Interview: The Game Plan for Public Policy in the Next Century

 I recently had the opportunity to ask some questions of an employee of the Canadian Federal Government, with the aim of better understanding how public policy is formed, how the politics of the day can influence it, and what issues an insider might consider critical. In the coming decades, we will desperately need not just sound but innovative policies to address our social woes and to manage a rapidly changing world. I hope to push the discourse on this forward in any way I can. While the questions and answers here relate to Canadian politics and policy, the underlying issues are relevant anywhere in the world.

Q: What areas of public policy have you worked with most directly?

 As a Canadian civil servant, I have worked mostly on international public policy. In particular, I have worked on security sector reform in Haiti, and Canada-U.S. environmental policy, especially related to trans-boundary water issues. Moreover, I worked on policy research and policy coordination within the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. Prior to that, I worked for an MP, gaining exposure to a wide variety of public policy issues.

Q: How long have you worked with public policy? What trends have you seen in that time?

 If all the experiences above are counted, this amounts to 10 years. These experiences are rather disparate and may not be representative of the whole of “public policy”. Nonetheless, I can make a few observations:

1. The importance of effectively communicating on policy issues.
2. The increasing set of actors involved in areas of the spectrum of public policy.
3. The increasingly multidisciplinary nature of public policy.
4. The importance of reviewing public policies to keep them current.

Q: Are there particular policy decisions that stand out as either great failures or great successes?

 Among others, I'd say:

 Failure: The inability of the international community to devise an effective mechanism to address and reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

 Failure: The ongoing efforts to pursue policies of economic and financial austerity in contexts of depressed economics, like in the European Union.

 Success: The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement, at least it is a potential success for now. This is an agreement between logging companies and environmental NGOs, that helps to prevent the logging of boreal forests. Essentially, the logging companies agree to avoid them, and the NGOs don't lead boycotts against these companies' products, and may even promote them.

 Success: The Montreal Protocol. The treaty designed to protect the ozone layer, which entered into force in 1989, the first universally ratified treaty in United Nations history.

Q: What do you believe are key factors in crafting sound public policy?

 An openness to evidence-based public policy. A cooperative disposition or nature.

Q: How important do you feel that science is to the creation of public policy?

 Science, which includes both the natural sciences and the social sciences, is fundamental to the creation and maintenance of sound public policies.

Q: In general, which party or parties do you feel typically draft policies that show positive real-world results when applied, and why?

 In this context, I take parties to mean Canadian political parties at the federal level. In that perspective, the only true contenders are the Conservatives and Liberals, as both have been in office. My personal feelings are that the Conservatives are too willing to take positions that are not based on actual evidence, but that may be politically popular instead. The Liberals seem to be more open to work with evidence and stake out positions more in keeping with this evidence.

Q: Which party or parties tend to be more open to non-partisan collaboration? To science? Which tend to be open to change if the facts dictate it necessary?

 To me, the Canadian federal experience of the past 5-10 demonstrates that the Liberals, NDP, Green Parties are more collaborative-minded. The Conservative Party has been much less open to collaboration. Up to a certain degree, however, this may represent the fact that they are in office. There may be fewer incentives to cooperate with others.

 As for science, it is difficult to say. One can support science in a variety of ways, so there can be a number of “right” answers. Education financing, especially through the provincial context, may be important. R&D financing can be another way of looking at this question, but this is also supported by the private sector. Different parties can have different positions on all these issues, and they can all affect their commitment to “science.”

 I think all parties (often as represented by the party leader) have changed their views in accordance with the evolution of facts. Sometimes, party leaders change their minds even if the facts don't change. So the question to ask is not so much a look back at which parties changed. The questions to ask may be: what made them change their minds? How did this evolution happen?

Q: Where do you see trends in public policy heading in the next ten to twenty years?

 I think that trends I mentioned earlier will continue to amplify.

Q: Can you provide a few suggestions of your own in terms of what policies you feel would have the most positive impact on Canadian society in the next ten years or so? What about for developing nations?

 Canada: An effective climate change policy by the federal government, specifically a carbon tax. A full review of Canadian citizenship. Free trade with Europe must now be applied. Keeping to the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. A national childcare service.

 Developing nations: Demanding that donors keep to the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. Keeping military budgets low. Promoting regionalism through free trade and other small international organizations.

Q: How do you feel developed nations can best bring developing nations up to higher standard of living and to a level of self-sufficiency, without sacrificing the environment?

 Self-sufficiency is not necessarily good. I think it may be a bit bad. The free market is still the best way to develop economically. However, the government must curb its excesses. The government should also develop innovative policy solutions to promote economic and social development. The Bolsa Familia, a social welfare program in Brazil, is one example that is showing widespread success. Free trade with neighbours and all those who are open to it.

Q: Is Capitalism, and its focus on GDP as an indicator of success, viable for the long term? Do you see any better alternatives or better indicators of success?

 I think capitalism can be viable for the long term, provided that governments curb its excesses. I agree that GDP is a limiting indicator of success. That said, people and governments can make choices to use other indicators. Life expectancy; Average level of educational achievement; National Happiness levels (Bhutan); Proportion of Millenium Development Goals. New indicators can be developed if there is a need.

Q: If you could make one recommendation to countries around the world, or change one set of policies tomorrow, what would it be?

 A global carbon tax, applicable evenly everywhere. I would do it today, not tomorrow.

Q: Finally, where do you see global society heading in the more distant future? What predictions might you make about the late 21^st century? How can we help to guarantee such long-term sustainability?

 In the absence of a deus ex machina, I think global warming will fundamentally change the biosphere for the worse (from humanity's point of view). So this century will, I expect, turn out to be a century of adaptation to the worst effects of climate change. In that sense, that “long-term sustainability” to which you refer is very far off.

 And to close, I'd like to add a few comments of my own:

 I completely agree that solidly evidence-based policy should be the obvious choice, as does every single person I have spoken to on the subject, but shockingly this is not always the case...in some places, it's not even often the case. Too often, ideology and financial interests weigh heavily in policy, and the result, we see legislation that ignores or cherry-picks evidence. This is a trend that we absolutely have to reverse, or any hope of a fair and just society vastly diminishes. Parties that shun evidence and science should be made to pay a penalty for this, and it is up to the voters to make sure that this happens.

 Similarly, the ability to collaborate should be a criteria that everyone evaluates at the voting booth, as it tends to produce governments that are much more flexible and able to craft well-rounded policies. This ability also correlates highly with the ability to empathize with others, and it is easy to note that the parties that are most uncooperative also tend to promote policies that benefit some while marginalizing others. It's been noted by any number of social scientists that inequality is one of the greatest threats to social stability in this century, and partisan politics only further exacerbates this problem.

 This may be my liberal (or some might say libertarian) bias speaking, but the fact that conservative political parties tend to be far less evidence-based is an elephant in the room that needs addressing. There is a long list of policies, some mentioned here, in which conservative positions have been consistently disproven, and yet continue to be dogmatically defended. Obviously, there is some disconnect here; a reluctance to admit error, misplaced party loyalty, or perhaps a little of both. Loyalty, however, should have nothing to do with politics. Policies are what matter. Only this realization, and the subsequent willingness to abandon a party when its policies start disconnecting from the facts, can save democracy. Informed voters, who turn away from politicians that promote such failed notions as austerity or the subsidization of fossil fuel companies, can and do make all the difference in democratic societies. If we wish to continue enjoying the many benefits of a representative government, then staying informed and involved is the price we have to pay. I actually consider it less a price than a privilege.

 Finally, it should be noted that GDP as a global measure of success, as I may have mentioned in previous blogs, is not a great measure at all. I don't even agree that it is sustainable in the long-term, because it excludes so much, especially pollution, which even a Carbon Tax would not entirely factor in. It also encourages the rampant consumption that sits at the core of our current environmental dilemma, pushing other developing countries to consume as the U.S. does (read: not sustainably) in order to let them compete economically. Societies are much more than just the marketplace, and I believe that we should have a set of indicators that more accurately reflects this. Many countries have broadened how they measure success, and the results are encouraging. Success in the realm of public policy, as I see it, lies in taking a hard look at the realities we face, and then in using unflinching honesty to answer those questions that confront us.