̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - Cambridge Public Policy

Cancer's climate innovation

plc32 — Thu, 04 Apr 2024 16:10:38 +0000

An enzyme inspired by brain cancer DNA that has the potential to slash greenhouse gas emissions from the production of nylon won the 2024 Cambridge Climate Challenge.

Anyone for digital democracy?

fpjl2 — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 12:23:18 +0000

̽��ֱ��recent release of the report from the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy attracted significant attention but really only for one of the 26 recommendations. ̽��ֱ��report contained much that was good, some that was pedestrian, but it has all been swept away because one recommendation was of a different stripe altogether – to have online secure voting as an option in the UK by 2020.

Before getting into the detail of the report we should get one thing out of the way. This is a report that was long overdue, whether it came from the Speaker, a Select Committee or another part of the mangle that is government. With the speed that online has come to dominate our personal and professional interactions, it was a glaring omission that the UK government and the Parliament in particular had not addressed the digital world, their role in it and how it can be used to improve democratic outcomes. Granted the Government Digital Service (GDS) is working hard to improve how government services are accessed, although it is best to not get into an argument about whether gov.uk is an improvement or not (as Chris Cook did with his Christmas wish for 2014). However, anything that starts a stronger debate on how the machinery of government interacts with the public and policymaking is a good thing.

Let’s get the obvious out of the way first. Many of the recommendations are not specifically about digital, they are about democracy. “By 2020, the House of Commons should ensure that everyone can understand what it does.” You would have hoped that this would at least have been as aspiration for some time now. Reducing the amount of jargon, making procedures clearer, having a communications strategy – it is frustrating that we are still at such an early point in the evolution of the House and its relationship to the outside world that these actions are pending.

Efforts to improve public participation in policy making depends on people wishing to be involved, as well as assuming we have a shared model of how representation works. On the first point, our recent survey highlighted an expressed desire to be involved, which we included as part of our submission to the Commission. According to the poll while 7% of the public feel engaged in decision making in Parliament, 53% want to be involved. Now that number may be soft, as it is easy to say you want to be involved but actually being involved is another thing. Assuming half of those who express the desire to be involved would actually get involved, that’s a 19 point difference between the current state of affairs and what people want. If new digital tools, clearer websites and better outreach help in that regard, fantastic.

̽��ֱ��concern here is raising expectations that cannot be met. This is the case with recommendation 18 to have a ‘cyber chamber’ for public debate on issues being discussed in Parliament. ̽��ֱ��desire to be involved has been translated by some as ‘getting my way’. To caricature, when I tell my MP what should be done I expect that to happen. If we promote engagement such as that involved in a ‘cyber chamber’ without clarifying the process of discussion, negotiation and compromise that happens in almost all policy areas, then we’ll be raising expectations that will be dashed, potentially worsening the situation further.

This leads to the second point on representation – how do we think representation works in the UK at the national level? Crudely the options have been characterised as having delegates (MPs who take our views on board as issues arise), trustees (MPs who can use their judgement on an issue), or party (where the party line is all). Is the approach in the report to tilt towards a delegate model of representation? It’s unclear reading the report. Without discussing how the link between the public and their representatives is construed, the report missed an opportunity to have a more fundamental conversation about the structure of the UK’s democratic system.

And then there is recommendation 26. Once the Commission’s report was released the news picked up on this to the exclusion of pretty much everything else in the report. From the BBC to the newspapers, the response was to acknowledge some of the good things in the report, but to be critical of the need for online voting. Is online voting necessary? Will having online voting improve turnout or improve the connectivity between the public and MPs? ̽��ֱ��answer to both questions is that we don’t know. ̽��ֱ��Commission says it is “… confident that there is a substantial appetite for online voting in the UK …” but does not present any evidence to back this statement up. ̽��ֱ��claim is that voting will become more accessible, but there is no evidence that even if it is more accessible that it will increase the rates of voting, or the subsequent engagement or satisfaction of the public with politics.

Overall the Commission should be regarded as successful in getting a conversation going on the modernisation of Parliament and its procedures. Letting in the sunlight should help increase trust and hopefully improve the speed and quality of policy making. However, this does seem to be an opportunity missed to have a deeper conversation on the nature of representation in the UK, and in a report with too many recommendations a mistake to allow one recommendation to overshadow all of the others.

Finbarr Livesey provided a submission to the Digital Democracy Commission on public engagement with policy making which can be accessed here.

This post was originally published on the blog site for the Cambridge Masters in Public Policy. Read more here.

Dr Finbarr Livesey – ̽��ֱ�� lecturer and Deputy Director of the MPhil in Public Policy – submitted research to Parliament’s recent report on digital democracy. Here, he discusses the report’s implications for the democratic process in the UK.

While 7% of the public feel engaged in decision making in Parliament, 53% want to be involved

Finbarr Livesey

Barney Brown

Online voting

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page. For image rights, please see the credits associated with each individual image.

Yes

Mastering public policy

lw355 — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:00:18 +0000

Whether it’s setting the agenda on renewable energy, considering mass vaccination programmes, cutting cybercrime or determining alcohol pricing policy, governments face challenges that require measured approaches based on rigorous analysis of the evidence. Now, a new practice-oriented Master’s in Public Policy (MPP) launched by the Department of Politics and International Studies at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge aims to encourage long-term thinking and better strategic planning among policy professionals.

̽��ֱ��course, which launches today (29 November) at an event at the Institute for Government in London and will take its first students in October 2013, draws on teaching from across the ̽��ֱ�� as well as from professionals in the policy world.

Director of the MPP, David Howarth, a Reader in the Department of Land Economy and a former Member of Parliament, explained how the course aims to help policy making: “It’s important to make sure that enough people in the political system respect evidence and rational argument. ̽��ֱ��course presents a series of policy problems from a set of disparate disciplines – historical, scientific, political, economic, ethical, technological, legal and managerial. Policy makers can’t be experts in all areas but we aim to equip them with the broad range of skills needed to understand the types of evidence there is and the questions to ask.”

During the one-year course, students will learn about the nature of evidence through a series of substantive case studies. They will also participate in simulations and experience first hand how complex messages are negotiated and communicated under intense pressure. Such skills are essential to equip policy makers with the tools to promote urgently needed new thinking on national, European and global challenges.

A further important aspect of the course, explained Howarth, is to encourage policy-related research across the ̽��ֱ��: “ ̽��ֱ��Master’s is the first major output of the Cambridge Public Policy initiative, which has been set up to promote and support public policy research and teaching at the ̽��ֱ��. ̽��ֱ��course provides a focus to build capacity at the ̽��ֱ�� to respond to opportunities in policy research and analysis.”

̽��ֱ��Cambridge Public Policy Initiative and the development of the new Master’s have been generously supported by sponsorship from ̽��ֱ��Constitution Society, Jubilee Financial Products and YouGov, as well as individual donations. Further sponsorship opportunities are available to support, among other things, dedicated scholarships and work-placement programmes, as Dr Miranda Gomperts, Head of Cambridge Public Policy Programmes Development and one of the key organisers of the MPP, explained: “We hope to attract students from a broad range of areas – civil service, politics, voluntary organisations, NGOs, science and technology – and it’s essential that we can attract the very best students irrespective of their financial circumstances through the provision of scholarships. In the past 24 hours we have secured funding for six bursaries. Our challenge is now to raise funding for all students attending the course who need it."

̽��ֱ��course complements the work of other policy centres such as the Centre of Governance and Human Rights and the Centre for Rising Powers, both hosted in the Department of Politics and International Studies, and the Centre for Science and Policy (CSaP). CSaP was launched in 2009 as a networking organisation, with a mission of building links between government and academia characterised by mutual trust, respect and understanding. Its flagship Policy Fellowship Programme provides the opportunity for decision makers from government and industry to forge useful and lasting links with researchers.

̽��ֱ��Master’s has received widespread support among current policy makers and advocates of effective policy making, such as Rt Hon Peter Riddell, Director of the Institute for Government, who said: “ ̽��ֱ��new Master’s in Public Policy is a welcome and important innovation, which should improve the skills of future public service leaders and raise the quality of their policy making.”

José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, added: “ ̽��ֱ��Master’s course in Public Policy, with its particular focus on Europe, offers an exciting opportunity to pool Cambridge’s expertise across a range of sciences, engineering, the humanities and social sciences, and contribute to improved policy making in Britain and the EU.”

Applications for the Master’s in Public Policy are now open. More information about the Programme can be found at http://www.cpp.csap.cam.ac.uk/news/article-mpp-london-launch/

A new Master’s Programme in Public Policy, launching today by the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, will equip policy makers of tomorrow with the tools to make informed and effective decisions.

Policy makers can’t be experts in all areas but we aim to equip them with the broad range of skills needed to understand the types of evidence there is and the questions to ask.

David Howarth, Director of the MPP

Parliamentary copyright/Catherine Bebbington

MYPs debate in House of Commons Chamber

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes