7 Policy making
The policy making indicator is defined as: the quality of the policy making process, including how policy is developed and coordinated across government and how policy is monitored during implementation. Policy making remains a central role of a civil service and the quality of evidence and appraisal are central to the success of policy. Kaufman et al. (1999) outline three functions of good governance, including “the capacity of government to effectively formulate and implement sound policies”. Policymakers need to “receive rigorous analyses of comprehensive background information and evidence, and of the options for actions” according to OPM & CIPFA (2004). This paper also advises that “good quality information and clear, objective advice can significantly reduce the risk of taking decisions that fail to achieve their objectives or have serious unintended consequences”.
The indicator is comprised of eight metrics, and the structure is unchanged from the 2017 Pilot edition of InCiSE. The policy making indicator uses a single source, the Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Sustainable Government Indicators (SGI), an expert assessment of the performance of government in EU and OECD countries. The data for the 2019 edition of InCiSE use the 2018 edition of the SGIs.
| Metric | Source | Type | Public sector proxy | Data transformation | Weighting within indicator | Definition of the source metric (e.g. question wording) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In theme (A) | Theme (B) | Total (C=A*B) | ||||||
| Quality of policy advice | ||||||||
| Scholarly advice | SGI | Expert assessment | No | None | 50.0% | 25.0% | 12.5% | How influential are non-governmental academic experts for government decision- making? [Rated 1-10; mean score] |
| Government office expertise | SGI | Expert assessment | No | None | 50.0% | 25.0% | 12.5% | Does the government office / prime minister’s office have the expertise to evaluate ministerial draft bills substantively? [Rated 1-10; mean score] |
| Strategic planning | ||||||||
| Strategic planning | SGI | Expert assessment | No | None | 100.0% | 25.0% | 25.0% | How much influence do strategic planning units and bodies have on government decision-making? [Rated 1-10; mean score] |
| Policy coordination | ||||||||
| Policy coordination | SGI | Expert assessment | No | None | 50.0% | 25.0% | 12.5% | How effectively do ministry officials / civil servants coordinate policy proposals? [Rated 1-10; mean score] |
| Central involvement | SGI | Expert assessment | No | None | 50.0% | 25.0% | 12.5% | To what extent do line ministries involve the government office / prime minister’s office in the preparation of policy proposals? [Rated 1-10; mean score] |
| Policy monitoring | ||||||||
| Monitoring of ministries | SGI | Expert assessment | No | None | 33.3% | 25.0% | 8.3% | How effectively does the government office/prime minister’s office monitor line ministry activities with regard to implementation? [Rated 1-10; mean score] |
| Monitoring of agencies | SGI | Expert assessment | No | None | 33.3% | 25.0% | 8.3% | How effectively do federal and subnational ministries monitor the activities of bureaucracies / executive agencies with regard to implementation? [Rated 1-10; mean score] |
| National standards | SGI | Expert assessment | No | None | 33.3% | 25.0% | 8.3% | To what extent does central government ensure that subnational self-governments realize national standards of public services? [Rated 1-10; mean score] |
| Tables 3.5.A & 3.5.B in the original 2019 publication | ||||||||
7.1 Imputation of missing data
All 38 countries selected for the 2019 edition of InCiSE have data for all the metrics in the policy making indicator. Therefore, no approach to imputation is needed.
7.2 Changes from the 2017 Pilot
The policy making indicator is unchanged from the 2017 Pilot edition.