Delivering in a crisis: Pierce Martin
Pierce Martin contends that the effective risk management and communication is central to delivering a successful public policy agenda.
It takes a crisis to expose the cracks and fault lines of any man-made construct and nowhere is this more evident than when a modern economy is shaken to its very foundations. Today’s modern economies the world over, democratic and other, are driven by strong public policy agendas, increasingly interdependent. It is a feature common to the development of civil society. And when public policy fails it has serious consequences for the economy and every citizen it serves.
Public policy and its responsible stewardship has therefore enormous influence on a nation’s overall well-being, and more and more on the well-being of increasing numbers of citizens worldwide. Its stewardship carries an onerous responsibility and on its flipside carries equally high risks when its agenda is poorly conceived or, indeed, poorly managed or poorly communicated to its myriad stakeholders.
Irish public policy now faces such a crisis. It has taken the controversial McCarthy Report to expose several of its inherent fault lines. Much media attention has been taken up commenting on the immediate McCarthy findings and the ‘political’ implications of their implementation. Little scrutiny or debate, I believe, has occurred on what changes are urgently needed in formulating better public policy. Nor has there been adequate debate on managing delivery of its programmed outcomes more effectively, and with stronger ‘strategic influence’. To this public policy scrutiny and debate must be added both fiscal policy and the strategic and operational plans for deploying its human, capital and social investment priorities.
The consequences of not assessing continuously the risks in an evolving public policy, that is poorly challenged and scrutinised, are saliently laid bare in McCarthy’s part-analysis of Ireland’s current economic and social challenges. They are evidenced in the long catalogue of urgent structural and programme reforms identified. The consequences of poor public policy risk management are further reinforced by the many stark choices proposed. One example being that wealth allocation policies, only introduced in recent years in support of the social and family needs of citizens, be reversed.
In a separate report carried out by the Institute of Public Administration, its insightful assessment of the operations of the Department of Finance is very telling in its findings. The assessment found that failures in leadership, direction, organisational development and communications led to huge inefficiencies and gaps in the Department of Finance’s effectiveness in delivering its strategic responsibilities. The communication deficit was identified both internally within the department and externally with other departments and important stakeholders.
McCarthy identified similar gaps across all government departments where it found that the focus “seems to be on securing and retaining the maximum volume of expenditure for particular areas and accounting for departmental activities in financial terms”. The report went on to recommend more line-of-sight and accountability between departmental expenditure and policy objectives being pursued and programme outcomes being delivered.
While financial outlays underpinning departmental programmes and their accountability are important aspects of public policy, they are only part of the picture. Successful delivery of public service programmes directly, and indirectly, influence economic and social performance, but they come with risks that require skillful management, constant review and attention. In turn public expenditures impose funding burdens through fiscal policy and other public service charging mechanisms on every business and citizen in the state. As stakeholders, every business and citizen needs to be aware of, and actively engaged in, how public policy is determined, how its priorities and funding are set and how effectively services and economic and social supports are being delivered on their behalf.
Those charged with the custodianship, direction, execution and review of public policy have a singular responsibility to identify their stakeholders. These are the specific stakeholders who benefit from the implementation of publicly-funded programmes or from the influence of public policies. Equally there is a responsibility to engage regularly with these stakeholders through effective communication. Stakeholders need to understand why regular reviews of public service programmes are necessary.
There is a corresponding need for changes to programmes to be flagged early on. It is all the more important, that we build such a culture, when major changes are about to take place, where risks are heightened and where stakeholders need to feel involved in the decisions that will certainly have an impact on their economic and social well- being.
