, Brandon, Canada, kellyw@brandonu.ca

Joel Templeman, CD, MPA, MEd is the Executive Director of the Internet Society Manitoba Chapter Inc. and a doctoral student at the University of Calgary.

Together, they are examining issues in this blog post through a Mitacs-funded research initiative - ‘Digital Horizons: Shaping Manitoba’s Integrated Policy Future’ -  to explore to find and highlight the often underemphasized intersections between broader/whole-of-government socio-economic policy agendas and digital policy.

Want to attend an event? Write a Policy Making Today post?

Email us at policymakingtoday@gmail.com or sign up below.

by Zachary Spicer

City Hall, Toronto

It’s natural to conceptualize policymaking taking on roughly similar dimensions across governments. For instance, those considered policymakers in New Brunswick would take on the same principles, design techniques, pressures and recognize a roughly similar policy cycle as those in Alberta or British Columbia. For those policy professionals honing their craft in one of Canada’s 3,573 municipalities, policymaking looks somewhat different. By exploring an understudied and under considered policy space, we may stand to learn more about the practice of policy professionals in Canada and where gaps and pressures exist for the craft of policymaking in this country. 

While municipalities deliver critical services to Canadians in communities both big and small, they do so under tremendous resource, capacity and legislative constraint. This can make life as a policy professional in local government feel more like policy-taking than policymaking, meaning that this policy world may feel more reactive than proactive. Local policy work is often oriented towards reacting to decisions made elsewhere rather than crafting solutions that are designed to fit the local community. This can create the feeling that local policy professionals are not fully in control of the policy space they were hired to lead. 

To explore the unique policymaking environment in Canadian municipalities we convened a small group of policymakers from across the local government sector, including those working in municipalities, those recently retired from senior leadership roles in municipalities, those representing municipal associations and those working with the Province of Ontario. 

The conversation covered a lot of territory – some of which is well known to those working in the municipal sector, including a lack of capacity, sparse resources, recruitment and retention challenges and a disruptive legislative environment. What emerged, as well, was a unique profile of a municipal policy professional, one that may not be always recognizable to the broader policy community in Canada. Careful consideration of the role of local policy professionals may help us better define and support policy professionals at all orders of government. 

Who are the Local Policymakers?

City of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

A theme that emerged and re-emerged throughout the session is what a local “policymaker” looks like. A simple scan of a staff directory in any municipality reveals that few job titles contain the word “policy”. A similar review of federal, provincial or territorial directories would find hundreds of positions containing this word in some form – policy advisors, policy analysts, directors of policy, and so on. Who is responsible for policy in these governments? One would assume any of the people with “policy” in their job title. Many of these positions are entry points into these policy worlds. A policy advisor in the Province of Ontario may not be solely responsible for policy development for a particular ministry, but the title certainly gives us a sense of what they do. They do policy. However broadly defined, they do policy.

You would struggle to find similar job titles municipally – especially in small and mid-sized municipalities. In fact, even in Toronto - our largest municipality in Canada – you would not see the title “policy advisor” or “policy analyst” emerge with similar regularity as the provincial or federal government. “Management Consultant” (or some similar variety) would be the term you’d most likely encounter. Does this mean one would similarly struggle to find policy development? Not necessarily. In fact, most people working within a municipality are “doing policy”, even if they are a land use planner, a water engineer or a by-law officer. They may not even consider themselves a policy professional. Responsibility for policy development is spread widely in municipal organizations, even if fulfilled by those in more technical roles.

A Very Different Policy Environment

A theme we returned to throughout the session is the unique policy environment in which municipal policymakers find themselves. This is a level of government with close connection to people, meaning that many municipalities have community engagement baked into the policy cycle, often at a great resource and time expense. It is a policy environment with frequent legislative constraints from provincial governments who regularly set and then reset the range of policy action available to municipalities. This is also a policy environment with few revenue tools and a budget that is largely filled with services demanded by provincial legislation.  To a degree, its internalized that municipalities do not have autonomy or agency in certain policy spaces, meaning that policy creativity can be stifled. This scenario creates a limited range of policy thinking available in each department or position. It’s easy to not consider ourselves being in policy roles if our range of movement is so confined.

Even with constraints imposed, municipal decision-makers refine policy direction and shape the contours of how policy (even centrally conceived) is delivered locally, often through implementation and assigning local resource levels. By baby steps, opportunities for design are found and the policy agenda of municipalities advances, albeit in a much different pace and direction than those in federal, provincial or territorial governments.

If Everyone’s a Policymaker is Anyone a Policymaker?

With such unique policymaking positions and diverse policy pressures, it is natural to see local government as a very different policymaking environment. This environment calls for a much different policy professional – even one that may not have “policy” in the job title. So, how can we increase the policy capacity of local governments? Let’s begin by re-considering the municipal policy professional.

city limits sign Kelowna, British Columbia

• Allow for interface with technical positions: Given the services most municipalities provide to the public, local governments employ many with a technical background, such as land use or transportation planning or traffic and water engineering, and so on. These are technical domains, with regulation and accreditation through external professional bodies, which creates some siloing around these roles and a limited connection with other departments and policy spaces. Creating more opportunities for collaboration between core policy staff and those with technical responsibilities would bolster both skill sets and open up certain local policy spaces.

• Disburse these roles throughout the organization, rather than being centralized in the CAOs office: Where one does find the “policy people” in local government, they tend to be concentrated in the Chief Administrative Officer or City Manager’s (the head of local civil service) office. This may give the impression that policy is a centralized process, when, in fact, the opposite in local government is true. Embed those defined policy roles throughout the organization.

• Create more defined policy roles: For new policy professionals, the lack of defined policy roles in local government can make these organizations seem inhospitable (or even hostile) towards more policy inclined public servants. Additionally, without more defined policy roles, municipal and provincial governments seem to be largely without “policy peers” to create meaningful interface. Policy is a craft in local government like other organizations, so bringing that to the forefront and incorporating it into departments and job descriptions opens the door for more public facing policy work or at least provides license to “do policy” in local governments.

In reconsidering the role of policy professionals in local government, perhaps we can also accept an invitation to do the same more broadly. 

Does everyone with “policy” in their title at the provincial, territorial and federal level really do “policy”? 

Does everyone without the word not do policy? 

It may be time to reconsider the role of the policy professional in Canada, asking pertinent questions about who “does policy”, where one “ does policy” and whether having boundaries (like job titles) around policy work serves governments and Canadians? 

As we see in local government, those holding technical positions are also “doing policy”. As we also see, the stages where policy work is done is not always the front of the policy cycle. Implementation and resourcing also provide ample opportunity for input and design. 

While the local policy environment may seem constrained at first look, it provides us an opportunity to search more widely and thoughtfully about where “policy” is taking place.

Zack Spicer is Head of New College & Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, York University.

Want to attend an event or write a post? Email us at policymakingtoday@gmail.com or sign up below.

Author: Noah Zon

Image of revolving door

It’s conventional wisdom in politics and policymaking that revolving doors are dangerous things to be feared. Not the actual doors, but the idea that movement between roles in industry and roles in government that regulate those industries leads to regulatory capture, with policy that favors the interests of industry rather than the public interest.

This is a risk that should be taken seriously. Bad actors exist, and even a perceived conflict of interest can be damaging to public trust. And it's true that policy can be skewed towards an industry without a whiff of corruption involved.

Canada has built a range of safeguards to block the revolving door and as a result we have very little of the personnel movement back and forth between government and industry seen in other countries. Instead of policy as a career path, people are typically streamed early on into working in, or out, of government. Government tends to be a career-long employer. Taking the federal public service as an example, the most recent statistics show that one-third of new indeterminate hires were under the age of 30, and public servants were three times more likely to leave for retirement than any other reason.

But are we better off as a result? We are robbing our regulators of the expertise to manage in the public interest and robbing industry of the expertise to understand how policymaking actually gets done in government. These rules are more likely to throw barriers around the well-intentioned people working in the field than they are to slow down people who are trying to work the system for their own self-interests.

While large institutions are hard to move - public services especially - this is something that can be improved through practical changes. We just need senior leaders and rising professionals on both sides of the government/”stakeholder” divide to see this movement as something to be encouraged rather than tightly controlled.

Maybe the real government is the friends we made along the way

When governments and the sectors they work with don’t understand each other’s practical realities, we get bad policy. There are things that are hard to understand without some experience working in a sector. Like how government incentive programs might factor into business decisions. Or what it’s like to navigate annual “accountability” reporting as a non-profit receiving transfer payments. 

This goes the other way as well. If we rely on “stakeholders” to make their communities’ and industries’ needs known to governments, we need them to be equipped to provide actionable advice in the right place and the right time. That is easier to do when you can rely on some expertise that you can’t easily get from books or classrooms about how to broker a successful memorandum to cabinet or implement a high-level policy commitment made in a budget or platform.

This isn’t just a question of “sub-optimal”. The safeguards against revolving doors may run counter to their own objectives. If you are concerned about well-resourced industry voices having outsized influence, you should want to ensure that the policymakers on the receiving end of that industry advocacy have the benefit of their own advice informed by the nuances of working directly in the field. The same goes if you’re concerned about a government harming innovation, or layering burdens on the non-profit organizations that deliver the bulk of modern public services because of the same lack of insight.

The upside of this challenge is that to get better outcomes, we don’t need all or most policy professionals to follow sector-jumping paths. We just need it to be more likely that more teams can call on that experience; that someone in the room can add that viewpoint to the conversation.

How did we end up here?

The targeted rules around things like post-employment restrictions for people leaving government only explain a small slice of the lack of movement in and out of government. There are a collection of factors that make it harder for people in government to leave (especially temporarily) and a collection that make it harder for people outside to do a tour of service.

Golden handcuffs and invisible fences

A side effect of good compensation in public service is the “golden handcuff” effect; for earlier career public servants in policy, pay is typically quite a bit higher than the alternatives, while for mid-to-late career folks the defined benefit pensions become nearly-impossible to match.

Beyond the potential near-term pay gap, there are further risks for those who see themselves pursuing public service careers in the long-term. The way to advance in the public service is by moving around in the public service, not by getting outside experience. Leaves of absences are approved reluctantly, if at all, rather than encouraged as part of talent management.

Image of golden handcuffs

These barriers can get reinforced by culture. People tend to emulate the career paths they see. And the leaders that are (hopefully) supporting their careers are more likely to have built their career in a mix of public service roles. The equivalent is also often true within sectors (or there is a clear political staff to government relations pipeline model).

Even if these hurdles are cleared, there are not enough places to go. While there has been an increase in policy-focused roles in both business and non-profit organizations in recent years, there are few mid-level roles appropriate for someone to spend some time mid-career. Compared to peer countries, Canada also has very few think tanks and similar places where someone can go do public-minded work on policy.

Breaking into the club

Looking in the other direction, public service can be an unnecessarily hostile place for someone looking to do a tour of duty. The majority of policy roles are not posted publicly but exist only in a “hidden” job market for people who are already in the public service. Postings are written in insider bureaucratic language, and feature unnecessary credential and experience requirements. Interview practices resemble the most uncomfortable verbal exam you ever went through in school.

And just like for current public servants, culture reinforces these barriers, in terms of the choices people pursue and the perspectives of hiring managers.  For those who do enter the public service mid-career or in leadership roles, the cultural barriers can make it very difficult to thrive. In practice, being an effective public servant in a policy role depends on trusted relationships, an ability to speak the jargon-heavy ‘language’ of government, and skill at navigating unspoken cultural norms. While these can be learned, talented professionals who join at more senior levels rarely get support to do so – and many face outright hostility from peers suspicious of those outside roles.

It doesn’t have to be this way

Even if there are many factors working against people moving in and out of government, there are good reasons to be optimistic. There are practical options that can bridge the divide even in the absence of bigger changes. Here are three responses that could pave the way for more people to bring their insights into and out of governments:

Scale up interchanges

The Government of Canada has a formal program in place to support temporary placements in and out of the core public service called Interchange. It allows federal public servants to take outside roles (typically with provincial governments or broader public sector organizations) and vice versa. However it is currently a very small program that requires a slew of signoffs and conditions. At the time of writing, there were a total of three (3) opportunities posted on its job board, though participating organizations and people can create unposted opportunities.

This could be a much more active route. One place to start is to prioritize interchange opportunities in public service talent management. Instead of a reluctant exception, these placements should be encouraged for public servants and used as a way to bring talent and expertise into public service. The federal government does have the Recruitment of Policy Leaders model to bring in talented professionals from different sectors. This could be scaled to other governments and expanded to different points in career. But it is also a practice that should take place in reverse, identifying rising policy talent in government and ensuring they have opportunities to serve in policy roles outside of government.

Another way to support scale would be to reduce red tape and other barriers to placements. Making the interchanges more centrally supported rather than individual quests could open more opportunities. In the US federal government they have also introduced changes to pension design aimed at reducing the golden handcuffs effect (though these have had limited effect to date).

Because it takes two sides to an interchange, scale also means building partnerships with organizations outside of government. Most of these organizations will have zero current awareness of the opportunity to bring in expertise this way, even if potential interest is high.

Image of an office worker looking through a window at other office workers

Create more “tour of duty” type roles in government and outside

To get more circulation in and out of government - and for a scale-up of interchange programs to be successful - we need more roles designed for people to do tours of duty in government or in community. This has been a successful approach to bring in talent for public digital initiatives through programs like Code for Canada. But it has not been attempted at scale for policy roles.

We do have some limited examples, mostly targeted at exchanges between government and policy academics. The Clifford Clark Visiting Economist program at the Department of Finance has brought in a leading economist for each of the last 40 years to provide advice to the Deputy and Minister. Similarly we have seen “in-residence” at Employment and Social Development Canada and at Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada, based in the Deputy Ministers’ offices. Several of Canada’s public policy graduate programs also bring in senior public servants for one-year postings.

These placements have had outsized impacts on the shaping of public policy and on the shaping of future public policy professionals. The only downside is that there are so few of these positions, and that they are targeted to people who are very accomplished and further in their careers. Creating more opportunities for 1-3 year tours of duty would allow more professionals to bring their expertise and insights to new places.

Build more professional communities for policy rather than public administration

Beyond these direct measures, a supportive response would be to build a professional community for policy people that includes people in and out of government. The Institute for Public Administration of Canada and its chapters do important work for bringing different parts of public service together. Community-led initiatives like Maytree Policy School and the Max Bell Public Policy Training Institute build capacity and communities of practice for policy leaders in the non-profit sector. But these are all focused on working within one (broad) sector rather than across the profession.

This is something worth pursuing for reasons beyond the career path effects. We need more spaces to look at what good policy looks like with perspectives from people making decisions, people implementing decisions, and people affected by them. (Thanks, Policy Ready).

Here a little bit can go a long way. A mix of informal and formal initiatives, building on what already exists can help build understanding and expertise for better public policy outcomes. For example, the Canada School of Public Service could open all or most of its programming to policy professionals outside government. Likewise, the public servants learning at the CSPS would benefit from programming to shed light on how their “stakeholder” counterparts see the policymaking process.

A revolving door that works

We need to equip governments with more understanding of the industries and sectors they regulate, rather than treating outside experience like a scarlet letter.  Guardrails are necessary, but the ones we have are not offering the right kind of protection. While the public may not be filled with concern about the career prospects of well-educated and well-paid policy wonks, this is a problem that leaves us all worse off.

Noah Zon is a co-founder and Principal of Springboard Policy, where he works with organizations to develop and advance good policy ideas. Before starting Springboard, Noah worked in policy roles in the non-profit sector, think tanks, and the Government of Ontario

Want to attend an event or write a post? Email us at policymakingtoday@gmail.com or sign up below.

Authors: Laura Nelson-Hamilton, Daphnée Nostrome, Jonathan Craft

When thinking about creativity, the complex, rules based, process heavy and incremental world of policymaking may not spring to mind. Picassos, sculptures, architecture or fashion design are more likely to top the list.

To explore the theme of creativity in policymaking, we hosted a session at OCAD U’s Centre for Emerging Artists and Designers, on June 7, 2024.  We welcomed a small and diverse set of policy professionals to discuss where and how they experience creativity in their work. 

This post summarizes our approach and the themes and insights that arose through discussions.

Opening Provocations

To ground our discussion, Daphnée Nostrome provided opening provocations, building off her post on harnessing creative approaches to policy making.

Image description: Daphnée Nostrome speaking, in front of a screen that says “Opening Provocations” 

Daphnée started by telling a story about a frustrated guy who spent hours trying to solve a tech problem before finally calling tech support. The tech comes over, fixes the issue in under a minute, then charges $1,500. Shocked, the guy complains about the high cost, and the tech explains that the quick fix comes from years of experience and practice. The story shows how creativity, like the tech's skill, is a practiced craft that lets us find the right solutions. 

Daphnée also asked the participants to consider:

• What is creativity?

• Who gets to be creative, and at whose expense?

• Who can question creativity?

• What creative experiments can help us find small changes that lead to big results?

These questions opened up our thinking prior to engaging with policymaking.

Exploring Experiences with Policymaking to Understand Creativity

To move beyond hypothetical or general thoughts on creativity and policymaking, we asked participants to reflect on an experience of policymaking.

Participants filled out the following template as a way to prepare for conversation:

Image description: a page with space to write a goal, identify a timeline, with four boxes for added key activities, and four boxes for identifying who was involved in each activity

They shared a wide range of experiences, including those related to:

• informing trade policy

• prioritizing a political platform

• designing a service

• COVID-19 response

• talent and capacity building

• analyzing housing options for women leaving situations of domestic violence

• securing space for artists

• envisioning the future of a theater company to support its pandemic response

Many examples included some form of:

• convening affected persons, stakeholders, and interest groups

• establishing internal to government collaboration across teams that hold particular forms of expertise

• soliciting or providing expertise

What we learned in the session is that the approaches people took, and the policy environments they worked within, were what defined creativity, in practice.

We adapted the following dialogue framework, from 10X100 and Politics for Tomorrow, to facilitate discussions:

Image description: A diamond with Presenter at the top, with 10 minutes for speaking. 2 dialogue partners in the middle, with 15 minutes for speaking, and a reflector role at the bottom, with 5 minutes for speaking. The presenter concludes the conversation by sharing back their insights, for 5 minutes.

Participants were provided the following written instructions and prompted to use the template prepared in part one of the session as the basis of their conversation:

Presenter - 10 mins: Shares about an experience with policymaking. How did it start, what were some of the main activities, where did creativity show up?

Dialogue Partners - 7 mins each: Consider what the presenter shared in relation to your experiences. What stood out to you? What’s similar to your experience? What’s different?

Reflector - 5 mins:  Share themes, connection points, and areas of divergence.

Presenter - 5 mins: Summarize any insights that have arisen, what the conversation is helping them consider.

Themes and Insights

In our discussions, the following themes and insights emerged:

• creativity can be a practice, a process, a set of techniques, a mindset, an input and an output

• the policymaking environment may not be open to creative inputs and outputs, particularly, those related to creative forms of knowledge generation and sharing. This may result in a separation between what is deemed to be creative and what is understood as policymaking

• data is often sought out by reflex, to understand a current state. That can help foster creativity, but others flagged it could also limit creativity by limiting exploration or leading to a sense of certainty over desired outcomes

• future-oriented analyses can enable affected persons to articulate preferred scenarios in novel ways. However, these preferred scenarios can be challenging to map to discrete policy changes, absent a political mandate or willingness to apply policy levers to the creation of preferred futures

• lived experience can help establish foundational understanding of the current state, but requires deeper connection to policy to support data interpretation and identify appropriate levers for change

• early stage work was often required to understand the current state, who needs to be involved in solutioning, and build relationships that could contribute to a shared vision for change

• time, resources, and alignment with funders are required to build the foundations for creativity and policymaking

• creativity in policymaking requires acknowledgement of one's own bias and recognition of the power dynamics that shape who is involved in policymaking, when, and how

When Does Creativity Happen and What Prevents It?

Many participants reflected on how creativity in policymaking often started as a response to crisis. Others expressed it as a response to not knowing exactly what to do, or how to do it.

For some, creativity was a path one needed to take in tandem with traditional policy development processes and in alignment with funding requirements. Creativity could launch those engaged in policymaking in new directions, but this inevitably required reorientation and shape shifting to be accepted. 

In some instances, conscious departure from a standard policy process was an objective of creativity. One participant shared the example of domestic violence reporting where creative approaches were needed to ensure that statements could be taken from survivors in ways that minimized invasive and painful experiences for them. This was echoed by others, who noted a distinction in creativity in what to do (policy objectives or problem structuring) versus the how, or implementation. 

One participant raised that creativity may not always be positive.  Noting that in some instances it might be used in relation to facts and framings in less helpful ways.

Participants consistently noted that creativity was relational and spatial. It was produced in spaces where people felt understood, safe, and able to express their knowledge and experiences in a manner that is consistent with who they are.  It often came to life within relationships of trust. Creativity also evolved in how policymaking participants interacted with others within and around governments on policy issues.  

Financial inputs, resources, authorities, and legitimacy are often gained and exercised in creative ways to allow responses to the policy challenge at hand, diversification of who is in the room or conversation, and where and how policymaking unfolded.

As one participant noted, creativity and policymaking may be about letting go of the ways, structures, assumptions, and functionality of traditional policymaking, and being drawn, instead, to the goal. Creativity in policymaking is about being responsible, working within guardrails, and behaving as stewards of the future, through deep understanding of the present. 

As it turns out, there is far more creativity within policymaking than initially imagined. There is also far more to consider than we had time to cover in a 2 hour session. 

If you’re interested in contributing to the conversation, reach out. If you have something top of mind, tell us:

• What does creativity and policymaking mean to you?

• What possibilities and limitations do you see? 

Links to Facilitation Materials are here

Want to attend an event or write a post? Email us at policymakingtoday@gmail.com or sign up below.

Author: Daphnée Nostrome

TL;DR:

What is Creativity?
 We can interact in countless ways with people, systems, actors, and problems. And in those interactions, our willingness to deeply engage with each other, change our perspective and let go of almost canonical beliefs can lead to more dynamic approaches to policymaking. No one owns creativity, but it’s a living process that thrives when we let go, and allow ourselves to expand our vantage point so we can be more inventive.

Merging Fragmented Approaches

How do we move away from siloed thinking to embrace holistic approaches in service delivery and policymaking? How can we reimagine our relationships with each other and the planet? What are creative ways of involving society in shaping policies that shift power equitably?

In settler society, things are sliced in units and isolated and managed and dealt with from a singular point. Life is transactional. This approach can lead to siloed service delivery: one team handles licensing, another processes grants, and yet another deals with tax filings. All this fragmentation saddles people with bureaucratic overwhelm.

The price we pay for taking this piecemeal approach is a kind of myopia that makes us blind to the interconnectedness of life. To truly serve people, we need to develop policies, services and systems that address people’s needs holistically. That’s not easy to do, of course. That’s why we must be creative in reorienting the machinery of policymaking to serve people holistically, not in fragments.

Image Description: A row of pink and white flowers, surrounding a streetlight, against a blue sky.

What Holds Us Back?


Privilege. When we talk about policymaking we have to talk about power. Because with power comes privilege. Who gets to shape policies? When we frame issues from the perspective of whoever holds more power, we risk getting stuck. You have to challenge power and privilege to broaden your perspective and consider multiple viewpoints. Otherwise, you give up mental mobility; which also means, you shrink your creative capacity.

Decolonial thinking asks us to move beyond binaries and recognize the relational nature of all things, where one entity can embody multiple roles and connections. If we became more relational in our approaches, we’d find a constellation of belonging; meaning, we would discover the many ways we relate to things and people. Take a plant, for example. It’s many things – shelter, poison, food and shade – a universe in its own right.

Image Description: A succulent blooms in the sun

The Essence of Creativity

Creativity involves considering multiple perspectives, exploring unconventional paths, embracing curiosity, and connecting diverse ideas, approaches and people. It requires us to step back from our predefined roles and positions to imagine all the ways we relate to others differently. It demands relinquishing control, embracing uncertainty, and committing to a process. There is vulnerability and maybe even fear because there are no guarantees. Yet, this tension is where true creativity lies.

It’s important to remember that creativity is not appropriation. It’s not the same as assuming we can take on any perspective or speak for someone else. 

Some may think it’s the stuff of fluff, but creativity is an important discipline. And like any discipline, you have to constantly practice your craft, regularly challenge yourself and push your limits to explore new ideas; even when – and especially when things don’t pan out. Like honing any skill, you need persistent engagement and a willingness to learn from both successes and failures. Whether you use Virgil Abloh’s 3% creativity rule or the 80-20 rule, the key thing to remember is that creativity is a technical exercise.

In policymaking, we want to find creative ways to reach outcomes, and that requires us to apply the right techniques. The right techniques/expertise can help us identify the 3%, the small shifts that will yield big results, or even just help us find the right problems to solve. To get at those techniques, though, we need to experiment a bit. But experimentation only works well if we open up our minds.

Imbalances can happen when some people have expertise and others don't. In policymaking, whose expertise drives the process? And at whose expense? To be effective, we need to find ways to:

• tap into creative capacity (individual + organizational) by switching from a transactional/siloed approach to a relational one

• figure out what creative technique or what creative theory of change we want to apply

• learn from our experiments

Letting Go of Orthodoxies

Letting go of orthodoxies allows us to lead with curiosity, so we can embrace diverse approaches and techniques. As we stretch our policymaking muscle, however, there’s bound to be some disillusionment and resistance.

It’s tempting to think that, because we’ve always done something a certain way, it’s the best way to go about it. But if we admit that policymaking, like any other process, is inventive, then we can accept that errors, inconsistencies and unpredictability are inherent parts of that work. We can accept that bias shapes how things happen. This isn’t a condemnation but an opportunity to unpack what works and what doesn’t so we can evolve approaches to meet outcomes.

Effective policymaking requires acknowledging power dynamics and taking steps to address imbalances. 

To achieve that, we’ll need to find more reciprocal ways to, for example, connect with people who have been over-engaged yet chronically under-served. Learning how to let go of power and be transparent, how to foster shared decision-making, can help policymakers tap into a broader range of expertise. This can enable more generative processes that ultimately result in relevant policies that effectively address the complex challenges of society.

Image Description: A building with “needs” painted on the windows. The window containing the letter S is partly open.

Creativity is not a luxury, but a necessity 

We face unprecedented problems that require us to stretch our imagination so we can relate to issues and each other differently. To me, it means we need to engage our ingenuity to identify solutions. 

Art exemplifies this creative process. Starting with a blank canvas, a painter engages in a methodical exploration, a focused inquiry that turns into a final product. But of course, policymakers don’t always have a proverbial blank canvas to work on. In fact, they need to work within constraints and compliance-driven settings. And it’s easy to think that there isn’t room for creativity. Exploring alternative interpretations of regulations, finding new ways to meet requirements, and getting permission to experiment within defined boundaries are all creative pursuits. Whether it’s thinking laterally, tweaking processes and fostering a culture that values collaboration; there are ways to be creative. The key is to keep an open mind.

So if we are going to develop policies that will help us meet the challenges we face, we have to be creative. We have to be willing to break down the rules.  We have to be willing to shatter the mirror and look at the pieces and completely change our vantage point. We have to relate to things and each other and problems very differently. It is urgent that we do that. We cannot afford not to be creative.I would even say that our way forward is through creativity.

Daphnée Nostrome is a change leader who is passionate about building equitable services. She has worked to advance digital practices and improve service design and delivery in government for over 20 years. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/daphneenostrome/

There has been much discussion of late about whether traditional approaches to policy making are fit for purpose. In Canada and elsewhere even traditional policymaking is seen as needing reform and modernization. A growing number of new and alternative practices have gained attention and are often part of today’s complex policy space. Take this one, from Millie Begovic and UNDP Strategic Innovation, which looks at institutional responses to the illusion of control, versus acceptance of constant change. Or this one, by Sarah Gold, Trust is the New Experience. Stretching even farther afield, Facts Don’t Change Minds Like Friendships Can looks at information sharing and decision-making in a post-truth digital world.  

Making sense of all of this can be daunting. Traditional approaches and practices of policymaking dance with a dizzying array of pressure points, as well as behavioral, design, innovation, and participatory approaches. Can policy keep up?

Often, conversations can easily dwell on what is wrong with policymaking and can present a false consensus of what real world policy making involves - or how various people approach it.

We think all of this points to a need. A need for some fresh dialogues and varied perspectives on policy making. 

In particular, we think there is value in increasing the number and type of exchanges amongst a diverse set of policy thinkers and doers out there.

What does policymaking look like today? How are people ‘practicing it’ and what is working and why?

There is no grand plan nor are there significant resources behind this initiative. Rather, we are convening, provoking, and creating space for policy professionals to share struggles and wise practices. Our hope is to better connect policy thinkers and doers.

So, this is an invitation for you and others you know that are in the policy space. We use the term policy space to signal that we are not just talking about government and public service. We know that many in the private, non-profit, and public sectors are involved in policymaking today in various ways. We think those insights and perspectives warrant engagement.

We decided to test the waters with an invitation to a small group of policy practitioners from across levels of government, private sector, academia, and civil society ecosystems. We were delighted that just about everyone we invited agreed. 

It validated what we suspected - there is an appetite for meaningful discussion about policymaking. Below we share our experience with our first dialogue and the next steps it raised. If you or your team want to try the exercises below our free templates and guiding questions are here

A first of many conversations

Our first session was held in Toronto on March 28, 2024. As people arrived we welcomed them to introduce themselves and mingle. Some knew each other well, others had met in passing, and some were meeting for the first time.

This informal start helped us avoid the protracted and formal introductions that are common to group discussions. We jumped into why we convened this group of people, and our plan for the first discussion and activity.

Our dialogue was guided by three high level questions:

• What is policymaking today? 

• How are the various practices of policy making being used and connected? 

• What is working in the policy space given the well known constraints and challenges facing policymakers? 

Mapping policy & its practices

We started with this image from Brookfield and invited people to react to it individually and take notes and then paired up attendees and asked them to share their perspectives and to redraw the graphic as they saw fit.  

The four groups produced four different ways of mapping the policy ecosystem and approaches. This, alone, tells us something about the extent to which there is consensus on what policy making is, and how it is done, today.

There was broad recognition that policymaking occurs within a closed system, relying on experts, stakeholder groups, and internal government expertise. 

One group went so far as to remove ‘open policy’ from available approaches when they redrew their map, due to the recognition of the challenges related to defining and practicing this approach in Canada. Maybe you agree that ‘open’ government approaches have fallen off the radar and would remove this from the policymaking map too? Maybe they are still present but only in pockets and could be scaled?

Others situated emerging approaches, like participatory foresights, and design, as opportunities to situate ‘openness’ within policymaking, through a reframe. 

What is Changing?

Major changes to the maps included moving some of the approaches closer together, with design centralizing a number of approaches, complemented by strategic foresights and systems-oriented work. 

Behavioural insights is also seen to be an accepted form of expertise available to policymaking, which contributes to design. 

In one map, design was cast farther away from policy, as something that comes after the application of foresights and systems perspectives.

This pair replaced ‘open’ with ‘participatory’ approaches, and contrasted this with expert inputs.In this model, Service and Policy continue to remain separate from one another. 

Another pair redrew the map in its entirety.

Missions or Challenges are placed at the center. Open is contrasted with Data and Specialized forms of expertise, including digital and stakeholder engagement. 

Experimental policy overlaps with missions and challenges, and implementation science is added as a new approach required in policymaking. 

The group noted that the discussion of practices in the initial model was missing a foundation of enablers. Things like data, governance, stakeholder engagement, digital and other key ingredients were necessary precursors for any policy practice. We wondered if these could be deemed to be essential ingredients, and if they were generalizable or more bespoke.

Another used a scale of impact perspective, inspired by Anyi’s framework for social movements. Their map looked across teams, organizations, and movements. It held identified practices as potential contributors at different points in time and across scales. All practices were deemed to be relevant and applicable in this approach, with no valuation placed on any single practice over any other, at any particular scale or point in time.  

Finally, a fourth approach re-mapped policymaking in reference to innovation. It visualized how this worked for policy by creating four new quadrants 

• Ideas in response to problems

• Practice

• Delivery 

• Analysis and decision-making 

‘Real consultation’ was positioned under innovation in practice, with a role for academia and advocacy organizations incorporated. 

‘Innovation in delivery’ did not have any particular approaches indicated. This may represent a gap in current approaches and ways of thinking about innovation. It may also identify an openness to learning about what this might look like, in practice.

Behavioural insights were placed across delivery and analysis and decision-making. Innovation in this area also included participatory budgeting and developmental evaluation.  

A quick ‘policy therapy’ session 

To steer the conversation towards what works and avoid the pitfall of commiserating on what is wrong in policy we invited everyone to participate in a “policy therapy session”. We asked the group to quickly list out anything and everything wrong with policymaking today. They obliged and pointed to:

• Consistent lack of resources

• Closed and elite-driven approaches

• Inability to keep pace with change

• Ivory tower disconnect from delivery

• Identity crisis related to policy’s role as a definer of problems versus taker of problems

• Lack of quality data, reliance on legacy data, and odd ways of making use of it

• Short-sightedness and overarching sense of lack across the ecosystem

• Lack of courage to try new things, particularly at senior levels and among politicians

• Lack of quick access to knowledge due to differing practices across the ecosystem

• Overall emphasis on silver bullets 

• Conflation of bold with big as a raison d’être for policy making

• Comms driven exercises that manage overall messaging to, and engagement with, the public

• Exclusivity within the ranks of who makes and advises on policy

• Policy work seen as being something only certain types of public servants do

• Lack of openness, overall

What is working: Practices and Strategies 

The items on the list above are no surprise. We wanted to get them out there but our focus was on what participants thought was working and where policymaking was proving itself to be resilient.

Recognition of Opportunities to Address ‘Closed’ Nature of Policymaking Through An Emphasis On Relationships

• Policy is recognized as having a role in identifying solutions to problems, but the group noted that some teams and stakeholder groups are less practiced in this space

• There’s a need for deepened engagement with persons with lived experience to solution well

• Care is required to ensure expectations are not raised in early stage policymaking. Trust was understood to be won and lost over follow through

• Sustained relationships with people and partners external to government were seen to be contributors to an overall goal of working in new ways. A lot of policy needs to be closed and private. There’s an art and balance to identifying opportunities for greater openness, access to policymaking processes, and new forms of consultation

• Participants noted that when relationships are transactional, they can increase the risk of failure. When relationships are centered and maintained, they can work with failure, toward improvements

• The group recognized the need to understand and address when and how policy has let people down, caused harm, raised expectations, and not delivered on them

• Understanding experiences of policymaking can refine the approach as a whole and provide input into the practice

• Relationship building with affected policy communities was also seen to be part of the creation of safe spaces to try again or do something differently, but participants felt that there are limited spaces available for this in policymaking today
  

Foresight as Effective Practice 

• Strategic foresight was seen as an effective practice and recognized as a contributor to early stage ideation, long term planning, and identification of overlapping problem spaces

• It was also seen to increase responsiveness to emerging challenges in the economy, environment, and communities

• It is a policy practice already available in some government quarters but there was discussion of whether it needs greater visibility and more familiarity to political and public service leadership
  

Unlocking New Professionals Competencies and Space to Practice

• Young professionals and recent graduates are joining public service because they are excited to bring new approaches and work toward solutions

• They are bringing to public service new competencies and techniques in digital, human-centered design, and iterative delivery but find using them in the public service a challenge.  The system is not set up to leverage their new policy practices

• Engaging design researchers in early stage policy work, and testing products and services with members of the public, could be seen as opportunities to try out new approaches, outside the confines of formal consultation

• We heard that an emphasis on delivery is becoming more pronounced in policy environments

• This may be driving quiet forms of smaller scale, situational innovation. There was uncertainty about the degree to which this can address challenges already observed in implementation and if small scale innovation might be a way to engage new professionals in applying the skills gained through studies, to address public problems

So What and What’s Next?

A concluding hypothesis is that we might need to shift from a triangular approach to policymaking where types of participants are siloed into respective domains (political, public service, public), towards an understanding of some of society’s core needs across ecosystems and ways we can improve policymaking together.

How to do so while recognizing the separation of powers among political representatives and public servants proved more than we could address in one conversation.

Through this session, we learned that if you ask ten people to define or draw policymaking, you are likely to get several different takes. When you unpack the drawings and logic it becomes clear that there are many perspectives and questions about how policy works - and what policy thinkers and doers are up to in today’s policy space.

How would you place these practices and what would be your guiding categories? If you or your team wants to try the exercise you can use our templates and guiding questions here

We’ll be meeting again in early June to talk about creativity & policymaking. If you’d like to join us please reach out to us at policymakingtoday@gmail.com

Who we are

Jonathan Craft is Associate Professor at the University of Toronto where he teaches, researches, and writes on public policy & governance. In 2019 he founded Policy Ready, a platform for practitioners and scholars interested in better understanding policy-making & governance in the age of disruption.

Laura Nelson-Hamilton is a hyphenate in name and practice. She has an interest in collaborative approaches to public problem solving and has worked in community-based research, advocacy, operations, policy, service design, and digital service delivery.