Policy Making in Hong Kong

The University of Hong Kong Policy Making in Hong Kong Professor John P. Burns Department of Politics and Public Administration Strategic Research Theme on Social and Public Policy Policy Forum 23 September 2006 Outline • • • • • Policy problems Source of coordination problem HK’s policy making system Improving policy coordination Role of the civil service Policy problems • • • • • Lack of clarity about priorities Incomplete causal theories Limited resources Lack of political will Poor coordination – Redundancies – Gaps – Contradictions Coordination problems • Food safety • Health – Avian flu – SARS • Land use Source of coordination problem • Structural sources – Specialization – Proliferation of agencies – Fragmentation Increasing horizontal specialization • Government Secretariat – 1962 4 branches – 1973 8 branches – 1982 10 branches – 2006 11 bureaus Increasing vertical specialization • From 1973, separate policy bureaus (branches) from implementing departments (agencies) • Proliferation of departments • Privatization • Corporatization Introduction POAS system • Further strengthened policy silos – Each minister responsible for his/her own portfolio – Little evidence of the promised ‘common perspectives, shared policy goals, and a collective mission’ Approaches to policy making in HK • Rationalist approach – Stages, problems precede solutions • Garbage can approach – Problems, solutions, politics in separate streams A rationalist approach • Policy makers retain control of agenda • Policy makers remain aloof from the politics of process • Problem emerges and government responds appropriately – Resources provided – Alternatives considered – Appropriate consultation with stakeholders – Policy makers build a strong case (Source: I. Scott, 2005, 209 and 216.) Problems with rationalist approaches • Policy making in practice is messy, random (Question: is it always random?) • Problems and solutions not linked • They exist in separate streams The ‘Garbage Can’ Model Crisis, political change Problems Policy Window Solutions Policy Politics Source: John Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies ‘Garbage Can’ Model Participants (official and unofficial) dump various problems and solutions into a choice opportunity or ‘garbage can’. The outcome depends on the mix of garbage (problems, solutions, participants and their resources) and how they interact. ‘Garbage Can’ Model • Acknowledges that problems, solutions, and politics exist separately • Which policy emerges is in some sense random – may depend on – Leadership change – Economic crisis – Etc. Both models…. • Indicate that there are many more players than just government or civil servants • Players outside government help to – Identify problems – Provide solutions (policy ideas) Need to improve coordination • Within government • Between government and outside actors – Who are they? • At policy making level • At policy implementation level Improving coordination • Management instruments (mechanisms) – Hierarchy (authority) – Markets (price) – Networks (trust) • Structural measures – Formal (reducing specialization) – Informal (creating a culture that values coordination) Hierarchy (authority) • Most common coordination mechanism within government • By definition, top down • Limited by lack of information, information distortion Markets (price) • Has been used within government to coordinate services • Depends on price • Depends on adequate information • Exchange relationship Networks (trust) • Common in relationships between government and outside actors • Relationship of relative equality • Based on bargaining and negotiation • Helps to solve the lack of information problem • Typical examples: social welfare Formal structural change within government • Food safety • Education Structural change: food safety • Reduce horizontal specialization • Pre-2000 – 11 agencies in charge of food safety and environmental hygiene • 2000-05 – Creation of FEHD; put under a Bureau • 2005-present – Creation of Center for Food Safety; single Permanent Secretary tasked with food safety responsibilities Structural change: education • Reducing vertical specialization • Merger of EMB and Education Department Informal change • Culture change – Formal structural change first – Then strengthen incentives for individuals to coordinate Improving civil service capacity to coordinate • Rely on a wide range of managerial instruments • Implement structural change – Reduce vertical and horizontal specialization • Other incentives – Evaluation Questions for discussion • Who are the key actors in policy making for you? Could they (should they) be made more inclusive? • Who initiates debate on new policy? • Where do ideas/solutions come from? • What are the policy coordination problems in your area? Are there any common problems across areas? • How can policy making be better coordinated?