Policy gaps: future challenges for research

Abstract

This commentary considers the Building Research & Information special issue (volume 43/4) entitled ‘Closing the Policy Gaps: From Formulation to Outcomes'. Although the call for papers received an international response, the special issue has a focus on cases of policy-making and outcomes in the UK. A critical review is presented addressing several questions for the international research, consultancy and policy-making communities. What can these international communities learn from the presented examples? How do variations in governance regimes and structures influence policy formulation and outcomes, particularly the reduction in policy ‘gaps’? What future steps could be taken to produce more internationally oriented comparative research on policy-making and implementation regarding the built environment and urban–regional development? How can evidence and analysis be used to build theory? Do the research and consultancy communities need to improve their policy literacy? What lessons can the research community, in particular, learn from this process in advising on policy formation and implementation processes?

Keywords:

• built environment
• comparative research
• governance
• policy advice
• policy-making
• urban–regional development

The role of evidence-producing research in policy-making has been disputed for a long time (Frey & Ledermann, 2010). Also, the gaps between the formulation and outcomes of policies regarding the built environment and urban–regional development are not a new phenomenon. In Germany, the term ‘Beratungsresistenz der Politik’ is a very often heard complaint from researchers, but it also arises in political debates. It can be translated as the resistance of politicians and policy-makers to accept policy advice from researchers. In contrast, the German economist Eekhoff (2004) offers the term ‘Beratungsinsuffizienz der Wissenschaft’ which refers to an inability amongst researchers to provide appropriate policy advice, i.e. a lack of policy literacy exists within the research community. Policy-makers argue that researchers often do not understand what precisely is required for the formation and implementation of policies and the logic that formation and implementation follow. Moreover, policy-makers emphasize that policy-making does not solely depend on evidence. Other considerations and influences exist such as interest-based advocacy and policy outcomes are influenced by manifold circumstances.

As we have become used to this debate and the differences between what can be scientifically proven and justified, what is intended by policy-makers and what happens in reality, one could argue that policy gaps are among the common features of policy-making. However, the increasingly complex and urgent challenges of sustainable development (e.g. the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, the wise use and management of resources, as well as the need for a more environmentally conscious ‘consumption’ of natural landscapes and open spaces for the expansion of settlements and extension of transportation infrastructure) require more stringent evidence-based policy-making and implementation. Therefore, the recently published special issue on ‘Closing the Policy Gaps: From Formulation to Outcomes' is a very timely undertaking (Table 1).

Table 1 Authors and titles of articles in the special issue ‘Closing the Policy Gaps: From Formulation to Outcomes', Building Research & Information (2015), vol. 43(4); guest editors: Simon Foxell and Ian Cooper

S. Foxell and I. Cooper	Editorial: Closing the policy gaps
R. Simmons	Constraints on evidence-based policy: insights from government practices
L. Schweber, T. Lees and J. Torriti	Framing evidence: policy design for the zero-carbon home
R. Gupta, M. Gregg, S. Passmore and G. Stevens	Intent and outcomes from the Retrofit for the Future programme: key lessons
A. M. Moncaster and P. Simmons	Policies and outcomes for UK sustainable schools
G. Ive, A. Murray and R. Marsh	Cost and value ratios of operating renewed English secondary schools
E. Warwick	Policy to reality: evaluation the evidence trajectory for English eco-towns
G. R. W. Mills, M. Phiri, J. Erskine and A. D. F. Price	Rethinking healthcare building design quality: an evidence-based strategy
K. B. Janda and M. Toupouzi	Telling tales: using stories to remake energy policy
R. Cohen and B. Bordass	Mandating transparency about building energy performance in use

The excellent introductory paper by Foxell and Cooper about ‘Closing policy gaps’ and the other well-written papers reflect and partly go beyond the state of the art of research on policy gaps in the built environment sector. They are extremely instructive for research, consultancy and policy-making communities. It is certainly an asset that many authors were in some way involved in the policy-making cases which they write about. Foxell and Cooper state that all the articles:

share a concern with identifying lessons that can be learnt that could inform better policy-making and, hence, help to produce more successful policy interventions and initiatives.

(p. 399)

One of these lessons, as Simmons remarks, is that:

Evidence captures the attention of policy- and decision-makers if it is presented simply, clearly and proves the relevance of the subject to their audiences or interests.

(p. 414)

and

Evidence can be a forceful influence on policy, but the territory in which it is applied is not neutral. Understanding this is vital for those who wish to change outcomes.

(p. 415)

This is especially relevant in complex environments where scepticism about the relevance of an issue still prevails and where mainstream consultancy reaches its limit. Local and regional adaptation to climate change can be taken as an example here. Some years ago, a series of regional application-oriented model research projects were initiated by the federal government in Germany. Each project had a planned duration of five years and was supported by a budget exceeding €10 million. Partners included researchers from universities and think tanks as well as civil servants from the state, regional and municipal levels. Besides a number of analytical results and concrete proposals for action in each model region (e.g., related to planning concepts and building regulations), the exercise led to two interesting findings. First, it took almost a year for researchers to understand the logics and constraints of practitioners, and vice versa. Second, tacit knowledge and policy literacy of the senior civil servants involved in the project were extremely important to produce tangible outcomes at the local level. Although it was sometimes difficult for researchers to understand and accept, it proved to be wise to provide the ‘right’ dose of information at the ‘right’ moment in the ‘right’ form using the ‘right’ information channels to reach decision-makers in order to get at least part of the proposals implemented (Olfert, Müller, Bernhofer, Korndörfer, & Sommer, 2014). This strongly supports what Simmons states in his paper. In cases where such strategic skills are missing, the information often goes unheard and unheeded. For example, many policies regarding the built and natural environments require the responsible institutions to report regularly about the latest developments in the national and state parliaments. However, this information flow rarely sparks relevant debate or motivates action.

The fact that all the papers in the special issue focus on one country surely contributes to its consistency as it explores the specific circumstances of governance within the UK. This is necessarily constrained by the specific nature of governance in that country with regard to national, regional and local interface, as well as other factors. It is important to recognize that different countries have different arrangements for the decision-making processes for policy formulation and implementation due to variation in political and other structures. This raises the question: to what extent will the picture be different in other countries and will lessons from one country be applicable elsewhere? In order to expand our understanding of these practices (policy formulation, implementation and gaps in outcomes), case studies are needed from other countries with different forms of governance regimes. More research is requires to provide a wide body of knowledge, to develop a more theoretically oriented analytical framework, and to place more emphasis on comparable analysis and transferable results in an international context.

One of the issues here is variation in forms of governance and the role provided to local communities. Governance is ‘the sum of many ways that individuals and institutions, both public and private, manage their common affairs’ (Commission on Global Governance, 1995). Therefore policy-making is highly dependent on the governance system within which it takes place. It is possible to distinguish, for example, between countries with a globalized democratic framework, countries in transition and countries with autocratic or even militaristic structures. Depending on the governance regime, involved stakeholder groups and their power and advocacy potentials differ widely, as do the accompanying (governmental and non-governmental) institutional support mechanisms, inputs and capacities. It also makes a difference whether policies are formulated and implemented in a unitary system where the central government delegates authority to sub-national units and channels policy decisions down to them for implementation, or in federal systems where the power of decision-making is balanced between the different levels of government, and where the number of stakeholders directly involved in decision-making is usually rather high. Finally, the degree of autonomy of local communities also plays a role here. Governing local communities may reach from central control to increased autonomy with some higher-level control or even to maximal local authority (UNESCAP, 2005).

Looking at the special issue from a broader range of governance regimes, one may dispute Foxell and Cooper's assertion that policy gaps can generally be explained by the fact that:

those who make policy (by framing the nature of the problems that need to be addressed and selecting the objectives that need to be achieved) are situated in national (government) organizations whilst those who are expected to implement them are most frequently locally based, often with their own pressing needs and constraints.

(p. 400)

This may be well justified for the British examples and can apply to a unitary government system. However, in federal systems with strong municipalities like Germany, the policy gaps and their explanation seem to be more complex.

For example, in the built environment and urban–regional development sectors, many decision-making powers are constitutionally vested in the level of the federal states. States are responsible, for example, for building codes and planning laws. Coordination at the national level takes place through specific commissions of the respective ministers from the state and national levels. Municipalities have a strong say in decision-making through the system of ‘countervailing influence', which assures balanced power sharing between the state and local levels. Moreover, at the local level informal political communication is important policy-making. It provides a complementary role to any formal communication and serves as a proscenium in formal processes of policy-making (Walter, 2013).

All this may lead to more coordinated policies as well as collaborative planning and action (Healey, 1997). However, it also generates friction and dispute and finally results in outcomes that may be rather different from the original policy goals. For example, despite the intent of most of the state spatial development plans in Germany to direct new housing developments to medium-sized and larger municipalities (in order to diminish sprawl and ex-urban development), smaller towns showed the highest growth rates in this respect during the past decades. This unintended outcome occurred because the smaller towns succeeded in attracting new housing projects and inhabitants due to lower land prices. Although development is monitored and regularly reported in the national and state parliaments, it is difficult to establish more restrictive instruments that would fulfil the original policy goals due to the far-reaching constitutional powers of the municipalities. This shows that, in contrast to the idealism expressed by Foxell and Cooper, the production and provision of evidence does not automatically lead to better informed policy-making.

The above-mentioned points illustrate that there is ample room for further research on policy gaps. Such work should be comparative with an international perspective. Examples from countries with different government systems and institutional arrangements should be included. Research should be strongly theory based; research questions and hypotheses would have to be developed in the background of a comprehensive international state-of-the-art literature review. This research should also be inter- and transdisciplinary, involving researchers and consultants from different disciplines as well as experienced officials from different levels of government. In this respect, the special issue on policy gaps in the built environment sector is very useful starting point for a wider international discussion on comparative research projects. It is hoped that a subsequent, future special issue will explore how different forms of governance impact on policy gaps, develop further analysis and theory, and give recommendations for good practice. However, whether they will lead to closing the policy gaps entirely is doubtful. Understanding and dealing with them in a smarter way would be already a relevant goal to which to aspire.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.