Can Complexity Move UK Policy beyond ‘Evidence-Based Policy Making’ and the ‘Audit Culture’? Applying a ‘Complexity Cascade’ to Education and Health Policy
| Date | 01 March 2012 |
| Published date | 01 March 2012 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00903.x |
| Author | Robert Geyer |
| Subject Matter | Original Article |
Can Complexity Move UK Policy beyond
‘Evidence-Based Policy Making’ and the ‘Audit
Culture’? Applying a ‘Complexity Cascade’ to
Education and Health Policypost_90320..43
Robert Geyer
University of Lancaster
For much of the twentieth century UK public policy has been based on a strongcentralist, rationalist and managerialist
framework. This orientation was significantly amplified by New Labour in the 1990s and 2000s, leading to the
development of ‘evidence-based policy making’ (EBPM) and the ‘audit culture’– a trend that looks set to continue
under the current government.Substantial cr iticisms havebeen raised against the targeting/audit strategies of the audit
culture and other forms of EBPM, particularly in complex policy areas. This article accepts these criticisms and argues
that in order to move beyond these problems one must not only look at the basic foundation of policy strategies, but
also develop practical alternatives to those strategies. To that end, the article examines one of the most basic and
common tools of the targeting/audit culture,the aggregate linear X-Y graph, and shows that when it has been applied
to UK education policy, it leads to: (1) an extrapolation tendency; (2) a fluctuating ‘crisis–success’ policy response
process;and (3) an intensifying targeting/auditing trend. To movebeyond these problems,one needs a visual metaphor
which combines an ability to see the direction of policy travel with an aspect of continual openness that undermines
the extrapolation tendency,cr isis–success policy response and targeting/auditing trend. Using a general complexity
approach,and building on the work of Geyer and Rihani, this article will attempt to show that a‘complexity cascade’
tool can be used to overcome these weaknesses and avoid their negative effects in both education and health policy
in the UK.
Keywords: complexity;public policy;complexity cascade; education policy; health policy
For much of the twentieth century and particularly in the aftermath of the Second World
War, UK public policy has been based on a strong centralist, rationalist and managerialist
framework typified by the so-called Westminster model of central government responsi-
bility, civil service accountability and local actor implementation. This orientation was
significantly amplified by New Labour in the 1990s and 2000s, leading to the development
of ‘evidence-based policy making’ (EBPM) and the explosion of targeting and audit
strategies, labelled the ‘audit culture’ (Power, 1997). Despite having to curb the growth of
this audit culture due to the budget crisis and a desire to differentiate itself from the former
government, the new Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government appears
wedded to its basic orientation.
Substantial criticisms from a number of perspectives have been raised against the
targeting/audit strategies of the audit culture and other forms of EBPM. This article will
not explore the development of EBPM,the audit culture or the criticisms of them in detail.
Instead, it will accept that the UK has developed a tendency towards a targeting/audit
culture,that it leads to a number of dysfunctional and maladaptive outcomes for UK policy
and that, in order to move beyond these problems, one must not only look at the basic
foundation of policy strategies but also develop practical alternatives to those strategies.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00903.x
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2012 VOL 60, 20–43
© 2011The Author.Political Studies © 2011 Political Studies Association
To that end, this article will briefly review the rise of the ‘targeting/audit culture’ in UK
public policy and examine how this culture is based on a traditional orderly scientific world
view of causality, reductionism,predictability and determinism. It will then examine one of
the most basic and common tools of the targeting/audit culture, the aggregate linear X-Y
graph and show how it has been applied to UK education policy. It will also demonstrate
how the use of this tool leads to: (1) a distorting extrapolation tendency; (2) a maladaptive
fluctuating ‘crisis–success’ policy response process; and (3) an ever-intensifying targeting/
auditing trend. The article will then briefly introduce and define the complexity approach
and argue that if one accepted a more complexity-oriented world view, based on partial
causality, reductionism and holism, predictability and uncertainty, probability, emergence
and interpretation, different tools that reduce these weaknesses would be possible. An
example of these tools is the complexity cascade.
Based on core complexity concepts, the complexity cascade combines a visualisation of
the direction of policy travel with an aspect of continual openness that helps to limit the
aforementioned extrapolation tendency, crisis–success policy response and targeting/
auditing trend. To demonstrate its applicability, the article will then apply the complexity
cascade to aspects of UK education and health policy. In conclusion, it is hoped that the
article will demonstrate that by adopting a complexity approach and applying its tools to
the UK policy process, a practical way can be found to move beyond the limits of the UK
EBPM process and its related targeting/audit culture.
Evidence-Based Policy Making and the Targeting/Audit Culture
As argued by a range of authors, the dominant UK policy framework is based on the
so-called evidence-based policy-making process that requires a strong target and audit
culture (Sanderson, 2002; 2009). This process and culture stand on a foundation of
‘instrumental rationality’ (Dryzek, 1990) where EBPM ‘must be understood as a project
focused on enhancing the techniques of managing and controlling the policy making
process’ (Parsons, 2002, p. 44). Within the UK, the belief in this framework was
entrenched by a number of core ‘New Labour’ documents in the late 1990s and early
2000s including Modernising Government White Paper (Cabinet Office, 1999), and Profes-
sional Policy Making for the Twenty First Century (Cabinet Office, 1999a) and institutiona-
lised through the creation of a number of new units including the Performance and
Innovation Unit, Social Exclusion Unit and Centre for Management and Policy Studies.
However, this framework was not just a development of New Labour but was deeply
entrenched in the positivist world view of many policy professionals (Morcol, 2001), and
represented not a break with the past but ‘a return to the old time religion: better
policy-making was policy-making predicated on improvements to instrumental rational-
ity’ (Parsons, 2002, p. 45).
Put simply, more and better evidence would lead to more and better policy. More
evidence required better and more coordinated information. And once this improved
information was analysed by central actors appropriate targets could be designed to facilitate
improved policy outcomes.With better targets, auditing systems had to be designed to
monitor the performance of local actors in achieving and adhering to these targets (Power,
2007). Consequently, establishing clear targets, rationally evaluating them over set periods
COMPLEXITY AND UK POLICY 21
© 2011The Author.Political Studies © 2011 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2012, 60(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial