Complex Policy Planning

The Government Strategic Management of the Social Care Market

Philip Haynes

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138617575
• eBook ISBN: 9780429867231
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Commercial Policy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

First published in 1999, this book examines recent developments in the application of chaos and complexity theory to the applied social sciences and the implications for the government planning of social care services. The study argues that there are fundamental limitations to traditional government political and managerial planning structures. Chaos and complexity theory shows that the effects of time and space are critical aspects for planners to consider. Small changes in isolated social or individual factors can have larger scale effects on the future validity of a policy programme. In particular, rigid linear statistical calculations like the Government Standard Spending Assessment can undermine the ability of local authorities to make realistic plans. It is proposed that government political strategies and managerial methods of analysis need to better understand the complexity of information available to them. New political and institutional typologies are required if planning activity is to evolve to be of optimal social value.

1 Planning in the Public Sector

Introduction

This chapter discusses theoretical planning issues in the British public policy process. It starts by examining definitions of rational planning and the previous attempts to understand planning in organisational literature. This leads to an examination of strategic planning and the recent seminal critique by Mintzberg (1994a) of the strategic planning models developed in the 1970s and 1980s. It is argued that in the public sector there is a particular need to see strategy making in its political context. The chapter concludes by proposing a framework of public sector planning activity.

Definitions of Rational Planning

It is necessary to attempt to define planning as part of an organisational and inter-organisational process, to define its bureaucratic location and purpose. Rational ideas lead to a prescriptive top-down focus where planning is clearly identified at the beginning of things and the means to acquire organisational ends. This type of rational approach has been referred to as traditional, comprehensive, or corporate planning, although its practice includes a considerable range of diversity, it having been applied to both the public and private sector (Clapham, 1984; Bryson and Einsweiler 1988). The use of these rational planning types in the public sector is closely related to the rational-central model of the policy process. This model is summarised by Kickert, Kiljn and Koppenjan (1997) as a paradigm that seeks to explain the policy process as a managerialist exercise, characterised by scientific and logical activity. Success is measured on the basis of formal goals being achieved at a later date. A centralised policy system is encouraged. This centralism is seen as necessary to divide clearly the values and ambitions of politicians (who make the outline strategy) from the details of scientific and rational policy management. The key criticism of such a theory is its denial of the political and power realities that permeate all levels of public policy.

Scientific Rationalism

Several writers have discussed planning in relation to the debate in policy analysis about rational versus incremental models of decision taking (Smit and Rade, 1980; Walker, 1984, chapter 4; Hambleton, 1986). The best known historical proponent of scientific rationalism as a methodology for organisation planning was Herbert Simon (1957). He proposed an ideal model of policy decision making that focused on logically considering all possible alternatives, strategies and outcomes. Simon was aware of the prescriptive and idealised limitations of his hypothesis and his perspective later adjusted to be more pragmatic.

The rational approach to administrative behaviour was based on the premise that policy can discern ‘means’ from ‘ends’ and ‘process’ from ‘output’. While it might be argued that such dimensions are discernible in all policy circumstances - to some extent - it should also be recognised that policy implementation can become distracted by unintended consequences and political agendas that distort earlier rational intentions (Hogwood and Gunn, 1984). Herein lies a traditional conflict of approaches in policy analysis; on the one hand a propensity to analyse policy solely in political and ideological terms, contrasted with the alternative application of rational scientific management and organisational processes. This is a dichotomy refuted by Minogue (1983, p. 83) who concludes on the rational managerial model: ‘in short, social systems are simply not predictable enough to be described as manageable; rational management and control in such circumstances are impossible.’

In the immediate post war period British policy planning sought to measure human need on the basis of social justice and equity and under the assumption that the growth of the economy and rising public expenditure would allow for an increase in public services. Such planning attempted to be ‘comprehensive’ and was founded on the belief that it was possible to predict and control the future, hence the terms ‘rational-comprehensive’ and ‘comprehensive long-term planning’ (Smit and Rade, 1980).

The incremental school in policy analysis starts from the premise that policy decisions are never complete in their rationality and will always be compromised, fragmented and distorted by political systems. This is in one sense a repeat of the revision of rationality already undergone by Simon, but incrementalism represents an alternative perspective if only because it starts from a different premise and seeks to build from a ‘descriptive’ stance rather than an ‘ideal’ one (Smith and May, 1980).

Lindblom (1959) expounds incrementalism as ‘successive limited comparisons’, but acknowledges that there is some element of rationality within such an approach. A key difference is the starting point of his model, termed the ‘branch method’. It is necessary to focus on the basic issue in question, rather than the theoretical root of the problem. In incremental analysis practical difficulties prevent the pursuing of all policy alternatives, for example the cost of research and inadequacy of available information. These strategic difficulties ensure that policy decisions proceed ‘piecemeal’ on the basis of what information is available rather than what is not. The number of alternative strategies is severely limited and the possible consequences of all likely available strategies cannot be adequately analysed.

This pragmatic approach is descriptive of how policy decisions are made in the real world and moves significantly away from the prescriptive idealism of rationalism. A review of the rational-incrementalist debate by Gregory (1989) renounces the definition of ‘incrementalism’ applied dogmatically to Lindblom’s work, noting that the term is used infrequently in the author’s later literature. For Gregory (1989, p. 151), Lindblom’s later revisions focus on ‘political rationality’ as the best theoretical interpretation of policy decision making: ‘Charles E. Lindblom’s enduring message is that public policy making needs to be seen as an essentially political process, driven by a distinctive form of collective rationality.’

Combining the Rational and Incremental Models

Despite the differences discussed, observers are unclear about whether to focus on the similarities of rationalism and incrementalism, or to stress theoretical divergence. Smith and May (1980, p. 156) comment: ‘The two models are about different social phenomena and as such should seek to perform different functions. We should not expect them to agree.’

Some work has been undertaken to try and unite the two schools, taking the best applications from each perspective. An example is Etzioni’s (1967) ‘mixed scanning’ with its belief that major decisions should be influenced by rational ideals and everyday decisions left to the incremental adjustment. But for Smith and May (1980, p. 153) this compromise fails to rectify the fundamental problem that rationalism and incrementalism start from different theoretical points. Smit and Rade (1980) argue for the practical element of what works in different planning circumstances, rather than focusing on the different theoretical starting points.

Three types of decisions are involved in the government planning process (Webb and Wistow, 1986, p. 109). These are chronological: policy making, programming and implementation. This defines planning as operating in parallel to the policy process. Politics starts the strategic policy making process - as the rational central model asserts. But too greater emphasis on the separation of politics and management science is unsatisfactory even when trying to explain the initial conception of a strategy. Political convictions alone are not enough to create a strategy and political ideas have to be refined by scientific logic and policy science disciplines. Although the political system may have more relative influence on strategy formulation than managerial analysis, it is likely that managerial analysis will have influence also.

The instability of the future illustrated by chaos theory has been argued by Cartwright (1991, pp. 45–54) to strengthen the preference for incremental models of planning, but this is because his interpretation of rationalism is based on Simon’s earliest and more prescriptive idealism. A modern approach to planning stresses the juxtaposition of the rational-incremental literatures (Gilbert and May, 1985) and the potential for using diverse methods.

‘The sole alternative to synoptical (rational) planning is certainly not muddling through. There are many different methods of managing the future which are invented both from the top-down and from the bottom-up.’(Schneider, 1991, p. 264)

Kiel (1994, p. 14) states that incrementalism is close to much analysis and activity based on complex explanations, but that a more rational approach might be needed in certain situations where change is chaotic and government systems need to transfonn quickly to radically new situations.

‘Incrementalism represents only a variation on a theme. With incrementalism we get more of the same. When total transformation and qualitative change in public organisations is needed, tinkering around the edges is unlikely to produce dramatic improvements in organisational performance and service to the public.’

Incrementalism assists descriptive analysis of the immediate past and present, while rationality inspires an attempt at holistic synthesis of the future, albeit visionary rather than predictive.

The difficulties that rational managerialist planning methods encountered led to a managerialist desire to find the perfect rational organisational system that could deliver the management and planning processes required. Post 1970 government planning in Britain became concerned with developing a structure to achieve optimal organisation control. There was a much experimentation with the implementation of new organisational structures and systems, designed to make government management and bureaucracy more efficient.

Government rational planning methods were evolving alongside a new form of organisational managerialism. In a book reviewing the tendency to re-organise government in this period Pollitt (1984, p. 161) remarks:

‘Organisational designers were infected with managerialism…Briefly a managerialist approach does not adequately explain where organisational objectives come from, nor why some objectives should be preferred to others. It tends to over simplify, underplay or assume away the subjective and intersubjective aspects of organisational life - the dynamic patterns of reasons, motives, expectations and intentions which explain action.’

This managerial and organisational movement was best typified in central government by the Public Expenditure Survey Committee (PESC) and in local government by the corporate planning method. The theoretical underpinning of local corporate planning was procedural planning theory (Hambleton, 1986) and a structural approach to organisations (Sibeon, 1991). This method was based on a logic that if the optimum organisational structure and system could be designed and implemented, planning would be functional. The tendency to see organisational structure as a solution to the social complexities experienced by the 1970s Social Services Departments (SSDs) was reflected in the influential work of the Social Services Organisation Research Unit (SSORU, 1974) at the University of Brunei (see also Challis, 1990).

By the late 1970s there was some disillusionment with this centralised and structuralist approach. The reasons for this are discussed extensively (Hambleton, 1986; Caulfield and Schultz, 1989; Clapham, 1984; Glennerster, 1980). In summary the failure of local government corporate planning to be effective resulted from: too much emphasise on the mechanics of structure and process; the loss of a strategic view; over bureaucratisation; and a lack of commitment and involvement from councillors and front line staff. Caulfield and Schultz (1989, p. 13) comment: ‘It is therefore somewhat ironic that the corporate planning process adopted in many local authorities led to the eclipse of such a strategic view.’

The corporate planning of the 1970s focused too much inside the local authority and often failed to consider adequately policy relationships with central government departments like employment, health and social security.

An alternative explanation of the failure of corporate planning was made by political scientists who saw it as a method of managerial scientific decision making that sought to de-politicised issues and alienated local politicians and pressure groups. There is some divergence in the ideological explanation of what caused this alienation. Marxist theory stressed the technical language of rational planning becoming part of the dominant hegemony of advanced capitalist societies, while Neo-Marxist accounts saw the key problem as the dual function of the local state which was left attempting to salvage welfare citizenship from the dominant market economics of the centre (Saunders, 1980; 1986). This led to local conflicts of interest as groups struggled over limited resources. Citing Saunders analysis, Hambleton (1986, p. 24) makes the proposition that: ‘Policy planning systems are ways of structuring interorganisational relationships and conflicts that lead to the advantage of some parties and to the disadvantage of other parties.’

Saunders account of the differences between the central and local state suggests that the structuring of inter-governmental relationships in planning helps to define power relations and that the consumption of services is the key concern of local authorities.

The fundamental tension between using a managerialist logic to define public planning against the political realities of resource distribution was discussed in an article by Howard Glennerster in the Journal of Social Policy (1981). He acknowledged the growth in public sector planning techniques in the 1970s and he placed this in the context of government overload (King, 1975). Glennerster (p. 31) describes: ‘the tendency for demands on government for more and better services to outrun its and economy’s capacity to respond.’ The technical-scientific approach to rational planning was becoming immersed in political conflict and disputes about resource allocation and priorities.

Immediate post war social planning had placed the provision of universal needs high on its agenda, with less immediate concern given to the prioritisation of need and the allocation of limited resources (Sanderson, 1996). Glennerster (1981, p. 32) defined the subsequent re-defining of government social planning.

‘We take social planning to be: the determination of priorities, the allocation of resources and the design of service delivery systems undertaken in implementing social policies…In functional terms social planning can be seen as the interaction between economic and public expenditure planning; the planning of individual social services; the conduct of urban and transport planning; and the allocation of resources within and between local authorities.’

Strategic Planning

The strategic planning methods adopted in the 1980s tried to come to terms with resource shortfalls by including more assessment of values and externalities before translating the resulting mission and vision into quantitative methods for allocating resources and evaluating outputs. Mission and vision was constraint by a time frame of aims and objectives. Such strategic planning methods reduced complexity to a fairly simple synthesis within an ordered sequence of events. The failure of comprehensive-rational planning was answered by a reductionist approach to strategy. Often strategies were based on a limited pattern of analysis, making them in consequence a limited synthesis.

A variety of strategic planning typologies evolved in the strategic planning literature (for example, Ansoff, 1965; Bryson and Einsweiler 1988; Mintzberg, 1994a), a literature characterised by its acknowledgement of a greater degree of unknowns and ‘externalities’ in the planning equation and giving recognition of competing values and power bases.

‘What distinguishes strategic planning from more traditional planning (particularly traditional long range comprehensive or master planning) is its emphasis on: action, consideration of a broad and diverse set of stakeholders; attention to external opportunities and threats and internal strengths and weaknesses; and attention to actual or potential competitors.’ (Bryson and Roering, 1988, p. 15)

In a review of three historical types of planning: rational, incremental and strategic, Smit and Rade (1980, p. 89) list six general features of planning:

‘(i) it is concerned with decisions;

(ii) which are treated in a formal, explicit, systematic process;

(iii) it is aligned to the future;

(iv) it concerns itself with both ends and means (both politics and policy);

(v) decisions are considered in context, from a holistic perspective;

(vi) planning must lead to changes in behaviour.’

Some years later Mintzberg (1994a) makes similar conclusions about the definition of strategic planning although the power and strategy of planning activity receives greater emphasis. He says that strategic planning is about: future thinking; the control of the future through political and organisational process; the management of decision making; and the formalisation of a procedure to integrate analysis into synthesis and decisions.

The strategic models of the 1980s continued to be expressed as centralised, top-down approaches. This was because many models were first developed in the private sector where managers and shareholders were expected to own the strategy rather than customers. This creates a problem with converting such methods to the public sector where the process should be at least partly bottom-up, so that the public interest and a democratic consensus defines the strategy.

Recently Mintzberg (1994a, p. 43) has tried to extend the theoretical boundaries of strategic planning by undertaking a fundamental theoretical review of its assumptions. He has said that a: ‘characteristic of the planning literature in general was as a position (and, of course ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• List of Abbreviations
• 1 Planning in the Public Sector
• 2 Complexity Theory, Social Science and Social Planning
• 3 The Evolution of Personal Social Services Planning
• 4 An Analysis of Community Care Plans
• 5 Planning and the Social Care Market
• 6 The Planning of Need and Demand
• 7 Demand Side Planning and Equity
• 8 Conclusion: A Complex Method for Planning
• Glossary
• Bibliography
• Index