Global Public Policy: A Reflection
Content
Success in Global Public Policy: A Reflection Chris Ferguson-Martin (0275639) Prepared for Dr. K. Morrison, ERST-4610H, Dec. 16, 2009
Be it resolved climate change is mankind’s defining crisis, and demands a commensurate response.
These words highlighted the topic of discussion at the most recent episode of the prestigious Munk Debates in Toronto (Munk Debates, 2009). An international cast of debaters was brought to argue their case as to whether or not climate change is indeed humanity’s defining crisis and if so, what we can do about it.
The debate, while at times disorganized and discouragingly off-topic, was highly informative, entertaining and ultimately deemed a success. Unfortunately, it was only the debate that I would consider successful. The issue at hand, climate change, was left no more resolved and perhaps even strayed farther away from being so – the audience shifted from a majority support for the topic statement to a near split.
But say, hypothetically, the debate did result in a massive shift in the progress of climate change policy in the global arena. Say, in fact, that it led to the widely sought after – yet sadly unlikely – globally binding agreements to
1
emissions reductions in Copenhagen. To many, Copenhagen would be considered a success. But what does that mean? What is it that makes this hypothetical example of global public policy a success?
Success is the theme of global public policy explored in this paper. It explores what we consider to be necessary conditions of a success, the complexities of success, and examples of successful global public policies. Moreover, it seeks to illustrate to what degree the global public policy issues presented in class could hypothetically be seen as successful and the underlying issues associated with that evaluation.
What is global public policy?
Global public policy is indeed a complex beast. It is influenced by nearly limitless players, each with differing sets of values and level of influence, which in turn translates into even more different agendas all thrown into a global arena.
Simply put, global public policy is a mess. Unfortunately, it is not the type of mess you can clean up. Attempts in class to define global public policy, having ranged from a ‘a chaos of purpose and accidents’ to ‘what governments choose to do or not do’, seem to only acknowledge in part the true depth of global public policy. At its heart it might very well be truly indefinable.
2
Academia, despite its hard work, even struggles to understand the behaviour of global public policy. The rationality of the ‘Policy Cycle’ poorly reflects the irrationality of human behaviour (Young & Mendizabal, 2009), while one of the most appropriate theories is known as the ‘Garbage Can Model’, where problems, solutions and decision-making are seen as accidental and otherwise unexplainable (Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972). But in its simplest form, global public policy strikes me as the approach taken by the global community in response to an issue that is global in nature; that is, issues that impact an international audience and specifically members of the public – which, arguably, every human being is. Policy, if we were to personify it, is not a seer and therefore can only react to issues that arise. One might offer the adoption of the precautionary principle as a solution to this reactive problem, but I suspect that because even as individuals we are yet to actively adopt the principle, expecting it within the policy arena might be too optimistic.
I admit that this particular definition of global public policy does little to account for the deep intricacies of the concept. But it does frame it in such a way that allows us to measure success, although this measurement is not without its issues, as the next section will discuss.
Measuring Success in Global Public Policy
3
A simple definition of success is the achievement of a particular goal. At some point, a goal is set and action is taken to achieve that goal. Easy. But when applied to global public policy, it is anything but easy.
Problem Definition
First, according to my simple definition of success above, a goal must be set. But before a goal can be set, a problem needs to be identified. Initially this can be fairly straightforward. The outbreak of the H1N1 flu virus is a clear example. A common problem was identified: the potential death of human beings all over the world.
But sometimes in the global public policy arena, the identification of a problem can be very difficult. Questions might arise over whose problem it is and whether it is equally weighted among those involved? Hassan Hassan’s presentation on climate change illustrates this very clearly. The impacts of anthropogenic climate change will be felt hardest in the developing world, yet nations – at least their governments – in the developed world see it as less of a priority.
Moreover, identification of a problem is very much based on the values of those involved in the issue. To those in the gigantic genetically modified foods
4
industry, as outlined by Emmalea Davis there may be no problem with their products at all, whereas concern emanates from several regions of the public sphere over health and ethical concerns.
It is therefore very important to gauge the source of the policy issue’s entrance into the global arena. Which stakeholder is identifying it as a problem, how is the problem being framed and what values does this stakeholder possess? The answer to these questions might reveal an agenda being pushed by the stakeholder, which has the potential to add conflict (more if conflict is already present) into an issue, further complicating the definition of a problem in global public policy. Coming to a consensus over a well-defined problem can be next to impossible in some cases.
Goal-Setting
But even if the problem is identified, a goal must be set. In theory, the goal is obvious: solve the problem. This would be simple if it were an elementary mathematics equation, but, unsurprisingly, is considerably more complicated when extended to global public policy. Each player involved might have a different idea of what would constitute solving the problem and would therefore have different goals.
5
For example, Devon Smith’s presentation on affordable access to medication for all throughout the world highlights the inherent difficulties of setting a common goal in the global arena. Generally speaking, the majority of the developing world’s population cannot afford the expensive medications, often created by large pharmaceutical companies (referred to as Big Pharma), which combat or prevent disease. To many the solution is full access to these medications for everyone in the world. But the medication is property of Big Pharma and can be sold at whatever rate it sees fit. Moreover, governments in the developing world might not be able to afford purchases (even at discount prices) of the medications to provide to their citizens. So where should the goal be set? If it is argued that Big Pharma should reduce prices so drastically that everyone in the world can afford them, it would infringe upon Big Pharma’s lawful rights and it might choose to not produce any drugs at all. And the business as usual strategy that is currently employed is what has led to the topic becoming a global issue in the first place. So the goal must be set somewhere in the middle as a compromise that keeps all players moderately – as per their degree of influence – happy. Outcome Entropy
This compromise or happy medium is a result of something I call outcome entropy. The term describes the declining nature of expectations for a particular outcome over time in global public policy as the issue becomes more complex. It is taken from the second law of thermodynamics, which
6
loosely states that as an energy system becomes more complex and upgrades over time, energy is lost, often as waste heat. A very contemporary and emerging example of this entropy is the inclusion of water in global climate change policy, as described by Laura Walker’s presentation. In it, she described the inherent connections between climate change and water, including residual and interconnected impacts and causes. While the two topics are often seen as separate, Walker argued that the two should be integrated when it comes to developing global public policy because you cannot seek to influence one without influencing the other. Indeed, this reflects the true complexities of global public policy. But in class discussions afterwards, the question was raised of whether adding an issue as large as water to an already complex issue of climate change would hinder the success of developing effective global public policy. While it might be true that at the end of the day a common global public policy goal might be agreed upon by the stakeholders involved, the outcomes of the goal, particularly for water, might not be equal to what many of the stakeholders had initially hoped for. As the issue becomes increasingly complex over time, the expected outcomes of the policy process decline for each stakeholder involved.
Furthermore, the final policy goals – which will reflect the aforementioned compromise – might not accurately reflect the needs of the most powerful stakeholder, which this particular case is the planet’s ecological systems. What we might consider a successful global public policy at the end of the day
7
might not be enough to solve the problem ecologically. For example, the plethora of national carbon emissions targets emerging in response to climate change are often criticized for being too lax and will only result in unprecedented catastrophe for much of the world’s population (Monbiot, 2009). This factor further complicates the evaluation of success for global public policy.
Policy Actions & Tools
Returning to our pre-defined notion of success, the third and final step of achieving success is the implementation of an action to reach the goal. Considering the depth of the aforementioned values and agendas of stakeholders, finding an appropriate tool to achieve the goal will be far from straightforward. The class presentations covered a variety of issues and many offered solutions.
For example, James Bryan’s presentation on the problematic role of veto power in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) offered the regulatory solution of reducing its own power in favour of the International Criminal Court (ICC) with regards to prosecution of war crimes. However, having any members of the UNSC give way to their own power is highly unlikely, despite the benefits of increasing the abilities of the ICC.
8
My own presentation on the roles of community and corporate-owned wind power frequently referred to the wonderful benefits of community power. But significant economic incentives, including feed-in-tariffs, grants and other subsidies are required to make community power economically competitive with corporate ownership. Subsidies, while politically attractive, are not always economically sustainable. With finite budgets, are governments throughout the world going to open their coffers to this issue while ignoring others?
Amanda Lino’s presentation on the role of genetically modified food in foreign aid outlined several solutions to the policy issue, including an increased reliance on domestic supplies as a means to curb the concentration of genetically modified food in the food aid supply. While tackling one problem – and offering residual benefits, such as strengthening local markets – it fails to address the factor of geographical duress at times where food aid is required. For example, food aid is often required in times of drought and natural disaster when domestic agricultural supply has been wiped out.
I offer these examples not as criticisms to the presentations or the proposed solutions, but rather to highlight the difficulties that potential solutions can be met with upon proposition in the global arena. In the global public policy arena, there is no silver bullet.
9
This section of the essay has explored the deep intricacies of measuring success in global public policy. As one can infer, it is incredibly problematic and perhaps impossible to accurately measure success in global public policy.
However, despite this apparent impossibility, some global public policies are considered successful. In the next section, I will briefly explore one particular successful standout of global public policy and seek to explain why it is considered successful.
The Montreal Protocol: A symbol of success?
In the mid 1980s, a ‘hole’ – technically a depleted concentration of ozone – was discovered in the stratospheric ozone above Antarctica measuring nearly the size of the continent itself. This finding was alarming as stratospheric ozone protects the Earth’s surface from harmful UV rays that cause skin cancer to human beings. The hole was only thought to be increasing in size. A series of publications and studies nearly a decade earlier had linked the depletion of stratospheric ozone to the presence of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the stratosphere. The primary source of CFCs at the time was refrigerants, like aerosols, primarily from large chemical companies. Despite some opposition from the chemical companies, an international agreement was hatched to reduce the level of CFCs and other chemicals and signed in Montreal, Quebec in 1989. The agreement became known as the Montreal
10
Protocol and is widely held as one of the most successful global public policies in history (DeSombre, 2000).
But what about the Montreal Protocol was so successful? Indeed, judging by the framework listed above it was fairly straightforward. The problem was easily identified and brought forth over a concern for human health. Importantly, UV rays and skin cancer treat each human being equally, so it was everyone’s problem. The goal was also clear: eradicate the source of the ozone depletion. And finally, the tool used to achieve the goal was regulatory in nature and near universal among the participants to the protocol: ban the production of CFCs. And all of this happened over a period of a few years.
As a process, it was remarkably successful. Indeed, Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations cites it as so, primarily for the level of international cooperation achieved. But are an efficient process and level of cooperation sufficient conditions for success in global public policy?
Adam Wright’s presentation on effective public participation would likely argue they are not. As he outlined, the traditional public policy decisionmaking process is fraught with barriers to effective public participation. If in the developed world – and in the developing world – we truly cherish the concept of democracy and inclusion, can global public policy really be successful without meaningful and democratic public participation?
11
Even if the process of the Montreal Protocol was exemplary, what then can be said of its actual outcome? Is there more to success than an effective process?
Like any policy, the Montreal Protocol it is not perfect. Despite the quickness with which the initial protocol was signed, the ecological effects lag significantly. This is because the chemicals that we put into the stratosphere several decades ago are still there and will linger for years to come. Indeed, the ozone hole has grown since 1989 and was at its largest in 2006 (NASA, 2006). Levels of decline of chemicals from the protocol have been varied and the protocol has gone through several revisions over the past 20 years. Moreover, it is not yet universal among the world’s countries.
Yet, despite these drawbacks, we perceive it as successful. Perhaps then, our perception of success in global public policy is relative. Since we have had few examples to draw from where meaningful success has been found, we manage to find success in what are ultimately mediocre global public policies. This can be dangerous. If mediocrity is the bar to strive for, one cannot expect a high degree of excellence from any endeavours. Yet, perhaps these expectations are too high for something as complex as global public policy. It is entirely possible that our own expectations of what is a successful global public policy have subsided due to outcome entropy.
12
Clearly, measuring success in global public policy is not nearly as simple as in an elementary mathematics equation. Success itself can be highly subjective, varying, insufficient, unequal and maybe even be impossible. Like I said before, global public policy is a mess.
Conclusion
In this essay, we have been tasked with delving into the world of global public policy. What I set out to do in the sections above was to explore this complex topic using a theme that might increase my own understanding of it. I feel as though it has done just that. No doubt, upon reading the title of the assignment as a Reflective Paper, many in the class (including myself) likely scoffed at the notion of something where we talk about what we learned in class. Such a description has a particularly soft feel to it. But it has, just as Dr. Morrison led us to believe, been a remarkably effective tool.
Much of what was learned in the course came from a solid foundation in policy studies courtesy of the third year, environmentally focused course. It is there that the notions of messiness and complexity were introduced with regards to public policy and it is clear that it only gets messier in the global arena. Moreover, this course has significantly supported the importance of an interdisciplinary understanding of the world. An understanding of global public policy is not limited to one or two academic disciplines – nor academia on its
13
own – but rather a plethora of views that are perhaps so complex no human being can adequately understand global public policy. Indeed, understanding how something that seems like an environmental issue can have public health or social justice impacts is one thing, but fully understanding how those impacts play out might be impossible for an individual. Luckily, an interdisciplinary viewpoint allows one to view issues through multiple lenses, which makes this understanding a little easier on the whole.
It strikes me that the key to understanding global public policy is acknowledging that you can’t understand it all, but that it is a complex mess. Thinking it is smaller or simpler than it really is – this is our bad habit as humans so we can understand things – can be counter-productive to actually trying to understand it. We will never understand it all, but we can be an effective part of it as long as we recognize how complex it truly is.
References Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25. DeSombre, E. R. (2000). Experience of the Montreal Protocol: Particularly Remarkable, and Remarkably Particular. UCLA Journal of Environmental Policy and Law, 19(49), 49. Monbiot, G. (2009). Heat: How to stop the planet from burning. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
14
Munk Debates. (2009). Climate Change. Retrieved December 16, 2009, from http://www.munkdebates.com/http://www.munkdebates.com/ NASA. (2006). NASA and NOAA Announce Ozone Hole is a Double Record Breaker. Retrieved December 15, 2009, from http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/ozone_record.htmlhttp:/ /www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/ozone_record.html Young, J., & Mendizabal, E. (2009). Helping researchers become policy entrepreneurs. London, UK: Overseas Development Institute.
15
Be it resolved climate change is mankind’s defining crisis, and demands a commensurate response.
These words highlighted the topic of discussion at the most recent episode of the prestigious Munk Debates in Toronto (Munk Debates, 2009). An international cast of debaters was brought to argue their case as to whether or not climate change is indeed humanity’s defining crisis and if so, what we can do about it.
The debate, while at times disorganized and discouragingly off-topic, was highly informative, entertaining and ultimately deemed a success. Unfortunately, it was only the debate that I would consider successful. The issue at hand, climate change, was left no more resolved and perhaps even strayed farther away from being so – the audience shifted from a majority support for the topic statement to a near split.
But say, hypothetically, the debate did result in a massive shift in the progress of climate change policy in the global arena. Say, in fact, that it led to the widely sought after – yet sadly unlikely – globally binding agreements to
1
emissions reductions in Copenhagen. To many, Copenhagen would be considered a success. But what does that mean? What is it that makes this hypothetical example of global public policy a success?
Success is the theme of global public policy explored in this paper. It explores what we consider to be necessary conditions of a success, the complexities of success, and examples of successful global public policies. Moreover, it seeks to illustrate to what degree the global public policy issues presented in class could hypothetically be seen as successful and the underlying issues associated with that evaluation.
What is global public policy?
Global public policy is indeed a complex beast. It is influenced by nearly limitless players, each with differing sets of values and level of influence, which in turn translates into even more different agendas all thrown into a global arena.
Simply put, global public policy is a mess. Unfortunately, it is not the type of mess you can clean up. Attempts in class to define global public policy, having ranged from a ‘a chaos of purpose and accidents’ to ‘what governments choose to do or not do’, seem to only acknowledge in part the true depth of global public policy. At its heart it might very well be truly indefinable.
2
Academia, despite its hard work, even struggles to understand the behaviour of global public policy. The rationality of the ‘Policy Cycle’ poorly reflects the irrationality of human behaviour (Young & Mendizabal, 2009), while one of the most appropriate theories is known as the ‘Garbage Can Model’, where problems, solutions and decision-making are seen as accidental and otherwise unexplainable (Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972). But in its simplest form, global public policy strikes me as the approach taken by the global community in response to an issue that is global in nature; that is, issues that impact an international audience and specifically members of the public – which, arguably, every human being is. Policy, if we were to personify it, is not a seer and therefore can only react to issues that arise. One might offer the adoption of the precautionary principle as a solution to this reactive problem, but I suspect that because even as individuals we are yet to actively adopt the principle, expecting it within the policy arena might be too optimistic.
I admit that this particular definition of global public policy does little to account for the deep intricacies of the concept. But it does frame it in such a way that allows us to measure success, although this measurement is not without its issues, as the next section will discuss.
Measuring Success in Global Public Policy
3
A simple definition of success is the achievement of a particular goal. At some point, a goal is set and action is taken to achieve that goal. Easy. But when applied to global public policy, it is anything but easy.
Problem Definition
First, according to my simple definition of success above, a goal must be set. But before a goal can be set, a problem needs to be identified. Initially this can be fairly straightforward. The outbreak of the H1N1 flu virus is a clear example. A common problem was identified: the potential death of human beings all over the world.
But sometimes in the global public policy arena, the identification of a problem can be very difficult. Questions might arise over whose problem it is and whether it is equally weighted among those involved? Hassan Hassan’s presentation on climate change illustrates this very clearly. The impacts of anthropogenic climate change will be felt hardest in the developing world, yet nations – at least their governments – in the developed world see it as less of a priority.
Moreover, identification of a problem is very much based on the values of those involved in the issue. To those in the gigantic genetically modified foods
4
industry, as outlined by Emmalea Davis there may be no problem with their products at all, whereas concern emanates from several regions of the public sphere over health and ethical concerns.
It is therefore very important to gauge the source of the policy issue’s entrance into the global arena. Which stakeholder is identifying it as a problem, how is the problem being framed and what values does this stakeholder possess? The answer to these questions might reveal an agenda being pushed by the stakeholder, which has the potential to add conflict (more if conflict is already present) into an issue, further complicating the definition of a problem in global public policy. Coming to a consensus over a well-defined problem can be next to impossible in some cases.
Goal-Setting
But even if the problem is identified, a goal must be set. In theory, the goal is obvious: solve the problem. This would be simple if it were an elementary mathematics equation, but, unsurprisingly, is considerably more complicated when extended to global public policy. Each player involved might have a different idea of what would constitute solving the problem and would therefore have different goals.
5
For example, Devon Smith’s presentation on affordable access to medication for all throughout the world highlights the inherent difficulties of setting a common goal in the global arena. Generally speaking, the majority of the developing world’s population cannot afford the expensive medications, often created by large pharmaceutical companies (referred to as Big Pharma), which combat or prevent disease. To many the solution is full access to these medications for everyone in the world. But the medication is property of Big Pharma and can be sold at whatever rate it sees fit. Moreover, governments in the developing world might not be able to afford purchases (even at discount prices) of the medications to provide to their citizens. So where should the goal be set? If it is argued that Big Pharma should reduce prices so drastically that everyone in the world can afford them, it would infringe upon Big Pharma’s lawful rights and it might choose to not produce any drugs at all. And the business as usual strategy that is currently employed is what has led to the topic becoming a global issue in the first place. So the goal must be set somewhere in the middle as a compromise that keeps all players moderately – as per their degree of influence – happy. Outcome Entropy
This compromise or happy medium is a result of something I call outcome entropy. The term describes the declining nature of expectations for a particular outcome over time in global public policy as the issue becomes more complex. It is taken from the second law of thermodynamics, which
6
loosely states that as an energy system becomes more complex and upgrades over time, energy is lost, often as waste heat. A very contemporary and emerging example of this entropy is the inclusion of water in global climate change policy, as described by Laura Walker’s presentation. In it, she described the inherent connections between climate change and water, including residual and interconnected impacts and causes. While the two topics are often seen as separate, Walker argued that the two should be integrated when it comes to developing global public policy because you cannot seek to influence one without influencing the other. Indeed, this reflects the true complexities of global public policy. But in class discussions afterwards, the question was raised of whether adding an issue as large as water to an already complex issue of climate change would hinder the success of developing effective global public policy. While it might be true that at the end of the day a common global public policy goal might be agreed upon by the stakeholders involved, the outcomes of the goal, particularly for water, might not be equal to what many of the stakeholders had initially hoped for. As the issue becomes increasingly complex over time, the expected outcomes of the policy process decline for each stakeholder involved.
Furthermore, the final policy goals – which will reflect the aforementioned compromise – might not accurately reflect the needs of the most powerful stakeholder, which this particular case is the planet’s ecological systems. What we might consider a successful global public policy at the end of the day
7
might not be enough to solve the problem ecologically. For example, the plethora of national carbon emissions targets emerging in response to climate change are often criticized for being too lax and will only result in unprecedented catastrophe for much of the world’s population (Monbiot, 2009). This factor further complicates the evaluation of success for global public policy.
Policy Actions & Tools
Returning to our pre-defined notion of success, the third and final step of achieving success is the implementation of an action to reach the goal. Considering the depth of the aforementioned values and agendas of stakeholders, finding an appropriate tool to achieve the goal will be far from straightforward. The class presentations covered a variety of issues and many offered solutions.
For example, James Bryan’s presentation on the problematic role of veto power in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) offered the regulatory solution of reducing its own power in favour of the International Criminal Court (ICC) with regards to prosecution of war crimes. However, having any members of the UNSC give way to their own power is highly unlikely, despite the benefits of increasing the abilities of the ICC.
8
My own presentation on the roles of community and corporate-owned wind power frequently referred to the wonderful benefits of community power. But significant economic incentives, including feed-in-tariffs, grants and other subsidies are required to make community power economically competitive with corporate ownership. Subsidies, while politically attractive, are not always economically sustainable. With finite budgets, are governments throughout the world going to open their coffers to this issue while ignoring others?
Amanda Lino’s presentation on the role of genetically modified food in foreign aid outlined several solutions to the policy issue, including an increased reliance on domestic supplies as a means to curb the concentration of genetically modified food in the food aid supply. While tackling one problem – and offering residual benefits, such as strengthening local markets – it fails to address the factor of geographical duress at times where food aid is required. For example, food aid is often required in times of drought and natural disaster when domestic agricultural supply has been wiped out.
I offer these examples not as criticisms to the presentations or the proposed solutions, but rather to highlight the difficulties that potential solutions can be met with upon proposition in the global arena. In the global public policy arena, there is no silver bullet.
9
This section of the essay has explored the deep intricacies of measuring success in global public policy. As one can infer, it is incredibly problematic and perhaps impossible to accurately measure success in global public policy.
However, despite this apparent impossibility, some global public policies are considered successful. In the next section, I will briefly explore one particular successful standout of global public policy and seek to explain why it is considered successful.
The Montreal Protocol: A symbol of success?
In the mid 1980s, a ‘hole’ – technically a depleted concentration of ozone – was discovered in the stratospheric ozone above Antarctica measuring nearly the size of the continent itself. This finding was alarming as stratospheric ozone protects the Earth’s surface from harmful UV rays that cause skin cancer to human beings. The hole was only thought to be increasing in size. A series of publications and studies nearly a decade earlier had linked the depletion of stratospheric ozone to the presence of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the stratosphere. The primary source of CFCs at the time was refrigerants, like aerosols, primarily from large chemical companies. Despite some opposition from the chemical companies, an international agreement was hatched to reduce the level of CFCs and other chemicals and signed in Montreal, Quebec in 1989. The agreement became known as the Montreal
10
Protocol and is widely held as one of the most successful global public policies in history (DeSombre, 2000).
But what about the Montreal Protocol was so successful? Indeed, judging by the framework listed above it was fairly straightforward. The problem was easily identified and brought forth over a concern for human health. Importantly, UV rays and skin cancer treat each human being equally, so it was everyone’s problem. The goal was also clear: eradicate the source of the ozone depletion. And finally, the tool used to achieve the goal was regulatory in nature and near universal among the participants to the protocol: ban the production of CFCs. And all of this happened over a period of a few years.
As a process, it was remarkably successful. Indeed, Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations cites it as so, primarily for the level of international cooperation achieved. But are an efficient process and level of cooperation sufficient conditions for success in global public policy?
Adam Wright’s presentation on effective public participation would likely argue they are not. As he outlined, the traditional public policy decisionmaking process is fraught with barriers to effective public participation. If in the developed world – and in the developing world – we truly cherish the concept of democracy and inclusion, can global public policy really be successful without meaningful and democratic public participation?
11
Even if the process of the Montreal Protocol was exemplary, what then can be said of its actual outcome? Is there more to success than an effective process?
Like any policy, the Montreal Protocol it is not perfect. Despite the quickness with which the initial protocol was signed, the ecological effects lag significantly. This is because the chemicals that we put into the stratosphere several decades ago are still there and will linger for years to come. Indeed, the ozone hole has grown since 1989 and was at its largest in 2006 (NASA, 2006). Levels of decline of chemicals from the protocol have been varied and the protocol has gone through several revisions over the past 20 years. Moreover, it is not yet universal among the world’s countries.
Yet, despite these drawbacks, we perceive it as successful. Perhaps then, our perception of success in global public policy is relative. Since we have had few examples to draw from where meaningful success has been found, we manage to find success in what are ultimately mediocre global public policies. This can be dangerous. If mediocrity is the bar to strive for, one cannot expect a high degree of excellence from any endeavours. Yet, perhaps these expectations are too high for something as complex as global public policy. It is entirely possible that our own expectations of what is a successful global public policy have subsided due to outcome entropy.
12
Clearly, measuring success in global public policy is not nearly as simple as in an elementary mathematics equation. Success itself can be highly subjective, varying, insufficient, unequal and maybe even be impossible. Like I said before, global public policy is a mess.
Conclusion
In this essay, we have been tasked with delving into the world of global public policy. What I set out to do in the sections above was to explore this complex topic using a theme that might increase my own understanding of it. I feel as though it has done just that. No doubt, upon reading the title of the assignment as a Reflective Paper, many in the class (including myself) likely scoffed at the notion of something where we talk about what we learned in class. Such a description has a particularly soft feel to it. But it has, just as Dr. Morrison led us to believe, been a remarkably effective tool.
Much of what was learned in the course came from a solid foundation in policy studies courtesy of the third year, environmentally focused course. It is there that the notions of messiness and complexity were introduced with regards to public policy and it is clear that it only gets messier in the global arena. Moreover, this course has significantly supported the importance of an interdisciplinary understanding of the world. An understanding of global public policy is not limited to one or two academic disciplines – nor academia on its
13
own – but rather a plethora of views that are perhaps so complex no human being can adequately understand global public policy. Indeed, understanding how something that seems like an environmental issue can have public health or social justice impacts is one thing, but fully understanding how those impacts play out might be impossible for an individual. Luckily, an interdisciplinary viewpoint allows one to view issues through multiple lenses, which makes this understanding a little easier on the whole.
It strikes me that the key to understanding global public policy is acknowledging that you can’t understand it all, but that it is a complex mess. Thinking it is smaller or simpler than it really is – this is our bad habit as humans so we can understand things – can be counter-productive to actually trying to understand it. We will never understand it all, but we can be an effective part of it as long as we recognize how complex it truly is.
References Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25. DeSombre, E. R. (2000). Experience of the Montreal Protocol: Particularly Remarkable, and Remarkably Particular. UCLA Journal of Environmental Policy and Law, 19(49), 49. Monbiot, G. (2009). Heat: How to stop the planet from burning. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
14
Munk Debates. (2009). Climate Change. Retrieved December 16, 2009, from http://www.munkdebates.com/http://www.munkdebates.com/ NASA. (2006). NASA and NOAA Announce Ozone Hole is a Double Record Breaker. Retrieved December 15, 2009, from http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/ozone_record.htmlhttp:/ /www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/ozone_record.html Young, J., & Mendizabal, E. (2009). Helping researchers become policy entrepreneurs. London, UK: Overseas Development Institute.
15
