PUBLIC
SECTOR POLICYMAKING
by
Stuart
Birks
Director
Centre
for Public Policy Evaluation
Massey
University
PALMERSTON
NORTH
k.s.birks@massey.ac.nz
Paper
for the New Zealand Association of Economists Conference
Wellington,
26 June 2002
Abstract
This paper investigates the nature of
some aspects of the policymaking process. Questions are raised as
to the effectiveness of this process, taking examples from the
consultations and submissions process, with the associated
analysis and use of results, and methods of measuring outcomes.
It relates closely to the issue of the quality of policy advice
and the level of debate. While examples come from the social
policy/family law area, they relate closely to economics in terms
of issues such as the measurement of outputs/outcomes, public
choice and expression of preferences, and the information
required for unbiased policy evaluation.
1. Some quotes
...the
far greatest part of our reasonings, with all our actions and
passions, can be derived from nothing but custom and habit.
(Hume,
1911, p.119)
In
understanding economic management, New Zealand ministers are
far more reliant on their immediate departmental advisers
than are their counterparts in larger OECD countries.
Alternative avenues of advice are largely unavailable because
of the low standard and confused nature of public economic
debate, because of the absence of policy "think tanks",
and because of the generally poor understanding of economic
matters by ministers of finance and other members of cabinet.
(Bayliss,
1994, pp.67-68)
Over
the last three decades ideological doctrines have infiltrated
the curricula of many of the larger universities. Spurious
academic subjects … putatively designed to 'raise
consciousness' and strengthen commitment to credos of
'emancipation', manifestly fail to meet the stringent
requirements of scholarship. Certainly the doctrines of these
ideologically inspired 'studies' are not regarded by their
proponents as provisional and refutable hypotheses. Clearly
arrangements being made for their systematic propagation in
these circumstances do not comport well with the idea of a
university as a forum for open-minded enquiry and impartial
scholarship.
(Mishan,
1993, p.202)
On 28 February, the Sydney Morning
Herald referred to postmodern approaches to the study of
literature which amounted to "a significant narrowing of
the intellectual freedom allowed to students, who must now tailor
their exploration of texts to fit particular theoretical
objectives" (Devine, 2002).
2. Paradigms and Roleplaying
Following
on loosely from the above quotes, I have seen increasing use by
students of a restrictive form of analysis of issues. As
presented, this involves competing ideas being classified rather
like selecting characters in a role-play game. You can choose to
be a market liberal or neo-liberal, social democrat, feminist, or
whatever. Each of them has certain characteristics/beliefs/objectives.
These need bear no relationship to any evidence or have any
grounding in reality. For example, a "market liberal"
believes that the market is the best way to organise things,
irrespective of the nature of the things being organised (whether
it is provision of hamburgers or hospitals).
Each
character-type has the aim of pushing its own objectives. Any
counter-view from a different character can then be taken as
arising purely from the nature of the character ("of course
he would say that, he is a ..."). Debate on facts is
therefore irrelevant, as all outcomes are determined by power
struggles between types, and anything can be said in debate
because there is no "truth". Hence, if someone says,
"There is discrimination against women in industry A",
and you can demonstrate that there is not, then the person can
simply respond, "Of course you would say that. You are an X,
and Xs are anti-woman."
Of course,
economists recognise that issues are more complex than that, and
that we should look at the evidence and consider individual
circumstances, but many of these other students still seem very
confident in using poor analysis and sweeping generalisations. To
illustrate, the following is an extract from a passage by
Eichbaum on “market-liberal” and “market-managed”
models, and associated “schools”. Differences of
opinion are described as depending on values, rather than
testable assumptions. It was cited by graduate students of mine
to identify two competing viewpoints, irrespective of underlying
circumstances:
Economics
is not value free, and the approach taken to the study of
unemployment, and to the development of public policy, can
reflect underlying values.
The
‘market-liberal’ and the ‘market-managed’
models are ideal types. Particular policies will not satisfy
all the elements of one or other of the models, but
nevertheless the models give some indication of possible
outcomes.
The
market-liberal model is suggested by the neo- or new-classical,
and monetarist schools in economics; the market-managed by
the Keynesian or neo-Keynesian schools.
These
schools differ principally on the view taken of markets on
the one hand, and the role of the state, or government on the
other. Market liberals have a preference for free markets,
believing that government intervention can be counter-productive.
Those favouring market-management see a role for the state in
managing the operation of markets.
The
market-managed school focuses on the risks of market failure.
…
The
classical version of the market-managed model posits that
unemployment results from demand deficiency and is overcome
by aggregate demand management using monetary, fiscal, and
incomes policies. While the classical formulation assumed a
trade-off between inflation and unemployment – the
Phillips Curve relationship – this is now considered to
be a short-term option only. Furthermore, combating
inflationary pressure is now an important objective. It is
seen as a means to an end, especially that of achievement of
full-employment potential.
The
market-liberal school views markets in a more benign light,
and identifies government failure – ill-conceived or ill-timed
government interventions which distort the workings of the
market – as a principal cause of unemployment. Markets
are assumed to have a natural tendency to move to equilibrium
– self-correcting, and by implication, self-regulating
institutions, that will produce optimal results if left to
their own devices. Markets function best, it is argued, when
the laws of supply and demand, and not government regulation,
determine outcomes. So economic policy should be principally
directed to the achievement and maintenance of stable prices
– controlling inflation – and liberalised markets.
(Eichbaum,
2001, pp.213-214)
Is it enough to
take a position without knowing why, or being able to tell when
it is applicable and when some other approach is better? Surely,
to make an informed choice, and to debate the suitability of a
stance in particular situations, someone has to understand the
foundations of that stance.
3. The
Submissions Process
An important step
in the democratic procedure for making policy and considering new
or modified legislation is the call for and consideration of
submissions. This is the time when interested and (sometimes)
informed groups can have an input.
One worrying indication of the
possible misuse of submissions can be seen in a speech to the
House by Hon Margaret Wilson on 13 November 2000 (Wilson, 2000).
She was moving that the House take note of the report of the
Justice and Electoral Committee on the Matrimonial Property
Amendment Bill, incorporating Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) No.
25 when she said:
During
1998 the Government and Administration Select Committee heard
submissions on both bills. Approximately 60% of
submissions on the Matrimonial Property Amendment Bill
expressed concern that it did not address the issue of
economic disadvantage that can be suffered by the non-career
partner on marriage breakdown.”
Note that the submissions referred to
were commenting on aspects not included in the proposed
legislation. Sometimes there are organised multiple submissions
by groups of people with a particular opinion, so the number of
submissions may not indicate strength and popularity of the
opinions expressed. As the issue was not raised in the bill,
those with opposing viewpoints might have seen no reason to
comment. Nevertheless, Wilson argued that there was no need to
call for submissions on the new SOP that incorporated these
matters, simple counting of these earlier submissions being taken
to indicate strong support.
Clearer and more
detailed indications of problems with the submissions process can
be found in relation to the review by the Ministry of Justice of
laws relating to guardianship, custody and access. The associated
discussion paper, Responsibilities for Children: Especially
when Parents Part (Ministry of Justice 2000), contained
limited and misleading information which was likely to influence
those making submissions. This is discussed in section 6.1 below.
There was no guarantee that submissions would be from people who
are any better informed. Nor was it apparent that the submissions
would be representative of the opinions of the wider community.
From an academic perspective, therefore, it is not clear how such
submissions could be analysed.
There was a clear
danger that the review process, based on submissions, would be
unlikely to result in a useful analysis of the issues. Further
evidence of this can be found in the Summary Analysis of
Submissions in Response to the Discussion Paper Responsibilities
for Children: Especially when Parents Part (Ministry of
Justice 2001).
The methodology
is described in chapter 3. Submitters were divided into five
groups: individuals; academics or researchers; professional
individuals or groups; community groups; and government. Headings
were selected “based on the discussion paper for capturing
key points from each submission”. Key points were then taken
from submissions to compile a document for each of the five
groups, assembled in such a way that “analysis focused on
material addressing the questions raised in the discussion paper”.
In other words, the questions had already been set, and
submitters were unable to add to or alter the agenda. This
information was used to create “a brief overview document
summarising key themes emerging from the submissions”.
Further analysis, by an anonymous “independent researcher”,
was based on the selected key points.
Some immediately
identifiable problems with this process are:
1)
the summary merely lists points made with no attempts at further
details, justification or context;
2)
there is no systematic spelling out of alternative points of
view;
3)
there is no information to indicate which points are well
reasoned and supported, or the credentials of the people making
the points;
4)
by grouping responses around the questions in the discussion
paper, the agenda is already set and there is no consideration of
major issues presented in submissions;
5)
Given the opportunity through open debate prior to the call for
submissions, some people might have modified their points in
response to information provided by others.
The significance of these weaknesses is
illustrated by consideration of some of the submissions,
published in chapter 3 of Birks (2002), most of the reasoning in
which would be lost in due to the way the submissions were
analysed. Paragraphs 26-28 of the first submission in the chapter
even highlight the problem of analysis of submissions, but, as
that does not fit under any of the discussion paper questions,
the points would have been overlooked. Several submissions list
relevant literature that should be included in a detailed
analysis of the situation, but that information did not make it
through to the first summary stage. Similarly, numerous points
that had been raised on several occasions, and could justifiably
be considered in the review, were not covered by the questions,
and so were never addressed.
4. Evaluation Techniques – Gender
Analysis
I
discussed gender analysis in a paper to the 1998 NZAE conference,
with a later version of the paper published as Birks (1999).
In
response to written questions lodged in Parliament on 11 April
2002, Margaret Wilson, Associate Minister of Justice stated that:
“Gender
analysis involves looking at the effects of policy on both
men and women. Where there is a proven pattern of gender
inequity the policy tool of gender analysis helps identify
policy options for redressing the inequity.” (question
4076)
and:
The
framework for gender analysis involves evaluating existing
policy and options for reform from the perspective of both
men and women, to assess whether the policy and options
advantage or disadvantage men or women. For this reason the
use of this framework is more likely to redress, rather than
“produce”, any gender inequity or bias in the
Family Courts.” (question 4087)
These answers are surprising, given
that gender analysis is described as follows on the Ministry of
Women’s Affairs web site:
·
It "aims to achieve positive change for women"[1];
·
It is intended to improve policy advice so it "better
addresses the needs of women"[2];
·
The gender analysis model is intended to "further the
Government's Outcomes for Women"[3];
·
Policy questions should be framed "to ensure the issues for
women will be addressed"[4];
·
Steps should be taken "to reduce or eliminate any negative
impacts on women"[5];
·
Policy options should be assessed to see how they "impact on
women in population groups affected by the policy"[6];
·
All implementation decision criteria are specified in terms of
women only[7]; and
·
The consultation process only specifies consultation with women
and the Ministry of Women's Affairs[8].
It appears to me
that not only is gender analysis biased, but it is also being
misrepresented in Wilson’s answers to the House.
We see as recent
example of one-sided input into policy debate on the Ministry of
Women’s Affairs web page[9]:
Work
and Family Balance: A Policy Perspective
The
structure of paid work impacts on men and women differently,
particularly in relation to responsibilities for extended
family needs, including parenting and eldercare. Government
provides a framework in which women, men, children,
communities, employees, unions and employers negotiate work
and family balance issues.
Work
and family balance issues have been taken up by the WAM/WOM (Women's
Advisors Meeting/Women's Officials Meeting), which is
affiliated with the Australia/New Zealand Council of
Ministers and Officials (MINCO). A Work and Family Workshop
sponsored by WAM/WOM was held in Sydney on 25th March 2002.
The Ministry of Women's Affairs presented a New Zealand
jurisdictional report to the Workshop. The report identifies
existing policies which alleviate or contribute to structural
discrimination against women with caregiving responsibilities
who are in paid employment or wish to access paid employment.
The description
in the first paragraph is gender neutral, but that is a
misrepresentation. By the second paragraph it is clear that the
focus is on women, not men or children. The report (Ministry of
Women’s Affairs, 2002) opens with the statement, “This
report focuses on issues for women employees with caregiving
responsibilities and women with caregiving responsibilities who
wish to participate in paid work”. Paradoxically, by
advocating special consideration for women’s caregiving
responsibilities, it entrenches women in that role and makes
caregiving by men relatively more difficult. It is clearly not
providing a framework for men to negotiate work and family
balance issues.
5. Measuring
Outcomes
This section
gives an example of an attempt to gather information which has
been notably lacking. Perhaps surprisingly, given the concern for
children and the significant influence of family law for many
families, data on the award of custody has not been gathered
since 1990. Towards the end of 2001, a research brief was drawn
up. I reproduce here the “Information needs” component
of that brief:
Department
for Courts, Family Courts Custody Applications Outcomes
Research, Research Brief, Information needs
The
information needed on the context and outcomes of the
applications would include:
Outcome
1.
Whether or not an order (interim and/or final) was made.
2.
If no order was made what happened? (e.g. application
withdrawn)
3.
If an order was made what arrangements were made for the care
of the children within each family (e.g. joint/shared
custody, sole maternal custody, sole paternal custody, split
custody)?
4.
What is the relationship of the carer to the child(ren)?
5.
If an order was made for shared care, for each child, how is
the time split between the carers, e.g. equal share of time,
sixty/forty 6. If an order for sole custody is made, for each
child, what are the access arrangements (frequency, duration,
overnight, who is being granted access)
Context
1.
Gender of applicant and respondent
2.
Age of children
3.
The relationship to the children of the applicant and
respondent
4.
The ethnicity of applicant and/respondent
5.
Was the application ex parte, on notice, placed on notice
6.
Whether the application was defended? Including whether there
were cross-applications?
7.
Whether there was any CYF involvement
8.
Whether an application for a Protection Order was being
considered in some case
9.
Whether there were allegations of physical and/or
psychological violence in the applicant's affidavit? A
description of the type of violence alleged (frequency,
severity, whether it involved the children)
10.
Whether there were other applications
11.
Whether the order was made with the consent of the parties or
on the basis of formal proof of through the decision of a
judge at a defended hearing
12.
The stage in the proceedings at which the order was made (i.e.
what court processes had been involved, for example was it
after counselling only)
Process
1.
The proportion of custody applications which result in an
interim order
2.
The proportion of custody applications which result in a
final order
3.
The proportion which involve a referral to counseling
4.
The proportion which involve a mediation conference
5.
The proportion which involve a defended hearing
6.
The proportion which involve the appointment of counsel
for the child, a specialist report writer etc.
The
research brief is described as looking at "outcomes",
but these are only technical outcomes in terms of the court. They
are not outcomes as far as the families are concerned. In the
health sector, a distinction is drawn between outputs (such as
number of people treated, to give a loose example) and outcomes (considering
the wider effects of the treatment). Using that distinction, this
brief is looking more at outputs than outcomes.
There
are several questions that could be raised, such as:
- What
did the people want? How did that differ from what they
sought?
- What
was the impact of process on outcomes? Were parent-child
relationships changed due to delays, limited contact, etc.?
- Did
lawyers or others behave unprofessionally? What was the
effect of this?
- Was
there just one set of orders? Were they obeyed?
- If
there were allegations of violence, was there any
supporting evidence? Was there evidence of violence by
the other party? Might any of the allegations be false?
It
is good that they are trying to gather this information, but they
seem to think that custody applications fit the standard legal
pattern of an issue going to court and being resolved. Some files
would be very large, with several steps and associated
interventions. Family issues in relation to custody and access
are commonly ongoing, with the effects of many small factors
accumulating over time to have a big impact. To take one example
from a UK news report (Cambridge News 2001), consider how
a case such as this would be considered by the above study:
- “Mr Payne, who now lives in Leyton, East
London, won a court battle in New Zealand to bring
Sophie back to Britain in 1999.”
- “Cambridge County Court then awarded
residency to Sophie's mother, but gave Mr Payne
extensive contact rights.”
- “But in a hearing at the court four months
later, a judge agreed that Sophie's mother could take
her to live in New Zealand.”
- “Now Mr Payne has been refused leave to
appeal to the House of Lords against the Appeal Court
ruling.”
Law, probably
more than many other areas, seems to depend crucially on how
information is selected and presented. The above research brief
indicates a limited perspective, suggesting that current debate
on these matters is likely to be quite selective.
6. Government information – two examples
6.1 The
Ministry of Justice’s Review of Guardianship, Custody and
Access
The Ministry of Justice’s discussion
paper, Responsibilities for Children, Especially when Parents
Part, raises numerous questions, but it also includes misleading
information which is likely to have an influence on submissions.
This is of particular relevance to economists because legal
discussion in these areas appears to be far behind in terms of
consideration of behaviour in response to situations and
associated incentives. There are implications for the quality and
balance of information and the level of debate. Here I discuss
two statements in the paper’s Appendix 1 about the situation
in the United States.
Appendix 1 of the
discussion paper is claimed to give overseas examples of laws
“which may provide some good ideas and some warnings for New
Zealand” (p.18). The information is patchy, to say the least.
Rather than describe laws, it makes claims such as, “Research
on the US’s approach to joint custody shows that it can
work, but only if both parents agree on it” (p.19). No
source was given for this claim, but on request I was advised by
the Ministry of Justice that it was based on one paper,
Hardcastle (1998).
It is a concern
not only that the Ministry of Justice paper relied on only one
paper for its claim about US research, but also that the selected
paper does not even claim to be a balanced assessment of the
research. It presents a judge’s perspective, and this may
arise from narrow and unrepresentative exposure. The Department
for Courts was not so accepting of judges' opinions in its study
to determine if they had an appropriate understanding of gender
issues. (Barwick
et al 1996).
In his paper,
Hardcastle expressed concern for what he perceived to be an
overenthusiastic embracing of joint custody. The evidence he
presented does not support the statement in the Ministry’s
discussion paper. Hardcastle reported from a 1993 source that
dual physical custody was awarded in 20 per cent of disputed
US cases. He also stated that, in a 1989 survey, “only”
35.3 percent of judges rated a joint legal and joint physical
custody as their first preference.
Hardcastle’s
bias shows when he lists reasons given by judges for their
concerns about joint custody, before claiming that, “No
judge should accept joint custody without examination” (p.202).
This illustrates problems that can be observed with legal
reasoning, several of which are discussed in Birks (2000). By
listing possible disadvantages, but not mentioning the
advantages, Hardcastle presents only one side of the case.[10] It is not enough to
identify problems with joint custody – any situation can
have difficulties. There must be a point of comparison. What are
the difficulties with sole custody, and which, in any particular
case, is likely to be the least undesirable? For example, little
thought is commonly given to the difficulties of re-establishing
a severed relationship, although this can be a significant factor
with sole custody decisions. Joint custody arrangements can
always be changed to sole custody. It is much harder to have
change in the other direction or to reverse custody.
When Hardcastle
sets up the issue as one of whether to accept joint custody
rather than whether to reject it, the burden of proof rests with
those favouring joint custody. This is surprising given various
international conventions relating to families which would
suggest that family relationships should not be disrupted or
severed without good reason and due process.[11] The alternative to Hardcastle’s position
would be to contend that, “no judge should reject
joint custody without examination”. The specific question
posed may be very important in determining the result, and this
review may be asking the wrong questions.
Part IV of
Hardcastle's paper discusses process. Without using the term, he
describes the effect of "the shadow of the law" when
stating that "joint custody legislation places pressure
on litigants to negotiate a joint custody arrangement" (pp.217-8).
This is important. The “shadow of the law” concept
should not surprise economists. It refers to the impact of the
law on negotiations elsewhere. As people are aware that they have
recourse to the law if necessary, anticipated legal outcomes can
affect their chosen negotiating stance. The point is lost on many
in government and law, as discussed further in Birks (2002)
appendix 3.1, paragraphs 17-25. Rather than taking Hardcastle’s
position, one could just as easily say that courts that favour
sole custody place pressure on litigants to negotiate a sole
custody arrangement.
6.2 The Law
Commission’s Preliminary Paper 47: Family Court Dispute
Resolution
This Preliminary
Paper (Law Commission 2002) provides a basis for submissions to
the Law Commission’s project investigating Family Court
processes. The structure of the Preliminary Paper suggests a
management/administrative approach to the operation of the Family
Court. While this might appear desirable for an assessment of
Family Court processes, it does in fact preclude focused
consideration of several perceived weaknesses in the system. In
contrast, a standard planning approach starts with a
specification of wider aims, narrowing down to specific details
within that context. If you consider only the details, there is
no guarantee that wider concerns will even be considered. Such a
piecemeal approach also prevents one from seeing the wider
picture and developing a comprehensive strategy. For example,
there are issues of comprehensive coverage of necessary skills (see
the quote from Ian Shirley below); the impact of process on
unintended outcomes in terms, for example, of disrupted child-parent
relationships and institutional support for parental alienation;
the scope of research and ongoing education; choice of outcomes
indicators for monitoring the impact of the Family Court; and
specification of professional standards and complaints procedures.
The information
presented in the Paper is worrying. It includes a highly
selective sampling of the literature, places too great an
emphasis on debatable claims, and misrepresents some of the
information in the source documents. Unfortunately this does not
signal that the final report will be scholarly, balanced and well
informed.
As an example, in
paragraph 616 and footnote 299, there is reference to Fergusson (1998),
wrongly cited as a 1988 publication. He presents findings from
the Christchurch health and Development Study (CHDS). The paper
is quoted in the footnote, “Collectively, the findings
suggest that single parenthood, in the absence of social or
family disadvantage, is not a factor that makes a major
contribution to childhood risk.”
This statement
refers to a statistical finding on the significance of a variable.
The interpretation of this finding is a more complex matter, and
must reflect the interconnectedness of many determining factors.
It is not realistic to simply treat single-parenthood as being
independent of these determinants. Hence Fergusson states:
“The
implications of these conclusions are clearly that social
programmes and policies that are likely to be most effective
in addressing the needs of at-risk families and their
children are likely to involve multi-compartmental approaches
that have sufficient breadth and flexibility to address the
wide range of social, economic, family, individual and
related factors that contribute to the development of
childhood problems.” (p.172)
In the context of
the Preliminary Paper, it is worth exploring Fergusson’s
finding further. Paper 47 devotes much attention to the issue of
violence. The prevailing approach is based on a Duluth-type power
and control framework. However, Fergusson says:
“The
findings of the CHDS suggest that physical child abuse and
family violence is frequently (although not invariably)
embedded in a broader social context that is characterized by
multiple sources of social disadvantage, family dysfunction
and parental adjustment difficulties. To a very large extent,
the higher rates of adjustment difficulties found amongst
abused children from violent homes appear to reflect the
consequences of a generally compromised and disadvantaged
childhood, rather than the traumatic effects of abuse or
family violence on personal adjustment.” (p.171)
This suggests
that the approaches described in the Preliminary Paper are
inappropriate. The descriptions are:
- on programmes for respondents:
“The
main aim of the programmes for respondents is to prevent
further violence. To this end, the programmes aim to increase
the respondents’ understanding of the context and effect
of domestic violence, in particular the effect it has on
victims and on children exposed to violence…The course
aims to encourage respondents to develop non-violent conflict
resolution skills.” (para.200)
- on programmes for protected persons:
“Programmes
for adult protected persons aim to empower them to deal with
the effects of domestic violence by informing them,
supporting them, and building their self-esteem.” (para
207)
- and on programmes for children:
“Programmes
for children who have been subject to, or exposed to,
violence aim to help children develop their self-esteem and
confidence, to help give them a realistic view about domestic
violence, and to encourage them to express how they feel
about the violence that they have experienced in their lives.”
(para.209)
Moreover, we see
in Fergusson:
“In
recent years there has been increasing interest in the issue
of interparental violence and its effects on children. The
popular view of interparental violence is that it is an
exclusively male problem that has severe and damaging
consequences for the social adjustment and development of
children. In general, the findings of the CHDS do not support
either of these assumptions.” (Fergusson, p.164)
And:
“…interventions
that focus on family violence in isolation from the social
and family context within which the violence occurs are
likely to be relatively ineffective in addressing the
problems faced by children in families in which violence
occurs.” (Fergusson, p.166)
In other words,
the Preliminary Paper uses a paper to support one position, when
in fact it not only does the opposite, but it discredits the
approach presented elsewhere in the Preliminary Paper.
The above example
indicates that it is necessary not only to use a wide range of
sources, but also to understand the material included in them.
This might require a wider skills base than the Law Commission is
applying to this project. Ian Shirley signalled a general problem
in this area when he said:
"A
related issue concerns the expertise of those who intervene
in the lives of children and families and here it is often
assumed (in the social services at least) that a kind heart,
and a passion for the job, provides one with the credentials
to practice. Many of those who work with families and
children do not have the knowledge base or skills to make the
decisions with which they are faced day after day –
decisions that can literally mean the difference between life
and death – it is important to state in this
respect that I am not confining my comments to social
workers – the time has clearly arrived where we need to
question the knowledge base and skills of Family Court
Judges, Paedeatricians, Lawyers, Psychologists and the range
of “professionals” who intervene in the lives of
families and children – as in the case of the scientific
traditions, a single disciplinary-based form of education and
training is inadequate to deal with children as individuals,
as members of a family, and as active participants in the
neighbourhoods and communities to which they belong."
(Shirley, 2001, pp.43-44)
7.
Conclusions
This paper
demonstrates that, in at least some areas of the public sector,
the policymaking and consultation process is deficient. In part,
this could due to the current nature of academic discourse and
the rules of debate. That does not explain the highly
prescriptive structure of the submissions process, including the
analysis of submissions. A lack of public debate before a call
for submissions would almost certainly lower the quality of
submissions and their accuracy as an expression of informed views.
It would be difficult to use them as an expression of preferences
for course of action, as many of those contributing could be
unaware of some of the options under consideration. To draw an
analogy, we might query an election system where people are not
presented with a list of candidates.
It is worrying
that a currently established evaluation requirement, namely
gender analysis, is presented in the House as being impartial
when a detailed official description clearly shows it to be
exclusive and biased.
It is desirable
that policies be monitored, and the Family Courts outcomes
research is sorely needed. However, it seems to be very weak on
an issue of fundamental importance to any economist (and
hopefully any policy analyst), namely the specification and
measurement of outputs.
Given the lack of
debate, the information presented in discussion documents and
preliminary papers assumes a particular significance. It may be
preferable to have no information at all, rather than unbalanced
or misinterpreted information.
It may be thought
that this paper is unduly critical and negative. It is intended
to be constructive. I think J S Mill would see this, judging by
the following words on the value of criticism:
In
the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of
confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his
mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because
it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said
against him; to profit by as much of it as was just, and
expound to himself, and upon occasion to others, the fallacy
of what was fallacious. Because he has felt, that the only
way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing
the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about
it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all
modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind.
No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this;
nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in
any other manner.
(Mill,
1869, Chapter 2, Para.7)
References
Barwick H, Burns
J and Gray A (1996) Gender Equity in the New Zealand Judicial
System: Judges' Perceptions of Gender Issues, Judicial
Working Group on Gender Equity, Department for Courts
Bayliss L (1994) Prosperity Mislaid,
Wellington: GP Publications
Birks
S (1999) “Gender, Policy and Social Engineering”, Nuance,
1, pp.22-42, http://www.nuancejournal.com.au/documents/one/birks-gpse.pdf
http://econ.massey.ac.nz/cppe/papers/cppeip12/cppeip12.htm
Devine
M (2002) “Plain truth is we are failing kids”, Sydney
Morning Herald, 28 February http://www.smh.com.au/news/0202/28/opinion/opinion1.html
Eichbaum
C (2001) “Employment and Unemployment Policy Options in a
Market Economy”, Chapter 11 in Birks S and Chatterjee S (2001)
The New Zealand Economy: Issues and Policies, Fourth
Edition, Palmerston North: Dunmore Press
Fergusson D M (1998) “The Christchurch
Health and Development Study: An Overview and Some Key Findings”,
Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 10, 154-176
Hardcastle G W (1998)
“Joint Custody: A Family Court Judge’s Perspective”,
Family Law Quarterly, 32(1), Spring, pp.201-219
Henaghan M and
Atkin B (eds) (2002) Family Law Policy in New Zealand,
second edition, Wellington: LexisNexis Butterworths
Hume D (1911) A
Treatise on Human Nature, Volume 1, London: Dent and Sons, (originally
published 1738)
Law Commission (2002)
Preliminary Paper 47: Family Court Dispute Resolution, http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/Documents/Publications/PP47FCDS.pdf
Mill J S (1869)
On Liberty, http://www.bartleby.com/130/
Ministry of
Justice (2000), Responsibilities for Children: Especially when
Parents Part, August, http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2000/resp_for_children/index.html
Ministry of
Justice (2001) Analysis of Submissions in Response to the
Discussion Paper Responsibilities for Children: Especially when
Parents Part, October, http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2001/submissions_children/index.html
Ministry of Women’s
Affairs (2002) Work and Family Balance: A Policy Perspective,
http://www.mwa.govt.nz/pub/Jurisdictional%20report.doc
Mishan E.J. (1993)
The Costs of Economic Growth, Revised Edition, Westport:
Praeger
Shirley I (2001) "Evidence-based
policy and practice - what works for children?" in Birks S (ed.)
Proceedings of Social Policy Forum 2001 - Child and Family:
Children in Families as Reflected in Statistics, Research and
Policy, Issues Paper No.11, Centre for Public Policy
Evaluation, Massey University, Palmerston North,
http://econ.massey.ac.nz/cppe/papers/cppeip11/cppeip11.pdf
Wilson M (2000) Property (Relationships)
Bill, [Report-back speech], 13 November, http://www.executive.govt.nz/speech.cfm?speechralph=33033&SR=1