Having well-developed policy statements will not make any difference by themselves, apart from changes in commitment, anticipation or expectation – a policy avows intent. The policy must be implemented, which may include monitoring for compliance and means of enforcing compliance. Typically, an agency or higher-level government authority develops policy that requires officials, lower levels of government or the public to actually implement it. The challenge is how to achieve implementation (see May et al, 1996). In the hazards and disaster
domain, policy implementation style can be classified into three classes known simply as:
1 coercion (e.g. through regulations and threats of punitive measures) and instruments, which in the general policy literature are termed regulatory instruments;
2 cooperation (e.g. financial incentives, assistance with planning or negotiating trade-offs to accommodate multiple objectives), termed more generally as incentive or collaborative instruments; and
3 exhortation, guidance or sermonizing (such as public education and information provision), otherwise known as moral suasion or educative instruments.
A more comprehensive range of policy classes and instruments is given in Table 6.1, which indicates both the difference and the blurred boundaries between the three categories above. Table 6.1 indicates the richness of options available and is a useful aide memoir for policy analysis and design. It also indicates a fundamental point:
arguments over particular instruments and their general qualities are usually futile.
Policy-makers and policy communities have at their disposal many instruments, all of which will be useful in different situations and combinations. And we can remind ourselves that all instruments are forms of information, aimed at changing individual or collective behaviours. Whether the ‘message’ is a threat, a plea, an incentive or disincentive, or a signpost, policy instruments are messages. A massive tax impost, crippling fine or a prison sentence are all threatening messages, whether considered market or legal mechanisms. An educational instrument may be subtle and respectful; or it may rely on shocking and confrontational images, as some health programmes do. Choosing policy instruments is a matter of choosing the most appropriate medium for the message in a given situation. Viewed in this way, policy instrument choice invites a more objective comparative analysis, rather than an argument over, for example, the relative merits in a broader sense of economic versus legal instruments.
The rest of this chapter focuses largely on the level of broad categories (detailed discussion of each specific instrument requires considerably more space than provided in this volume and is context dependent). The consideration of a detailed menu of instruments and the basis for selecting from this menu (see Table 6.1) is, nevertheless, encouraged.
Although detailed, the menu in Table 6.1 is, nonetheless, still a summary. As the middle column indicates, each of the broad classes contains multiple options, only some of which are identified here. These within-class options are often very different and invite close consideration. For example, among market mechanisms, the disincentive of a tax impost is different from the positive incentive of a rebate.
In training and education, the options, again, vary and are suited to different purposes and groups of people. Education or communication-based programmes are likely to require organizational development, and so on.
While this discussion has been about selecting an instrument, it is usually the case that an interdependent set of instruments will be used within a policy programme to achieve stated policy goals. Even when one instrument is the major focus, others
Table 6.1 A menu of policy instruments for emergencies and disasters
Class Selected major instruments Style
1 Research and
monitoring Increase knowledge in a general or specific sense regarding hazards, vulnerability, success of policy initiatives, community awareness, etc.
Exhortation, cooperation
2 Improving communication and information flow
Aid information flow between research and policy; of policy imperatives to research;
between agencies, firms and individuals, and through a wide range of mechanisms, such as indicator systems, community-based monitoring, etc.
Exhortation, cooperation
3 Training and
education General public education and education targeting sub-sets of the community; formal curricula in schools and universities; specific skills development and training.
Cooperation, exhortation
4 Consultation External mediation over conflicts; negotiation;
facilitated planning procedures; dispute resolution; inclusive policy processes.
Cooperation, exhortation
5 Inter- governmental agreements
Intergovernmental agreements/policies, memoranda of understanding, etc.
between countries or within countries for cooperation, joint response, information- sharing, etc.
Cooperative, coercion
6 Legal requirements
Statute law: statutes or regulations under existing law to create institutional arrangements; establish statutory objects and agency responsibilities; guarantee public rights in policy processes; prohibit certain activities;
zone land and control development; define and enforce standards; create penalties.
Common law: applications of doctrines such as negligence or nuisance to prevent or punish risk-creating behaviours.
Coercion, cooperation
7 Planning and assessment procedures
Incorporation of emergency and disasters in land-use planning and social and
environmental impact assessment; mandated risk assessment.
Cooperation, coercion
8 Self-regulation Incorporation of disaster/emergency considerations within industry or firm codes of practice or ethic, professional standards and recommended procedures.
Cooperation, exhortation
will be needed to support it. An economic measure will require a legal mandate and a communication strategy. Doing nothing should involve a monitoring programme to assess future needs for action.
The reality of mixed instrument packages leads to an important observation, somewhat at odds with the above claim regarding the equality of instruments as different means of communicating the message. This is that some classes can be considered universal policy instruments, always required even if only in a supporting role (see Chapter 8 for additional discussion and Chapter 7 on communication):
• Legal. In societies subject to the rule of law, defensibility in law must be consid- ered and catered for, whether through new or existing statute, common or customary law. Management regimes will require statutory competence; market mechanisms will require a legal basis for implementation; and so on. In public policy, instruments must have a legal basis if they are designed to affect existing patterns of behaviour and are expected to survive long.
• Economic. In every society, much human and organizational behaviour results from economic incentives or disincentives. In many countries, the primary objective of government is economic growth, which sometimes clashes with the 9 Community
participation Community-based risk assessment and management; public participation in higher-level policy formulation; freedom of information laws; rights to comment on development proposals; community monitoring of hazards; joint government–
community implementation of programmes.
Cooperation
10 Market and
economic aspects Taxes/charges; use charges; subsidies; rebates;
penalties; performance; competitive tendering. Cooperation, coercion, exhortation 11 Institutional
change New or revised institutional system or organizational features to enable implementation of other instruments.
Cooperation, coercion, exhortation 12 Adjustment of
other policies The assessment and, if necessary, alteration of incentives, goals or processes in other policy settings that increase vulnerability or decrease resilience, or which block desired policy change.
n/a
13 Doing nothing Inaction is usually seen as a policy failure, but may be justified after reasoned analysis. n/a Note: n/a = not applicable.
priorities of emergency management. The importance of economic incentives may be active and positive in policy design (creating incentives or removing disincentives for desired behaviours), or it may be passive and negative (not correcting disincentives for desired behaviours or incentives for undesirable behaviours).
• Institutional. In a world where humans only achieve common goals or reconcile difference through institutions, policy interventions can only be agreed to and implemented in a suitable institutional and organizational environment. As with the law, this may already exist or be easily adapted, or it may require major institutional reform (see Chapter 8).
• Communication. In any policy field, but especially a whole-of-society one such as disasters, a range of people need to know about the instrument, its purpose and implementation. Thus, communication is a necessary component of any policy package, often with multidirectional information pathways to be created and used.
Policy instrument choice
With such a rich menu of policy instruments available, how does one choose the instrument or mix of instruments in a given situation? This invites the use of a set of criteria for policy instrument choice. However, before dealing with more detailed criteria, the first cut – consistent with the policy approach of ‘mixed scanning’
(see Chapter 2) – is generally an intuitive or subjective matter. Any individual or, preferably, group of people from the policy community will quickly delete some options on the basis of experience. However, it is desirable that some reference to a complete list of policy options is made in order to guard against the tendency towards the convenient or familiar instrument being immediately and, perhaps, inappropriately favoured.
At a more detailed level, Table 6.2 presents a summary set of criteria to form the basis of a more rigorous comparison of the benefits and costs of alternative policy options, stated as questions to be asked of each alternative. Some criteria can be used in a strongly analytical or quantified manner, whereas others will be applied more qualitatively or subjectively. And, importantly, individual criterion will be more or less critical in different situations, while the art and craft of instru- ment choice involves a balance and compromise between criteria – no instrument will ever be ‘perfect’. These criteria can be used as a basis for discussion, in a more structured comparative matrix, or in a mix of the two.
These criteria have two uses. The first is to aid analysis and discussion of the most suitable policy choice for the purpose at hand. They do not make an answer necessarily obvious or easy; in fact, consideration of multiple criteria will complicate the process. But they do encourage a more sophisticated, defensible and more easily communicated process of choice. The second use arises from the observation that
‘perfect’ choices are rare and may be the less obvious but more important use of the criteria in Table 6.2. A chosen instrument will rarely score highest on every criterion, but nonetheless may be favoured. A criterion against which an instrument is ranked less well identifies an implementation issue that will require attention. For example,
if dependability and timeliness are critical criteria in a given situation – quite likely in the disasters field – but communicability and equity implications are criteria that the instrument does not rate highly against, then careful communication and some form of adjustment or compensation package are suggested. Or, if timeliness is not an issue and institutional feasibility a problem, then institutional development may be possible to allow good implementation of a favoured instrument.
A note of realism is required. Policy instrument choice is never a fully rational, objective and measured activity, and social norms and broad policy and political styles will dictate, or at least limit, choices. Even if the careful analysis and recom- mendation of the policy adviser is overridden by political expediency or in the heat of the disaster moment, at the very least the weaknesses and implementation difficulties
Table 6.2 Criteria for selecting policy instrument
Criteria Question, relative to other instruments Dependability How certain is it that the instrument will lead to the
achievement of policy goals?
Timeliness Can the instrument be designed and applied within the necessary time frame?
Cost and efficiency What is the likely gross cost and efficiency of the instrument, relative to the stated goals?
Systemic potential Does the instrument address underlying causes, rather than only direct causes and symptoms of vulnerability?
Information and monitoring requirements
Is the necessary information available to design, implement and monitor the performance of the instrument, or can it be made available?
Distributional impacts Will implementation of the instrument have uneven or inequitable impacts across the affected population; if so, can these be managed in an acceptable manner?
Political and
institutional feasibility
Is proposal and implementation of the instrument feasible in terms of political support and institutional capacity?
Ability to be enforced
or avoided Can implementation/uptake of the instrument be enforced;
can it be avoided easily?
Communicability Can the logic, detail and implementation requirements of the instrument be communicated to those responsible for implementation or affected by it?
Flexibility Is the instrument capable of being adapted and adjusted in the face of changing circumstances?
of the chosen instrument will be more apparent than they otherwise would. Impor- tantly, the limits of the choice will be a matter of record that may lay the basis for later, more informed, redesign of the policy programme.