̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - government

Opinion: AI can unlock productivity in public services

lw355 — Thu, 27 Mar 2025 07:00:19 +0000

AI applications have tremendous potential for improving productivity – saving time and money and improving quality of service. Here's what's required to make this work in the public sector, says Diane Coyle.

Opinion: Britain needs to clean up its politics by reforming Whitehall and Westminster

fpjl2 — Thu, 01 Feb 2024 10:47:55 +0000

Prof David Howarth, a commissioner on the UK Governance Project, outlines proposals that seek to fix defects in our political system increasingly exploited by those in power.

England needs a Secretary of State and ‘council of mayors’ at the heart of Whitehall

fpjl2 — Thu, 06 Apr 2023 08:40:15 +0000

England has a level of centralised control comparable to far smaller nations, yet the country remains a “ghost-like presence” barely acknowledged by Whitehall and Westminster, a new report suggests.

Whitehall’s failure to adapt to devolution has left the Union on the brink – report

fpjl2 — Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:42:17 +0000

A study by Cambridge political scientists, including a former Permanent Secretary, charts two decades of central government’s inability to get to grips with devolution, and the role this has played in the current parlous state of the Union.

Beyond the pandemic: re-learn how to govern risk

lw355 — Mon, 25 Jan 2021 15:15:30 +0000

As the pandemic crisis has played out across the world, different governments have taken different approaches to controlling the spread of virus and supporting citizens – with different outcomes. Can we start to draw conclusions on how best to govern future catastrophic risks?

Successive governments’ approaches to obesity policies have destined them to fail, say researchers

cjb250 — Tue, 19 Jan 2021 08:52:28 +0000

This is the conclusion of new research by a team at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge funded by the NIHR School for Public Health Research.

̽��ֱ��researchers say their findings may help to explain why, after nearly thirty years of government obesity policies, obesity prevalence in England has not fallen and substantial inequalities persist. According to a report by NHS Digital in May 2020, 67% of men and 60% of women live with overweight or obesity, including 26% of men and 29% of women who suffer clinical obesity. More than a quarter of children aged two to 15 years live with obesity or overweight and the gap between the least and most deprived children is growing.

Successive governments have tried to tackle the obesity problem: in research published today in ̽��ֱ��Milbank Quarterly, Dolly Theis and Martin White in the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR) at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge identified 14 government-led obesity strategies in England from 1992 to 2020. They analysed these strategies – which contained 689 wide-ranging policies – to determine whether they have been fit for purpose in terms of their strategic focus, content, basis in theory and evidence, and implementation viability.

Seven of the strategies were broad public health strategies containing obesity as well as non-obesity policies such as on tobacco smoking and food safety. ̽��ֱ��other seven contained only obesity-related policies, such as on diet and/or physical activity. Twelve of the fourteen strategies contained obesity reduction targets. However, only five of these were specific, numerical targets rather than statements such as ‘aim to reduce obesity’.

Theis said: “In almost 30 years, successive UK governments have proposed hundreds of wide-ranging policies to tackle obesity in England, but these are yet to have an impact on levels of obesity or reduce inequality. Many of these policies have largely been flawed from the outset and proposed in ways that make them difficult to implement. What’s more, there’s been a fairly consistent failure to learn from past mistakes. Governments appear more likely to publish another strategy containing the same, recycled policies than to implement policies already proposed.

“If we were to produce a report card, overall we might only give them 4 out of 10: could do much better.”

Theis and White identified seven criteria necessary for effective implementation, but found that only 8% of policies fulfilled all seven criteria, while the largest proportion of policies (29%) did not fulfil a single one of the criteria. Fewer than a quarter (24%) included a monitoring or evaluation plan, just 19% cited any supporting scientific evidence, and less than one in ten (9%) included details of likely costs or an allocated budget.

̽��ֱ��lack of such basic information as the cost of implementing policies was highlighted in a recent National Audit Office report on the UK Government’s approach to tackling childhood obesity in England, which found that the Department of Health and Social Care did not know how much central government spent tackling childhood obesity.

“No matter how well-intended and evidence-informed a policy, if it is nebulously proposed without a clear plan or targets it makes implementation difficult and it is unlikely the policy will be deemed successful,” added Theis. “One might legitimately ask, what is the purpose of proposing policies at all if they are unlikely to be implemented?”

Thirteen of the 14 strategies explicitly recognised the need to reduce health inequality, including one strategy that was fully focused on reducing inequality in health. Yet the researchers say that only 19% of policies proposed were likely to be effective in reducing inequalities because of the measures proposed.

UK governments have to date largely favoured a less interventionist approach to reducing obesity, regardless of political party, prioritising provision of information to the public in their obesity strategies, rather than more directly shaping the choices available to individuals in their living environments through regulation or taxes. ̽��ֱ��researchers say that governments may have avoided a more deterrence-based, interventionist approach for fear of being perceived as ‘nannying’ – or because they lacked knowledge about what more interventionist measures are likely to be effective.

There is, however, evidence to suggest that policymaking is changing. Even though the current UK government still favours a less interventionist approach, more recent strategies have contained some fiscal and regulatory policies, such as banning price promotions of unhealthy products, banning unhealthy food advertisements and the Soft Drinks Industry Levy. This may be because the government has come under increasing pressure and recognises that previous approaches have not been effective, that more interventionist approaches are increasingly acceptable to the public, and because evidence to support regulatory approaches is mounting.

̽��ֱ��researchers found little attempt to evaluate the strategies and build on their successes and failures. As a result, many policies proposed were similar or identical over multiple years, often with no reference to their presence in a previous strategy. Only one strategy (Saving Lives, published in 1999) commissioned a formal independent evaluation of the previous government’s strategy.

“Until recently, there seems to have been an aversion to conducting high quality, independent evaluations, perhaps because they risk demonstrating failure as well as success,” added White. “But this limits a government’s ability to learn lessons from past policies. This may be potentially compounded by the often relatively short timescales for putting together a strategy or implementing policies.

“Governments need to accompany policy proposals with information that ensures they can be successfully implemented, and with built-in evaluation plans and time frames. Important progress has been made with commissioning evaluations in the last three years. But, we also need to see policies framed in ways that make them readily implementable. We also need to see a continued move away from interventions that rely on individual’s changing their diet and activity, and towards policies that change the environments that encourage people to overeat and to be sedentary in the first place.”

Living with obesity or excess weight is associated with long-term physical, psychological and social problems. Related health problems, such as type-2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancers, are estimated to cost NHS England at least £6.1 billion per year and the overall cost of obesity to wider society in England is estimated to be £27 billion per year. ̽��ֱ��COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light additional risks for people living with obesity, such as an increased risk of hospitalisation and more serious disease.

̽��ֱ��research was funded by the NIHR School for Public Health Research, with additional support by the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic & Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, and Wellcome Trust.

Reference
Dolly R Z Theis, Martin White. Is obesity policy in England fit for purpose? Analysis of government strategies and policies, 1992-2020. Milbank Quarterly; 19 Jan 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12498

Government obesity policies in England over the past three decades have largely failed because of problems with implementation, lack of learning from past successes or failures, and a reliance on trying to persuade individuals to change their behaviour rather than tackling unhealthy environments.

In almost 30 years, successive UK governments have proposed hundreds of wide-ranging policies to tackle obesity in England, but these are yet to have an impact on levels of obesity or reduce inequality

Dolly Theis

Fitsum Admasu

Silhouettes of three women running

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Licence type:

Public Domain

Opinion: the learning of scientific advisers is the other curve to consider

sc604 — Fri, 05 Jun 2020 08:14:14 +0000

Despite years of experience advising the government, Professor Neil Ferguson couldn’t have anticipated that his private life would become a matter of public scrutiny last month, essentially ending his formal relationship with government. No less surprising is the move from a former Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir David King, to set up a so-called ‘Independent SAGE’ - laying bare the kinds of deliberations that would have taken place behind closed doors during his appointment.

̽��ֱ��bottom line for high-profile scientists and scientific advisers is that the rules of the game have changed. They may have learned that discretion is highly valued by policymakers, and yet, calls for transparency continue to resound louder than ever. How are scientists dealing with these new circumstances? What are they learning?

In a recent paper, I argue that too little attention has been given to how experts learn to advise policymakers. Although there is no shortage of guidelines and fragments of wisdom for researchers who want to see their work (or the work of colleagues) inform policymaking, scientific advice to governments is largely a case of learning on the job.

In their role as scientific advisers, experts learn what is and isn’t appropriate behaviour, what is and isn’t politically acceptable, and to draw the line where the science ‘ends’ and the politics ‘begin’. Scientific advice is a tricky balancing act between making expert judgments on the best available evidence and calibrating those judgments to the politics of the issues at hand. Like a tightrope walker, the scientific adviser has to learn to get the balance just right.

̽��ֱ��journey from full-time academic to part-time scientific adviser can be a transformative one. Researchers might initially set out with expectations of how scientists and policymakers interact and have had to revisit those expectations in view of their various encounters and experiences. While their learning may not always be transformative, I suggest that it is always necessarily situated: different organisations and environments will influence and shape their learning in different ways. This includes discussions with peers on scientific advisory committees, for example. How and what advisers learn, then, is never quite divorced from where they learn.

So why should we care? Taking the long view, I see three reasons why we might want to put advisers’ learning under the microscope:

Compiling the know-how of experienced advisers can be helpful for less experienced or early-career researchers who wish to engage with policymakers. Because there is no universal roadmap for success, I think we should focus on coming up with some ‘warning signs’ - as opposed to ‘direction signs’ - by identifying and communicating common pitfalls, for instance.
Given the situated nature of their own learning, advisers can directly contribute to the institutional learning and memory of the science-policy organisations they are part of. Involving committee members in decision-making can help prevent needless reinvention of the wheel and improve organisational reforms, leading to more sustainable change.
As both academics and policy advisers, scientific advisers are particularly well-placed to understand how academic research informs (or fails to inform) policymaking, as well as how the scientific community works and is governed. Therefore, they are knowledgeable not only about science for policy, but also about policy for science. For those reasons, I think that research funding organisations – such as UKRI research councils - should more systematically consult experienced science advisers in the formulation of their policies, especially in relation to research impact. For instance, improved impact evaluation frameworks would have positive trickle-down effects on the wider academic community, especially for early-career researchers who tend to base their understanding of impact in large part on the existing guidelines for grant applications or job descriptions.

̽��ֱ��core message is that as the nature of both science and policymaking continues to change, the learning experiences of expert advisers is an abundant resource that has yet to be tapped into. This has become all the more evident with COVID-19, as scientific advisers’ learning curves are likely to be steep. In the aftermath of the pandemic, we’ll need an evaluation of ‘what happened’ and ‘what went wrong’.

For the whole picture, we can’t just rely on the loudest or the most visible voices. We’ll need to turn to those scientific advisers whose stories go largely untold. Importantly, we’ll need to understand why the acquired skillset of scientific advisers may not be suited for crisis situations. Only then can we ensure that lessons are learned and that our networks of science advice are prepared for future emergencies.

Policymakers around the world are relying on the expertise of scientists to help make decisions around the COVID-19 pandemic. But how do scientists learn to advise policymakers? Noam Obermeister from Cambridge’s Department of Geography argues that this has been overlooked in the past, and suggests how studying their learning might help us prepare for future emergencies.

Photo by Obi Onyeador on Unsplash

Phone with news headlines

Yes

Urgent action needed to close UK languages gap

sjr81 — Tue, 24 May 2016 09:36:38 +0000

̽��ֱ��findings are included in a new report, ̽��ֱ��Value of Languages, published by the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge this week, after wide-ranging consultation with government bodies and agencies including the MoD, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, GCHQ, and the Department for Education.

̽��ֱ��report argues for the full contribution of languages to the UK economy and society to be realised across government, rather than falling solely under the remit of the Department for Education, thereby allowing a centralised approach in how language impacts the UK in almost every sphere of 21st-century life.

Recent independent research, highlighted within the report, indicates the language deficit could be costing the UK economy billions of pounds per year.

̽��ֱ��Value of Languages draws on discussions at a workshop held in Cambridge, co-chaired by Professor Wendy Ayres-Bennett of the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, and Baroness Coussins, Co-Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Languages. ̽��ֱ��workshop was attended by representatives from across government and is likely to inform future policy decisions in this area.

Professor Ayres-Bennett said: “It is vital that we communicate clearly and simply the value of languages for the health of the nation. English is necessary, but not sufficient. We cannot leave language policy to the Department for Education alone.

“We need a more coordinated cross-government approach which recognises the value of languages to key issues of our time including security and defence, diplomacy and international relations, and social cohesion and peace-building. Our report aims to raise awareness of the current deficiencies in UK language policy, put forward proposals to address them, and illustrate the strategic value of languages to the UK.”

̽��ֱ��report also suggests:

Education policy for languages must be grounded in national priorities and promote a cultural shift in the attitude towards languages.
Language policy must be underpinned by organisational cultural change. ̽��ֱ��report highlights how cultural change is being achieved, for example, in the military with language skills being valued and rewarded financially. Military personnel are encouraged to take examinations to record their language skills, regardless of whether they are language learners or speakers of community or heritage languages.
Champions for languages both within and outside government are vital.

“Whereas the STEM subjects are specifically highlighted under the responsibilities for the Minister of State for Universities and Science, and there is a Chief Government Scientist, languages lack high-level champions within parliament and Whitehall,” added Ayres-Bennett. “Modern languages also need media champions. Figures such as Simon Schama for history or Brian Cox for physics and astronomy have helped bring the importance of these subjects to the public’s attention.”

Imminent or immediate problems for government to address include the decline of languages and language learning in the UK from schools through to higher education, where language departments and degree courses are closing; business lost to UK companies through lack of language skills; and an erosion of the UK’s ‘soft power’ in conflict and matters of national security, which are currently limited by a shortage of speakers of strategically important languages

̽��ֱ��report finds that the UK is also under-represented internationally, for instance in the EU civil service or in the translating and interpreting departments of the UN – and that the community and heritage languages spoken in the UK are often undervalued.

“A UK strategy for languages would mean that UK businesses can participate fully in the global market place using the language and communication skills of their workforce,” said Professor Ayres-Bennett.

“It would also mean that the UK is able to maximise its role and authority in foreign policy through language and diplomacy. Educational attainment in a wide range of languages brings with it personal cognitive benefits as well as the ‘cultural agility’ vital to international relations and development, as well as enhancing the cultural capital and social cohesion of the different communities of the UK.”

̽��ֱ��report cites a number of case studies illustrating the value of languages. For example, a Spanish linguist recruited to GCHQ was from her first day able to use her ‘street language’ acquired during her year abroad and her knowledge of certain Latin American countries to translate communications related to an international drugs cartel looking to transport cocaine into the UK. Comparing her analysis with those developed by two of her language community colleagues in Russian and Urdu, she was able to create a clear intelligence picture of the likely methods and dates of the imminent drugs importation. Meetings with Law Enforcement agents eventually led to the seizure of large quantities of cocaine and lengthy jail terms for the key players.

Policy workshops and briefings will be a key element of a new £4m research project on multilingualism led by Professor Ayres-Bennett at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, and funded under the AHRC’s Open World Research Initiative.

̽��ֱ��full report can be seen here: http://www.publicpolicy.cam.ac.uk/research-impact/value-of-languages

̽��ֱ��UK Government needs to urgently adopt a new, comprehensive languages strategy if it is to keep pace with its international competitors and reduce a skills deficit that has wide-reaching economic, political, and military effects.

It is vital that we communicate clearly and simply the value of languages for the health of the nation. English is necessary, but not sufficient.

Wendy Ayres-Bennett

̽��ֱ��Language Centre, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

Swahili

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike