I have a weakness for good public policy. Some would call it a fetish.
In Brussels finding examples of good public policy is like the search for the unicorn. It is rumoured to exist, yet few, if anyone has seen it.
For me, good public policy making moves beyond the gut response of most. Too often, the case for action is because it is ‘good’. When you look behind the fig leaf of the ‘evidence’ put forward to advance the case, you are struck by the nothingness that it is. All too often, people out of politeness hate to say that there is a just a shrivelled jumble of evidence that does not add up.
Sadly, too often opposition to a proposal comes down to ‘it will cost me money’ or ‘I am not the issue’. Finally, the least believed line in my 20 + years in Brussels, is ‘if you introduce the proposal, I’ll close my European operations’.
It’s easy to spot poor policy making. Supporters and opponents resort to slogans. Evidence and expert analysis is banished to the sidelines. It is a late night bar brawl. Often ugly and impassioned , it is off-putting as it brings out the worst in people. Sober analysis is cast aside with the dregs.
Too many prefer to throw cheap threats and insults around at those who have provided sober analysis. I can only deduce they find some short-lived exhilaration. They find themselves quickly sidelined, requests for meetings politely but firmly declined, and their case discredited in the eyes of policy makers and political decision makers.
Good policy making
Instead, good public policy looks to identify if there is a problem and if there is an issue, whether EU action can help. Good public policy sets a high hurdle to initiate action. It is not something to be done lightly.
Core questions in environmental issues – my own area of personal interest – that need to be answered to understand the nature of the problem include:
- source apportionment – contributions of sources to the problem
- causal links
- can actions be taken to reduce those contributions
- costs for and against action
- what are the first and second order consequences of actions – will you simply transfer a problem or make things worse
- what the measures be proposed be implemented and enforced
- what is the reasonable worse case scenario of delivery. Over optimistic projections about how fast a law will take effect and effectively deliver are a sure recipe for disaster.
It is obvious that your case is saturated with objective evidence and data . It examines the case against action objectively.The more analytical and sober the better. Presenting data in visual form is a great plus.
In your case, you go out-of-the-way to highlight your proposal’s weak points. If you don’t someone is going to do that for you. You may as well draw the attention of your weak points to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, Inter-Service Group, Inter-Service Consultation officials and cabinet leads at the start, or MEPs and Member State officials later on. It’s a good thing to be clear about the weaknesses.
Good examples
If you are tasked with writing up the basis for a directive I would emulate the clarity and thinking in these two examples:
“A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050”.