|
home | strategy development | strategy
skills | site
index | access
keys
Appraising policy options
The policy development process should be
under-pinned by a progressively more formalised appraisal of
alternative options according to a constant set of criteria. From
the initial sense-check following the brainstorm to the final cost-benefit
analysis or regulatory impact
assessment, the same set of criteria should inform and
frame the development and appraisal of policy options. These
include:
Suitability - Will the option address the
key issues and will it be able to deliver desired outcomes?
- Rationale - is there a clear case for government action?
- Proportionality - is the (cost of the) policy option
proportionate to the (cost of the) problem?
- Effectiveness - how well will the option address the issue
or problem?
- Impact - are there any unintended consequences? Are costs
and benefits equitably distributed?
Feasibility - Is the option a realistic and
practical possibility?
- Capability - will it be possible to implement and manage
the option?
- Accountability - can clear accountabilities be established
and aligned with incentives?
- Affordability - is there the money, and is it value for
money against alternatives?
- Risk - can risks be identified and either mitigated or
allocated and managed?
- Control - are there clear success measures and mechanisms
for prompt feedback and learning?
Acceptability - Is the option supported by
those with the authority and influence to legitimise action?
- Participation - has there been sufficient public
participation and consultation
in policy design?
- Buy-in - is there sufficient support from both internal
and external stakeholders?
Accompanying the increasingly more formal
application of these criteria should be a corresponding increase in
the burden of proof required. An initial intuitive application of
the criteria should be progressively replaced by an evidence-based
approach such that the final appraisal of options, (using techniques
such as cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness
analysis or multi-criteria
analysis), is fully grounded in a comprehensive body of
evidence drawing on the full range of data
types available.
In addition, and to help appraise each of the
options against the above criteria, it can be helpful to:
- use scenarios to assess the robustness of the proposed policies against
different possible futures
- use sensitivity analysis to explore the risks and
uncertainties surrounding each policy option
- imagine the future created by each option and analyse for the
unexpected or unacceptable
- seek the reaction of the expert advisory group or focus
groups of practitioners or clients
- use counterfactual analysis
to
compare the potential impact and costs of each option against
the likely impact and costs of doing nothing.
Useful links:
> multi-criteria analysis
> cost-benefit and
cost-effectiveness analysis
> Regulatory Impact Assessment
(pdf)
> Code of Practice
on
Consultation
> data types
> scenario development
> focus groups
> counterfactual analysis
|
