Policy Process Mapping Tool

Two interrelated sets of problems confronting government with respect to environmental policy have been identified: first, the environmental issues themselves, e.g., maintenance of biodiversity and conservation of old growth; and second, the processes involved in making complex choices that have “significant implications for governance” (Papadakis & Young, 2000:153) . This dichotomy intimates a distinction between policy discourse (content) and policy process (form) that can serve to further explicate the dynamics evident in the two case studies.

Two key variables tied to content and form are used develop a policy process-mapping tool: levels of policy discourse (and related policy outcomes), and the level of cooperation, from non-cooperative or competitive to collaborative. On such a process map (see below) the level of policy discourse identifies the loci of key legitimating ideas and problem-solution frames of the competing coalitions. An entity or event can be located on the map by identifying (a) the level of policy discourse associated with key arguments on the continuum of causal-to-principled beliefs and associated policy target, and (b) the cooperative stance of individual actors and the level of cooperation evident in a particular policy dynamic (from non-cooperation to open collaboration).

Example of a policy process map for the Southeast Forest Agreement, Queensland, Australia.

Notes:

· The development coalition (DC) was firmly embedded in Q1 during the initial phase of the conflict. That is, it was ‘trapped’ by its own legitimating ideas based on Sustained Yield and Integrated Resource Management, while formal Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) institutions proved incapable of fostering/brokering crucial innovative solutions.

· The environmental coalition (EC) was promoting new solutions at the level of policy goals based on principled beliefs in ecological and economic sustainability. The Federal government was unwilling to recognise the paradigm shift underway and attempted to constrain the discourse to Q1, location of the RFA process, using command-and-control style management.

· Recognising the impasse, the DC and the EC formed a new collaborative coalition (CC) outside the formal RFA process, moving to Q4, and successfully negotiated a consensus agreement subsequently endorsed by the State government and formalised as the SEQFA. The Federal government refused to endorse the agreement, remaining isolated in Q1 dynamics, and remains disengaged from the process even though the new paradigm has been institutionalised and is being successfully implemented by the Queensland government.

For further information contact the author.

Home

Hosted by directNIC.com