Public Policy Planning

Evidence informed policy making 44% of citizens now report low or no trust in their national governments. Yet trust in science remains relatively high. Trust is eroding and with it, the effectiveness of public policy. A JRC report explores how evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) can restore democratic trust and boost competitiveness. Key insights from the seven-country EU project: • Evidence use is the second most powerful driver of public trust in government • Most Member States lack mechanisms to coordinate supply and demand of evidence • EIPM requires both technical skill and political will—not just data, but culture • Knowledge brokers are emerging as vital connectors between science and policy • Common obstacles include siloed governance, weak analytical capacity and limited use of interdisciplinary data • The JRC proposes a European EIPM agenda, including a Knowledge Broker At stake: the EU’s ability to act decisively on cross-cutting challenges like disinformation, green transition, and fiscal reform. EU Science, Research and Innovation

Policy reform is often presented as evidence of progress. In practice, it frequently leaves underlying power structures unchanged. This outcome is largely structural. Reforms are typically designed and implemented by the same institutions that operate within existing arrangements. Advisory panels, regulators, and professional standard setters are usually composed of incumbents. Their incentives prioritize continuity, risk containment, and institutional legitimacy. As a result, reform efforts tend to refine procedures rather than reallocate authority, access, or accountability. Research in public administration and governance consistently shows that incremental reform is the prevailing approach. - It is lower risk. - It signals responsiveness while minimizing disruption to decision rights, capital allocation, and professional hierarchies. Even when reforms are well intentioned, they are shaped by path dependence. New rules emerge from old ones. Institutions are structured to optimize stability, not redistribution or long-term adaptive performance. This has clear implications for public interest outcomes. When reform leaves unchanged who holds decision-making authority, which forms of knowledge are privileged, and how advancement occurs, patterns of exclusion persist. In professional fields, this constrains the effective use of talent. In public policy, it erodes institutional trust over time. In economic systems, it limits adaptive capacity across decades. Experience with Black excellence within formal institutions illustrates this distinction. Measurable progress occurred where reforms addressed governance structures directly through targets, transparent data, and accountability mechanisms. Limited progress followed where change relied on voluntary commitments or procedural language alone. The differentiating factor was not intent, but institutional design. For policymakers and institutional leaders, the implication is clear. Reforms that do not alter incentives, standards, or decision-making authority will tend to reproduce existing outcomes. Effective nation building and sustained economic competitiveness require reforms that realign governance structures with long-term public interest objectives, rather than short-term institutional comfort.

When running for office, contestants often claim to know better than those in power, presenting grand visions and promises of swift change if elected. Rarely are these claims scrutinised or challenged. However, winning the election marks the start of a different reality. Governing or legislating means tackling real problems for real people who expect solutions daily. Campaign poetry gives way to the hard, unseen work of governance, where good intentions are not enough—people demand immediate results. There are many assumptions about what happens in states and local governments. While those in government, whether in the executive or legislature, may appear omniscient from the outside, they often feel stretched to their limits by the weight of expectations and the complexity of meeting them. This challenge formed the crux of my keynote address on “Strengthening Democratic Governance at Subnational Level” during the retreat for Southwest Speakers and Principal Officers of State Houses of Assembly in Ikogosi-Ekiti. In my address, I discussed several themes critical to effective governance: preparation for public office; funding the vision and mission of the agenda; taking governance and legislature beyond partisanship; implementing tough decisions early; the imperative of public communication; the continuum of state-building and incremental change; and leading with legacy in mind, emphasising the importance of success and succession. I stressed that legislative institutions are the backbone of our democracy, and their work in lawmaking and oversight is central to advancing the welfare of the people. Drawing on my experiences as a former governor and Chairman of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum, I shared insights to help assembly leaders reflect on their roles, share innovative approaches, and explore practical solutions to pressing challenges. For instance, while public bureaucracy should, in theory, enable political leaders to deliver expected outcomes for citizens, it can often become a cog in the wheel of progress. Wherever a government succeeds in significantly impacting citizens' lives, the success is often not only due to the quality of its political leadership but also to the effectiveness of legislative decisions and the dedication of bureaucrats implementing those policies. As I have maintained at various fora, even when we bring government closer to the people in the context of federalism, challenges at the center often replicate at subnational levels. To respond effectively, leaders must: 🔘Have a realistic plan based on wide consultations but remain flexible. 🔘Strategically mobilise resources to fund promises made to the electorate. 🔘Prioritise the "how" of implementation and engage the civil service as a vital organ of execution. 🔘Own their communication and engage with the electorate regularly in all forms. 🔘Embrace gradual improvement, recognising that change is often incremental, not revolutionary.

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗼 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗲 “𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲” 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀? The paper (https://lnkd.in/e2e9wRmw) moves beyond description to ask a deeper question: 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘢𝘱 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦? Drawing on theories of knowledge use and policymaking, the authors highlight that legislators operate in a world where decisions are not about finding absolute truths but about 𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀, 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆. Evidence, in this context, is not neutral data but 𝗮 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲. 3 insights stand out: 🔹 𝗕𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆: Policymakers face limited time, competing demands, and incomplete information. They cannot process evidence as comprehensively as researchers expect. Instead, they rely on heuristics, trusted sources, and information that is timely and accessible. 🔹 𝗠𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲: From a constructivist perspective, what counts as evidence is socially shaped. Legislators give weight not only to peer-reviewed studies but also to community experiences, expert opinion, and constituency feedback, forms of knowledge that align with the political logic of representation. 🔹 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴: Evidence gains traction not because of methodological rigor alone, but because it resonates with broader political narratives and provides legitimacy to policy choices. In this sense, research evidence competes with, rather than dominates, other forms of authority. Theoretically, this means that the problem is not a “failure” of policymakers to use evidence, but 𝗮 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗽𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀. Researchers operate in a paradigm of rigor and cumulative knowledge, while legislators operate in a paradigm of responsiveness, negotiation, and legitimacy. Recognizing this helps shift the conversation: instead of lamenting that evidence is underused, we must ask how to 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲, 𝗮𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲 so that evidence-informed policy is both rigorous and politically meaningful

As I continued to look into demographic facts, I started to wonder how demographic changes in the West influence our political decision making. We are living in a time of aging populations. Across the Western World and even more pronounced in East Asia (Japan, South Korea, Singapore) the birth rates are nowhere near replacement levels. How we deal with this fact politically and as a society overall, will be critical. There exists a risk that our democratic frameworks, as presently structured, might disproportionately favor the interests of retirees over those of future generations. Consider Portugal as an example, a nation ranking as the second-oldest in Europe after Italy. Individuals aged 65 years and older constitute over 20% of its population. These seniors wield significant influence, notably in the political arena, where they effectively lobby for benefits that may inadvertently burden younger generations, as articulated by local entrepreneur Vasco Queiros in a widely discussed opinion piece. Evidently, this dynamic has contributed to a concerning trend: one in three individuals aged 20-39 has chosen to seek opportunities abroad. This pattern, observable across numerous countries, sees a divergence wherein benefits for retirees are augmented while crucial sectors vital for the future are neglected. Consequently, young people find themselves grappling with escalating housing expenses and apprehensions regarding an uncertain economic and ecological landscape. To be clear, I do not intend to contest the notion of enhancing retiree benefits; indeed, compelling arguments exist in support of such measures, particularly if they are implemented in a targeted manner. Nonetheless, the swelling proportion of retirees and dependents, often constituting an even larger portion of the electorate, poses a risk wherein democratic institutions may incline towards accommodating their immediate demands at the expense of safeguarding the interests of succeeding generations. Initiating a transparent dialogue on this matter and fostering societal consensus regarding governmental priorities and expenditures is of utmost importance. Instead of debating every individual issue (like we did in Switzerland now with 13th months pension payment), we need to have a more general debate.

I was invited to join the in-person meeting of the #friendsofeducation network of Swiss foundations a couple of weeks ago. My short presentation was based on these notes: https://lnkd.in/ezrkpqAD Evidence is crucial for policymaking, but its influence is often overestimated. It's not enough to simply have evidence; we need to understand how it's used and the context in which it's applied. Here are a few key points to consider: ➜Evidence is not politically neutral. It can be used to inform decisions, legitimize actions, frame issues, and define priorities. ➜Policymakers often use evidence selectively, choosing what aligns with their objectives or values. ➜There's a disproportionate emphasis on "gold-standard" evidence like Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), which may not always be necessary or impactful. ➜Using evidence does not automatically mean being well-informed. Policymakers need to consider multiple studies, political implications, personal values, and public interests. ➜Values and interests ultimately guide decisions, not just the scientific method. Scaling is a critical process in policymaking, but it's not simply about doing more of the same. Transformational scaling focuses on achieving sustainable, long-term goals. Systems are inherently resistant to change and often obstruct transformational efforts. We need to address complexities of political, social, and economic systems. Key obstacles to reform include: ➜Resistance to change ➜Difficulty in sustaining reforms ➜Complexity of transformation ➜Challenges in building public support The field of evidence-informed policy has taken a technocratic direction, overlooking complex issues. We need to address "thorny issues" that can derail even the best-laid plans. These issues are often complex, influential, and outside of the focus of EIP scholars, like state capture and corruption. Traditional narratives for understanding how evidence is used are oversimplified. For example, the "bridge" and "supply and demand" narratives fail to capture the overlap between researchers and policymakers. We need to shift towards relational dynamics and public dialogue. The concept of "information density" can help us understand why some contexts are better at using evidence than others. Policy research organisations (think tanks) play a unique role as boundary workers, fostering dialogue between different communities. However, they face political, economic, and social challenges. The case of MineduLab (and embedded think tank) in Peru shows how complex evidence-informed policymaking can be, even when supported by strong sponsors and champions. Let's rethink how we use evidence in policymaking. We must move beyond linear models and address the political and social contexts in which decisions are made.

Is Public Policy Just “Organized Chaos”? Policymaking is often portrayed as rational, linear, and evidence-driven. But real-world decision-making is far messier—fragmented, chaotic, and frequently irrational. This is where the “Garbage Can Model” of organizational choice becomes essential. The theory developed by Cohen, March, and Olsen in 1972 to describe decision-making in “organized anarchies” like universities and public bureaucracies— where the model remains one of the most powerful tools for understanding why public policies often emerge the way they do. What Is the Garbage Can Model? At its core, the model argues that policy decisions are not always the result of clear problem-solving. Instead, they emerge when four independent streams— “problems, solutions, participants, and choice opportunities” —happen to collide, often unpredictably, inside a metaphorical “garbage can.” In this can, problems are looking for solutions, solutions are looking for problems, participants drift in and out, and decision points (like meetings or crises) act as containers where these elements may randomly connect. Why Does This Matter for Public Policy? Because the Garbage Can Model explains why: 1. Policies May Precede Problems. Sometimes, solutions exist before the problem is even defined. 2. Participation Is Fluid. Stakeholders drift in and out of decisions based on interest, power, or timing. A key actor missing from the room can change the entire outcome. 3. Timing Is Everything. Many decisions are driven by convenience or crisis—not logic. 4. Outcomes Are Often Ambiguous. Success and failure become hard to define because the connection between means and ends is unclear from the start. When Do Garbage Cans Appear? This model is most relevant in: —> High-uncertainty environments —> Complex bureaucracies —> Political transitions —> Emergency settings So what? Garbage can dynamics are not always negative—they can spark creativity. But to avoid poor outcomes, policymakers should: —> Structure decision processes to reduce randomness —> Clarify goals and evaluation criteria early —> Build institutional memory to avoid ad-hocism —> Design for accountability, even in turbulent moments Source: Cohen, March & Olsen (1972), Administrative Science Quarterly #PublicPolicy #GarbageCanModel #Governance #PolicyMaking #OrganizedAnarchy #DecisionTheory #PolicyProcess #PolicyDesign

We often discuss policy outcomes without reflecting on the policy maker... We debate instruments. We analyse impact. We model trade-offs. But we rarely pause to examine the most decisive variable in public policy: The human being who makes the decision. Policy is not an algorithm. It is not an optimisation problem solved by an AI system. It is a profoundly human act. Behind every policy choice stands a person, or a group of persons, carrying: Cognitive biases Ideological commitments Moral intuitions Political incentives Career anxieties Incomplete information Bounded rationality (as Herbert Simon reminded us) Policy is not merely about evidence. It is about judgement under uncertainty. In an era of big data and predictive analytics, we are tempted to believe that better datasets automatically produce better policies. They do not. But better judgement does. And good judgement is not accidental. It is cultivated. It rests on three foundations: 1. Judgement The capacity to make decisions in ethically complex, value-laden, ambiguous situations; where no spreadsheet can give the final answer. 2. Openness Intellectual humility. The courage to say, “I may be wrong.” The willingness to listen across ideological divides. The discipline to update one’s beliefs when evidence shifts. 3. Compassion A deep concern for human dignity. An instinct to ask: Who bears the hidden cost? A commitment to long-term well-being over short-term optics. A technically brilliant but compassion-deficient policy maker can cause immense harm. A morally sincere but intellectually closed policy maker can do the same. Policy making is therefore not simply a technical function. It is a test of compassion and long term view of human flourishing. If we want better public policy, we must invest not only in better frameworks and analytics, but in developing better policy makers. Education systems, civil service training, and leadership development must emphasise: Ethical reasoning Bias awareness Cross-disciplinary literacy Empathy Deliberative dialogue Because policies rarely fail due to poor drafting. They fail because they are conceived narrowly. And narrowness is a human limitation. In AI, “Attention Is All You Need” reshaped computation. In governance, the deeper truth may be this: Judgement, Openness, and Compassion are what we need! Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology #PublicPolicy #Governance #Leadership #Judgement #Compassion #EthicalLeadership

Policy doesn’t scream. It quietly shapes. Ever noticed how news channel debates are full of noise, who said what, who shouted louder, who “won” the argument? But open a newspaper or authenticnews sites, and you’ll find a different kind of power: decisions that impact lives. That's what STIP challenge helped me see clearly. While debates chase headlines, policy builds systems. And here’s the proof 6 real policy stories from today’s news, beyond the usual political noise: 🔗 Delhi invites experts to fix air & waste issues Policy lens: Collaborative governance, environmental management Impacts: Urban health, public planners, sustainability professionals 🔗 MP pitches to become a logistics hub Policy lens: Export-linked infrastructure, Bharat Mart Impacts: Exporters, MSMEs, state economy 🔗 NITI Aayog rolls out S&T data dashboard Policy lens: Evidence-based policymaking in science & innovation Impacts: Researchers, state governments, tech sector 🔗 Punjab launches STOP Diarrhoea Campaign Policy lens: Preventive public health, child survival Impacts: Rural families, health workers, policymakers 🔗 Kanpur starts Groundwater Awareness Week Policy lens: Community water conservation Impacts: Local households, water boards, educators 🔗 New curriculum draft (Class 3–5) open for feedback Policy lens: Participatory education reform under NEP Impacts: Students, teachers, parents, curriculum designers Not breaking news. But quietly shaping the future. So next time you scroll past the noise, pause at the policy. That’s where real change starts. P.S. What kind of policy news do you pay attention to? Let’s make decoding policy a shared habit. STIP-C | DAY-03 #StartThinkingInPolicy #PolicyChallenge India House

Decisions made by public officials have a direct impact on the lives of people in the country, whether they are citizens or expats. I am pleased to hear that the current cabinet in Kuwait is reversing course on many policies adopted by previous governments. The cost of wrong or ideologically driven policies is extremely high for both affected individuals and businesses, as well as society as a whole. Formulating a public policy is a complex and multi-faceted process that requires careful consideration of various factors: 1️⃣Identify the issue: The first step in formulating a public policy is to clearly identify the issue or problem that needs to be addressed. What problem are we trying to fix? It is important not to make assumptions or be driven by emotions or ideologies. 2️⃣Research and analysis: It is important to conduct thorough research and analysis to understand the root causes of the problem. This step is extremely important to make a good diagnosis of the problem. This may involve gathering data, consulting experts, and reviewing existing policies. 3️⃣Stakeholder engagement: It is crucial to engage with stakeholders who will be affected by the policy, including community members, advocacy groups, and government agencies. Their input can provide valuable insights and help ensure that the policy is effective and inclusive. A lot of time decisions are made without engaging with stakeholders who are most influenced by the decision, particularly, when such groups are underrepresented. 4️⃣Set goals and objectives: Based on research and stakeholder input, establish clear goals and objectives for the policy. These should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) to guide decision-making and evaluation. 5️⃣Develop options: Consider different policy options that could address the issue at hand. Evaluate each option based on its feasibility, cost-effectiveness, impact on stakeholders, and alignment with goals. 6️⃣Decision-making: After considering feedback and weighing the pros and cons of each option, make a decision on which policy option to pursue. This decision should be based on evidence-based research, stakeholder input, and alignment with goals. 7️⃣Implementation plan: Develop a detailed implementation plan that should include timelines, responsibilities, budget considerations, monitoring mechanisms, and communication strategies. 8️⃣Evaluation/ Review: Monitor  implementation  assess its effectiveness in achieving its goals. Periodically review  ensure it remains relevant light changing circumstances new information. Make revisions necessary improve outcomes address emerging issues. Questions remain: ➡ Best approach to formulate policy, whether it should be done at the national level or within each ministry. ➡ There is a need to determine the role of the cabinet in ensuring that policies align with the nation's overall vision. Follow/connect with me and hit bell 🔔 so you don't miss them.