Whether using Mitchell’s (1979) or O’Riordan’s (1981) analytical framework, neither provides sufficient insights to examine the various influences over the life of a policy process. These frameworks tend to take snapshots of the policy pro- cess rather that make full-length, feature movies. As made clear earlier, rarely if ever does a policy solve a resource management problem in perpetuity. More probably, a policy initiative may resolve matters for a while and then changing
conditions will demand a new policy approach. The policy development process is thus, when viewed over an extended period, a recurring process that sees one policy phase evolving into the next or is replaced by a completely different policy initiative. While in reality it is difficult to differentiate clearly the various stages or phases of a policy process, as they often merge, it is possible to recognize four inter-related stages, each with its own characteristics and dynamics.
The first phase is thegestation stagewhere the need for a new policy or a revised policy is acknowledged and articulated. The second is wherepolicy is formulatedand ratified, while the third phase is wherepolicy is implemented.
The fourth phase is where policy impacts are actually felt, where they are assessed either formally or informally, and where they are evaluated. Depending upon how it is assessed and the influence that disaffected policy actors have, the implementation phase is either extended or efforts are increased to revise it, leading back to a renewed gestation phase (see Fig. 7.3).
Policy gestation
It is important to understand from the outset that there is no set prescription to take a policy idea and see it through to implementation. For example, over a Fig. 7.2. Policy interactions. Adapted from O’Riordan (1981).
period of 4 years, one of this text’s authors worked intensively as part of an inter- departmental government team to have a single paragraph, based on consider- able background analysis, adopted as a guiding resource management principle.
In another instance, the same individual was consulted for 20 minutes by a lobby group. The recommendation that emerged from this consultation was adopted by government within a couple of days as legislation – word for word.
Despite this wide disparity in preparation, influence and time over public policy formulation and adoption, there remain some key policy considerations that help explain the adoption process, which can be helpful in influencing the policy adoption process.
Hallet al. (1972) identified a set of general and characteristic variables from their analysis of the policy adoption process (see Fig. 7.4). They suggested that the first group of variables were almost invariably key in the policy adoption pro- cess, while the characteristic variables were often important but less predictably so. The important general variables were legitimacy, feasibility and support.
● Do policy makers see this as a legitimate need?
● Do policy makers consider this policy idea as feasible, even if technically it is not?
● Does this idea have a critical support – perhaps from an influential group such as a trade association?
The characteristic variables include:
● Association and scope – who will this policy adoption process affect and how? Is this idea linked to other important policy initiatives?
● The impact of a policy crisis – a crisis will sometimes put an idea on the fast track policy agenda but at other times displace it forever.
Fig. 7.3. The policy cycle.
● Trend expectation – refers to whether something is likely to gain or lessen in influence or popularity.
● Issue origin – who is seen as the source of the idea and is that group or person respected?
● Policy information – this does not necessarily have to be true but it generally has to be believed.
● Management ideology – does this idea support the political beliefs and managerial style of the policy agency?
Each of these variables interplay in the policy process that either leads to a policy idea being adopted or, as is more often the case (given that our policy system is designed to be conservative rather than radical), sees the policy idea flounder and get lost in a sea of competing priorities.
Policy formulation
One reason that our policy adoption system seems to be conservative and resistant to change is that since the Second World War, public policy has become much more pervasive and intrusive on the private sector and, as a result, it is much more convoluted (see Mayntz, 1983). Given this increased complexity, it is difficult to predict with much precision the outcome of any single policy initiative because of numerous potential knock-on effects. A change in one policy area, for instance, may well have unintended influences on a wide and sometimes unpredictable spectrum of policy issues. Adding to this is the question of which policy form is most appropriate. There is a broad range of possible policy forms, which makes it difficult to select the most effective. Several examples exist.
Fig. 7.4. The policy gestation process. Adapted from Hallet al. (1972).
● Regulatory norms – you must do this or be sanctioned
● Financial incentives – do this and receive a monetary reward or subsidy
● Procedural regulations – follow these prescribed steps and get appropriate authorizations before proceeding with an intended project
● Education – persuade using information
● Public sector provision – when the private sector is unable or unwilling As inferred by the aforementioned examples, the time frame and the care which a public agency takes in formulating and ratifying a public policy varies widely depending on, among others, the nature of the resource development initiative, the sense of urgency, the level of perceived support, whether the initia- tive is driven by a crisis or not, and whether it appears politically expedient. In working through the policy development process, it is important to understand that just because a policy has been officially ratified, this is no guarantee that it will be implemented or that it will accomplish its intended objectives.
Policy implementation
To understand the policy implementation process, Rees (1990) suggests focus- ing on three inter-related factors about a natural resource agency that is charged with implementing natural resource policy. The first relates to past performance or, as Rees refers to it, pre-conditioning elements. The question is: How have natural resource agencies handled similar problems in the past? To understand an agency’s past performance, it is useful to look at its character, its conventional operating methods and its span of influence and accountability. The second con- cern, ‘internal factors’, refers to an agency’s administrative processes such as its degree of centralized and decentralized decision making and its decision-making style – is it able to make decisions on its own or does it have to continually refer to outside authority? Furthermore, this notion is concerned with the way an organization intervenes in the policy arena – does it act without regard to its negative effect on others, and does it act now and apologize later? The third influence, external factors that Rees (1990) calls ‘ex-postchanges’, includes the biophysical variables that impact the resource sector and the social, political, economic and technological factors that impinge more directly on the policy process (see Fig. 7.5).
Policy impact
Whether or not a policy is implemented, there is always a policy impact, or con- sequence. This may be the result of no policy intervention when one is necessary or when not implemented (non-implementation), or may be the direct result of policy outputs. Such outputs may begin to resolve an identified and targeted problem, or they may create negative (or positive) unintended outcomes.
Surprisingly few public policy programmes, especially when one considers the costs of many natural resource management initiatives, are formally evaluated or
they are rarely assessed in the context of initially formulated objectives. As Lindblom (1980) and Simon (1947) suggest (see earlier in this chapter), the goalposts are often lowered or moved, or policy implementers simply muddle through until a new round of policy initiatives is instigated.
Recognizing the complexity and uncertainty of implementing most natural resource policies, some policy architects have advocated an adaptive and itera- tive approach to policy implementation (see Walters, 1986). This adaptive approach assumes that each policy iteration is considered to be an applied experiment, to be assessed and evaluated and, where appropriate, adjusted so as to be consistent with any new reality. As will be seen in the following chapter regarding the more specific workings of natural resource management, the relationship between the state and the market with regard to resource and environmental management is a convoluted one that often results in both state failure and market failure.
Summary and Conclusions
This chapter has introduced the reader to the complexity of decision making in the natural resource management policy context and has shown how power and influence permeate that process sometimes to distort and, in other situations, confound a policy maker’s true intentions. This chapter has brought to focus the idea that public policy and industrial decision making is rarely a mechanistic pro- cess dominated by strict rules and protocols but is made by people with differing values, capacities and motivations. These human dimensions of the natural Fig. 7.5. The policy implementation process. Adapted from Rees (1985).
resource management process strongly influence decision making in a way which strains even the best efforts of the most dedicated and seemingly rational practitioners.
As was seen, the decision-making and policy account described in this chapter provides a rather perplexing and challenging but nevertheless realistic platform upon which to build a new natural resource management paradigm. It suggests a rather problematic policy inertia, one dominated by conformism on the one hand and muddling through on the other. To be successful, then, policy makers must somehow cut through this complexity to build a public policy and industrial management regime that is both responsive to environmental impera- tives and mindful of the broad range of resource values that the public now clearly asks for. In this regard, the next chapter builds on the conceptual founda- tion introduced here to examine the intricacies and nuances of natural resource management. In combination, these chapters provide the theoretical and con- ceptual foundations for building a realistic conceptual and procedural framework for IREM which is expanded upon in following chapters.