Transcript The Politics and Policy of Wellbeing

The Politics and Policy of Wellbeing:
Understanding the Rise and Significance of a
New Agenda
Presentation to PSA Annual Conference, Brighton 21.3.2016
Ian Bache, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield and
Louise Reardon, Institute for Transport Studies, University of
Leeds
Questions
1. How and why has the idea of wellbeing risen up the political
agenda? (multiple streams approach: Kingdon 2011)
2. What are the policy implications of the rising political interest
in the idea of wellbeing? (social learning: Hall 1993; 2013)
3. Is wellbeing an idea whose time has come?
We look at rise of wellbeing internationally, but look in detail at
the UK and compare this with the EU). From this we:
-
Critique and develop the MSA approach to incorporate the
insights of multi-level governance
Propose a synthesis of the two approaches.
2
3
The idea of wellbeing*
Debates on the ‘good life’ and the role of the state in promoting
it goes back to ancient Greeks
Current interest in wellbeing critiques the dominance of GDP
and related indicators as emblematic of progress. Two waves
of political interest post-war.
• First wave emerged in 1960s - social challenges and rise of
post-materialism.
• Second wave 1990s to now – began with environmental
concerns, but increased understanding of drivers of wellbeing
/ how to measure wellbeing also important.
Rise of wellbeing (UK)
4
Politics stream: interest under Labour govt. but not sustained
• Cameron an advocate since 2006: took a high profile stance as
PM in 2010 to support ONS wellbeing programme
• International momentum: Sarkozy/Stiglitz Commission 2009
Policy stream: gradual improvement in ‘science’ of wellbeing
Problem stream: growing critique of GDP as a benchmark of
progress and dominance of economic indicators in policy (eg Stiglitz
Commission). But frame conflicts continue.
UK developments closely linked to international developments:
multi-level governance
A multi-level multiple streams approach
Analytical
focus
MSA (Kingdon)
Temporal alignment of streams
Multi-level MSA
Temporal and spatial alignment of streams
5
Policy stream Focus on knowledge accumulation within
one system of governance (generally
national)
Highlights that streams co-exist nationally and
internationally, and can intersect through shared
participants
Politics
stream
Focus on a single location of political
authority for relevant activities (generally
national)
Emphasises that alignment of politics across
different levels of governance is required for
effective action
Problem
stream
Focus on problem definition (framing) at
one level or within a single system of
governance (generally national)
Adds that frame conflicts are exacerbated in
conditions of multi-level governance due to the
wider range of actors and ideas, making successful
problem framing more difficult
Policy
windows
Argues that the opening of a window in one
policy area, can increase the possibility of a
window opening in related areas through
spillover effects (issue spillover)
Adds that the opening of a policy window at one
level of governance can increase the possibility
of the opening of a window in the same policy
area at another level of governance (spatial
spillover)
Policy
Focus on their role in the temporal
entrepreneurs alignment of streams to explain an idea
whose time has come
Highlights their role as ‘venue shoppers’ seeking
to sell their idea of the problem in different arenas
and seeking to promote both temporal and spatial
alignment (an idea whose time and place has
come)
Policy implications
6
• Most are ‘first order’ changes - adjustments to departmental
surveys or to evaluation and appraisal techniques
• Also small number of ‘second order’ changes (IAPTs; flexible
working)
• ‘Third order’ (paradigm) change a distant prospect
But this is seen as a long-term agenda – initial hesitance shifted to a
focus on ‘what works’ to promote wellbeing in policy: What
Works Center for Wellbeing created in 2015
Theoretical conclusions
• Kingdon’s dynamics are evident: problem identified; incremental
policy stream; and lurch forward in politics stream
• Hall provides a useful distinction between orders of change and
the dynamics relating to each, with paradigm change least likely.
– this requires a motivation (reason to act), means (ideas) and
motor (forces that keep momentum)
• While the two approaches aim to explain different stages of the
policy process, there are many similarities - motivation, means
and motor resemble the 3 streams: problems provide the
motivation; policy the means; and politics the motor
• Moreover, many of the dynamics and participants at agendasetting remain present during 1st and 2nd order change
7
Theoretical synthesis
8
• 1st and 2nd order changes can provide the means crucial to 3rd
order change. – providing an explicit link between agenda-setting
process and the prospects for significant policy change
• So understanding prospects for wellbeing in policy is deepened
by tracing developments from agenda-setting onwards through
this synthesis of complementary frameworks
• And placing all of this within the context of multi-level
governance
9
Conclusion:
Is wellbeing an idea whose time has come?
• In some respects yes – new measurements, shifts in discourse
and some policy changes. But to argue this convincingly requires
evidence of major shifts in policy – at the stage of finding out
‘what works’
• Would require a ‘third wave’’ in which wellbeing is internalized
by key actors and is institutionalized in policy practice.
• This is some distance away – but this is explicitly a long-term
agenda