Processes as Policy Capabilities

Source: Author

In the sections below, I examine policy processes, routines and skills, in greater depth.

3.2 Processes as Policy Capabilities

This section builds on the policy processes presented in the Theoretical Framework (Table 2.2, Chapter 2). Drawing from the framework I decompose the policy processes identified into four groups. This classification helps explain the basis for the selection of the policy processes for further investigation, data collection, analyses, and for more in-depth discussion.

3.2.1 Core Processes: The first group of policy processes are those I have classed as

“core processes” (or core capabilities for policymaking). This group of processes are considered to be essential and critical to policy formulation – and so must be incumbent and carried out during policy formulation. Examples include: agenda setting, research, leadership and management, stakeholder engagement, and funding. UNIDO, (2005, pp.17, 47), highlights public funding as a critical process necessary for policy formulation in DCs. In the case of Nigeria, a Ministry’s anticipated projects for the next financial year,

Routines (specific activities)

Individual Capabilities Organisational Capabilities (formal & informal) Policy Capabilities

(Defined in terms of)

Policy Formulation

Processes

(involved in policymaking)

Involved in Skills

(of a policymaker)

used as the basis for budgeting, is submitted to the FEC for approval. Thereafter, FMST must secure and allocate a specific portion of that fund for S&T/STI policymaking, without which the policy formulation exercise cannot take place. In Table 3.1 below, I use Agenda Setting, which at FMST occurs at two (FEC and FMST) levels, as an example of a core policy process.

Table 3.1: Agenda Setting as a Policy Process Set by

FEC

Over-arching (national) policy agenda

The Economic Transformation Agenda of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; Nigeria’s Vision 20:2020 [set by the FEC - Federal Executive Council, which is headed by the President with Ministers as members]

Set by FMST

General Policy Objective Build a strong Science, Technology and Innovation capability and capacity needed to evolve a modern economy Specific Policy

Objectives

The specific objectives are to:

i. Facilitate the acquisition of knowledge to adapt, utilise, replicate and diffuse technologies for the growth of SMEs, agricultural development, food security, power generation and poverty reduction.

ii. Support the establishment and strengthening of organisations, institutions and structures for effective coordination and management of STI activities within a virile NIS.

iii. Promote activities for effective STI communication and ...

iv. Create and sustain reliable mechanisms for adequate funding of STI activities in Nigeria.

Policy priority area²⁹ STI Promotion

Rationale There is need to popularise and inculcate STI culture in Nigerians for rapid socio-economic transformation.

Objective Create awareness in the society on the relevance of STI culture for the improvement of quality of life and sustainable economic development.

Strategies i. Encourage relevant stakeholders to provide students at primary and secondary schools, and technical colleges with broad-based curricula comprising relevant scientific knowledge and vocational skills.

ii. Promote broad-based scientific knowledge and vocational skills for schools and colleges.

iii. Provide policy incentives to Nigerian youths for career development in S&T fields.

iv. Support programmes of the professional S&T bodies concerned with building STI capacity.

v. Empower women in the utilisation of STI for economic development.

vi. Encourage the establishment or strengthening of S&T Ministries at the State level.

Source: Adapted from Nigeria’s National STI Policy, by FMST (2012a, p.14)

29 The STI policy priority area, “STI Promotion” was selected for this illustration as it contains policy processes and routines (related to e.g. agenda setting, policy objectives and strategies, coordination, management, communication, and funding), skills and keywords (e.g. policy, S&T, STI, skills, knowledge, capacity building, development, etc.) relevant to this study and useful in explaining the argument of this thesis, e.g. See FMST (2012a) for more.

Table 3.1 above helps to illustrate the distinction between the (main) overarching agenda set by the FEC and the corresponding STI policy agenda (policy priority areas, objectives, rationale and policy strategies) set by FMST. Both levels are involved in setting Nigeria’s STI policy agenda, thus helping to illustrate why this policy process is critical in policy formulation. I revisit this in Chapter 6 (Discussion).

Co-joined Processes: The second group are those policy processes that are largely similar in nature or function. I have termed this group “co-joined processes”. An example is

“setting clear priorities” which can be joined with “setting policy goals”. This is because the processes and routines involved in “refining policy priorities” in order to make them clear are similar to (or can be arrived at by) “setting clear policy goals”. Although presented in this format to enhance clarity, the justification is based on the similarity in function between the policy processes and routine activities involved in operationalising the policy processes. Similarly, “engaging in policy debates”, “public awareness and engagement”, “inter-sectoral communication” and “communicating policy” policy processes are other examples where the case for resemblance and proximity can be established. I have therefore used “communication” in the broad sense as a collective term to co-join the four policy processes – “engaging in policy debates”, “public awareness and engagement”, “inter-sectoral communication” and “communicating policy”.

Intermediate Processes: The third group, “intermediate processes”, focus on processes that do not lead to an end in themselves but are a means to an end. For example, “policy monitoring and evaluation (M&E)” and “resolving tensions” belong to this group.

Resolving tensions among working teams involved in policy formulation serves to ensure efficient team performance. It may improve working environment thereby enhancing a team’s motivation and productivity in carrying out routine activities. However, it does not in itself lead to an end product. Furthermore, M&E routines³⁰ or reviewing of previous policies acts as a bridge to the formulation of a new policy. M&E, in this context, serves the purpose of providing inputs for the formulation of new policies. It is, therefore, not an end in itself but an intermediary step, which feeds into other policy formulation processes and routines.

30 Specific activities carried out in reviewing previous policies; see section 3.3 for more discussions on routines.

Optional Processes: The fourth group deals with what I refer to in this thesis as “optional processes”. These policy processes are useful in policymaking but may not be necessarily required to be incumbent (i.e. present, resident) within the policy institution, e.g. FMST.

I argue that other institutions drawn from within the NSI ecosystem or network of actors can (or may be able to) carry out this group of policy processes (and their corresponding routines). As a result, their value in a government policymaking institution such as FMST are somewhat diminished – since they can be carried out by another ministry or external agency (public or private). Examples of processes in this group include: (policy) research, M&E, and funding.

M&E, for example, can be performed by any actor (Dufour, 2010) suitably equipped and qualified; and not necessarily by FMST. What is vital to FMST is that it is able to, subsequently, utilise the outcome of such evaluations in its policymaking. It is therefore more important that the policy processes necessary, for example, the selection of the M&E agency, management, coordination and integration of the findings emanating from such M&E, are incumbent at FMST. Policy evaluation (or reviews) with a view to integrating the outcomes into the formulation of new policies can be far-reaching. It can for instance be extended to include the critical re-evaluation of existing policy formulation practices or the challenge of incumbent “best practices”³¹ in place. This requirement may be difficult to satisfy within governmental agencies due to structural implications (hierarchies and top-down governance) and bureaucracies. There may be some potential benefits, therefore, of having this group of policy processes carried out by qualified external non-bureaucratic agencies, which are independent and better equipped, for example, academia. This may improve the chances of achieving a more objective outcome in terms of policy goals.

In Nigeria, as with other DCs where the Ministry of Science and Technology structure is still predominant³², the top-down approach of governance means that the Federal Government (the Federal Executive Council, FEC³³, in the case of Nigeria) traditionally sets the overarching development policy, i.e. the national development, agenda. In which case it is not essential that the policy processes for setting the overarching agenda is

31 See Chapter 6 (Discussion) for more discussion on best practices as a policy formulation approach.

32 Other examples include Ghana, Kenya, Indonesia, Pakistan, South Africa, and so on.

33 Council of Ministers. Described in Chapter 2, Section 2.4. Executive arm of Nigeria’s government.

incumbent at FMST, although desirable. The implication therefore is that the overarching policy agenda will be set, regardless of whether it is set by FEC, FMST, National Council³⁴ on S&T (NCST), another stakeholder group (e.g. National Planning Commission³⁵) or a policy entrepreneur. The role of FMST in such situations is therefore concerned with the development of the STI policy priorities, options, alternatives and strategies – all of which are necessary for realising the overarching development policy agenda set. In Chapter 6, I highlight some of the weaknesses with this approach and show that is impacts negatively on the development of policy capabilities.

The “Economic Transformation Agenda” (ETA) known as Nigeria’s Vision 20:2020 (NV20-2020, 2009) is an example an overarching (national development) policy agenda set by the President. This national development policy by the presidency seeks to position Nigeria amongst the top 20 economies of the world by the year 2020. Respective Ministries under the government are therefore expected to formulate specific policy objectives, strategies and priority areas detailing how the Ministry would contribute towards the achievement of the transformation agenda. The 2012 national STI policy was therefore “designed to drive the ETA and deliver its objectives as an integral part of the NV20-2020” (FMST, 2012, p. 3). The aim of this agenda-setting approach in STI policy is therefore to spell out FMST’s priority areas, objectives and strategies towards actualising the ETA – as I presented in Table 3.1 above. As a result, policy processes such as “setting of clear policy objectives or priorities” and “proposing policy options”, within the given policy agenda set by FEC may be of more value to FMST than incumbent agenda setting processes.

As in M&E, discussed earlier, it is possible for institutions such as Universities and dedicated STI policy research units to carry out research or the training and development of the policy capabilities on behalf of FMST. Such an agency may well be specialised and better resourced than the FMST. In such instances, it may be more useful to have the incumbent processes, routines and skills for reviewing, coordinating and managing the activities of the external research agency, than to have the policy capabilities for research incumbent at FMST.

34 Highest decision-making body in Nigeria on S&T issues. Headed by Minister of S&T, with the Permanent Secretary, State Commissioners of S&T and other stakeholders’ organisations as members.

35 Nigeria’s Ministry responsible for coordinating national economic, growth and developmental goals.

To reiterate, optional policy processes are those that can be carried out by another agency, external to FMST. These policy processes are useful in policymaking but are not required to be incumbent, though desirable if they are incumbent. Therefore, being categorised as optional does not imply less important or unimportance. To the contrary optional policy processes can also be core, e.g. Research (and Evidence Gathering) policy process. I summarise the different groups of policy processes and the categorisations discussed in this section in Table 3.2 below.

Table 3.2: Summary of Process Capabilities for Policymaking Process process. Similarly, coordination, which currently is a core process, equally serves as an intermediate process. This situation in which a policy process may be discussed under one or more categories is helpful in emphasising the interconnectedness and relationships between the policy processes examined. In addition, it indicates that the classifications do not imply discreteness. They are used as a heuristic for analysis and discussion.

Furthermore, Table 3.2 outline some of the policy processes, which this study investigates further with a view to determining their roles in policy formulation, development and evolution at FMST. I define “Evolution” in this thesis in terms of innovation, that is, a new or different policy process, or improvements in the routines contained within incumbent policy processes. In summary, it refers to changes to a policy process

(Lundvall, 1992; OECD, 2005). A policy process (and its corresponding routines) that have not improved since its use in the formulation of Nigeria’s first S&T policy of 1986 (or later introduction prior to 2012) at FMST is recorded in this thesis as “Not Evolved”.

For policy processes that have “Evolved”, I differentiate between two types of evolution:

incremental and radical innovation. Incremental innovation in this context refers to policy processes and routines that have received minor changes; while radical innovation relates to significant (transformational) change or complete overhaul of a policy process and its accompanying routines. I build on this distinction in subsequent discussions.