Observing and Measuring Government Openness. A conceptual discussion and application to Mexico
(2018)
Open government has become a goal for countries all over the world, but it remains an elusive concept. Despite innovative methodologies to assess open government policies, action plans, and interventions in different countries, scholarly research and practical decisions are hindered by the lack of a precise concept and an operationalization. In this paper, we make two contributions to this discussion. First, we argue that the discussions about open government would benefit from taking the grammatical structure of the concept seriously (open is an adjective, government a noun). Second, we propose that, in order to be conceptually and practically useful, open government should be observable. We present the methodology, application and results of an effort to observe and measure open government in Mexico, based on a study of 908 government offices in terms of transparency and participation.
To effectively address complex problems, different policy instruments must be integrated into policy mixes. A crucial task for the policymaker is to identify the set of instruments to be deployed and to integrate them into a policy mix. However, policy instruments not only need to be coherent in their design; their implementation also requires instruments that create interdependence and preserve the integrated logic of the policy mix over time. In this paper we identify the instruments that make integration work. We argue that for policy mixes to solve complex problems, instruments that secure the continued interaction of its components are needed. We show that three instruments serve this purpose: a policy frame, authority, and information. We use three cases where governments have attempted to solve complex problems through policy integration to illustrate our argument. With this paper, we advance our understanding of how integration works and, by doing so, we inform decision-makers about the specific policy tools necessary to achieve it.
Public policies are a set of specific actions intended to solve concrete public problems. Given the specificity of the policy approach, its unit of analysis is the policy itself. This attribute may lead to a myopia problem: to focus on each public policy without studying the whole, or to believe that the set of public policies is, automatically, harmonious. Yet, a series of well-designed and implemented public policies is not equivalent to a set of complementary and self-reinforcing policies that solve complex public issues. In this paper, we analyze three levels of coherence for public policies: internal coherence (the causal theory), coherence among policies in the same policy domain, and coherence across policy domains. We show that internal coherence is not guarantee of external coherence. We use Mexican government programs to exemplify the consequence of incoherent policies.
Solving complex problems is a challenge faced by many governments. Academic and practical discussions on how to solve said problems look at policy integration as a solution to the negative implications that fragmented government actions have on addressing public problems or providing public services. Notwithstanding important recent contributions, we still lack a precise understanding of what policy integration is, an explanation of how it differs from other “solutions” to complex problems, such as coordination or policy coherence, and a practical operationalization. In this paper, we argue that coordination, coherence, and integration are related but substantively different concepts. We offer a new way of understanding and observing policy integration in a manner that is theoretically distinguishable from policy coordination and coherence and empirically observable. We argue that policy integration is the process of making strategic and administrative decisions aimed at solving a complex problem. Solving this complex problem is a goal that encompasses—but exceeds—the programs’ and agencies’ individual goals. In practical terms, it means that, at every moment of the policy process, there is a decision-making body making decisions based on a new logic—that of addressing a complex problem.
Coordinating and integrating different policies and public sector organizations is a major challenge for practitioners and a continuing topic of interest for researchers. We argue that existing research on this topic needs reorientation to provide better insights for practice and theory of policymaking as well as policy implementation. We offer four suggestions on how future research could advance: (1) combining existing conceptual and epistemological approaches more systematically; (2) complementing case studies and surveys with large-N analyses and novel research tools and methods; (3) more systematic analysis of the causal mechanisms in policy coordination and integration; (4) more thorough study of the real-world impact of policy coordination and integration.