Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T04:24:38.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Policy Transfer and Policy Success: The Case of the Gateway Review Process (2001–10)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2013

Paul Fawcett  and
David Marsh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Policy transfer has become a crucial aspect of the contemporary world of policy-making. However, the relationship between the actual process of policy transfer and the ‘success’ of policy outcomes generated by that transfer is an under-researched area. This article addresses the following key question: what factors affect the success, or otherwise, of policy transfer? This question is explored using a putatively successful case of policy transfer, the Gateway Review process between 2001 and 2010, focusing particularly on three of the early transfers of this process from the UK to Victoria and then to the Commonwealth level and New South Wales in Australia.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , 2012 , pp. 162 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2012.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Dolowitz, David and Marsh, David, ‘Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy Making’, Governance, 13: 1 (2000), pp. 5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dolowitz, David and Marsh, David, ‘Who Learns What from Whom: A Review of the Policy Transfer Literature’, Political Studies, 44: 2 (1996), pp. 343–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Ian Glenday, ‘Governments Can Deliver: Better Practice in Project and Program Delivery’, in John Wanna (ed.), Improving Implementation: Organisational Change and Project Management, Canberra, ANU E Press, 2007, pp. 189–98; Wayne Sharpe, ‘The Gateway Process in Victoria’, in Wanna, Improving Implementation, pp. 199–218; Department of Finance and Administration, Australian Government, ‘Implementing Gateway in the Australian Government’, in Wanna, Improving Implementation, pp. 179–88; Michael Hallsworth, Gareth Nellis and Mike Brass, Installing New Drivers: How to Improve Government's Use of IT, London, Institute for Government, 2009; Simon Parker, Akash Paun, Jonathan McClory and Kate Blatchford, Shaping Up: A Whitehall for the Future, London, Institute for Government, 2010; Herbert Robinson, Patricia Carrillo, Chimay J. Anumba and Manju Patel (eds), Governance and Knowledge Management for Public Private Partnerships, Chichester, Wiley, 2010.

3 For an exception, see Evans, Mark, ‘Policy Transfer in Critical Perspective’, Policy Studies, 30: 3, pp. 243–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Dussauge Laguna, ‘From Lesson-Drawing to Bounded-Transfer: Bridging Policy Transfer and Institutionalist Approaches’, paper presented at the fourteenth International Research Society for Public Management Conference, Berne, Switzerland, April 2010.

5 Ibid., pp. 9–11.

6 Dolowitz and Marsh, ‘Learning from Abroad’.

7 Marsh, David and McConnell, Allan, ‘Towards a Framework for Establishing Policy Success’, Public Administration, 88: 2 (2010), pp. 564–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Mark Bovens, Paul t'Hart and B. Guy Peters (eds), Success and Failure in Public Governance: A Comparative Analysis, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2001; for a development of this framework: Allan McConnell, Understanding Policy Success: Rethinking Public Policy, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2010.

9 Parsons, Wayne, ‘From Muddling Through to Muddling Up: Evidence Based Policy Making and the Modernization of British Government’, Public Policy and Administration, 17: 3 (2002), pp. 43–60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sanderson, Ian, ‘Evaluation, Policy Learning and Evidence-Based Policy Making’, Public Administration, 80: 1 (2002), pp. 1–22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Dolowitz and Marsh, ‘Learning from Abroad’; Marsh and McConnell, ‘Towards a Framework for Establishing Policy Success’.

11 Peter Gershon, ‘Review of Civil Procurement in Central Government’, April 1999, available online at http://archive.treasury.gov.uk/docs/1999/pgfinalr.html.

12 Glenday, ‘Governments Can Deliver’.

13 For an extended discussion see: Marsh, David and Fawcett, Paul, ‘Branding, Politics and Democracy’, Policy Studies, 32: 5 (2011), pp. 515–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Sharpe, ‘The Gateway Process in Victoria’. There has also been transfer to other, sub-state, jurisdictions in Australia, notably Brisbane City Council, which has established itself as leader in this area and is attempting to market itself as a centre of information and advice about Gateway among councils in North-Eastern Australia.

15 Personal communications.

16 Paul Snell, ‘Nigel Smith: No Regrets’, SupplyManagement.com, http://www.supplymanagement.com/analysis/interviews/2010/nigel-smith-no-regrets/, 14 September 2010, accessed 5 April 2011.

17 http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/mpa-overview.pdf, accessed 3 June 2011, p. 1.

18 www.ogc.gov.uk, 4 June 2011.

19 H.C. 57, Administration and Expenditure of the Chancellor's Departments, 2006–07, Seventh Report of the Treasury Committee, London, HMSO, Session 2007–08, p. 35; HM Treasury, Transforming Government Procurement, London, HMSO, 2007, p. 6.

20 Treasury, Transforming Government Procurement, p. 6.

21 H.C. 851, The Office of Government Commerce, Third Report of the Treasury Committee, London, HMSO, Session 2001–02; H.C. 555, The Impact of the Office of Government Commerce's Initiative on the Delivery of Major IT-Enabled Projects, Twenty-Seventh Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, London, HMSO, Session 2004–05, p. 3.

22 H.C. 562, Learning and Innovation in Government, Forty-Third Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, London, HMSO, Session 2008-09, Q15.

23 Ibid., Q36.

24 National Audit Office, ‘Assurance for High Risk Projects’, http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1011/project_assurance.aspx, accessed 4 June 2011, p. 4.

25 http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/mpa-overview.pdf, accessed 3 June 2011, p. 2.

26 While there appears to be general agreement that Gateway has led to significant savings, there is some scepticism about the scale of the savings that have been reported, see H.C. 802-I, Progress in Improving Government Efficiency, National Audit Office, London, HMSO, Session 2005–06, p. 5; H.C. 311, Department for Work and Pensions Management of Information Technology Projects: Making IT Deliver for DWP Customers, Third Report of the Work and Pensions Committee, London: HMSO, Session 2003–04, paras 121 and 123; H.C. 555; H.C. 406, Annual Report for 2005–06. First Report of the Liaison Committee, London, HMSO, Session 2006–07, paras 65 and 96; Ministry of Justice, ‘Gateway Reviews’, http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/foi-assumptions-gatewayreviews.htm, accessed 28 May 2009. Of course, the tool developed in Victoria and discussed below may be a way forward here.

27 Interestingly, Victoria developed a ‘Lessons Learnt Database’, introduced in 2009, which is described as: ‘a powerful new tool enabling the tailored and targeted exploration and reporting of Lessons Learnt specific to projects and their stage of lifecycle, and a predictive capacity to assess the likely risks that projects may face through to completion’. Gateway UK has shown considerable interest in this tool.

28 This has been a fairly common criticism of Gateway, see H.C. 57, para. 70; H.C. 555, pp. 3 and 11; H.C. 57, para. 70; H.C. 292, The National Offender Information Management System, National Audit Office, London, HMSO, Session 2008–09, para. 2.24; H.C. 311, para. 104; H.C. 1631, The Delays in Administering the 2005 Single Payment Scheme in England, National Audit Office, London, HMSO, Session 2005–06, especially Appendix 6; Hallsworth et al., Installing New Drivers, pp. 32–5; and Parker et al., Shaping Up, p. 33.

29 National Audit Office, Assurance for High Risk Projects, http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1011/project_assurance.aspx, accessed 4 June 2011, p. 9.

30 Min Xu, ‘The Value of Critical Project Decisions: Measurement and Modelling’, PhD thesis, University of Melbourne, 2010.

31 Sharpe, ‘The Gateway Process in Victoria’.

32 Ibid.

33 Marsh and McConnell, ‘Towards a Framework for Establishing Policy Success’.

34 Bulpitt, Jim, Territory and Power in the United Kingdom: An Interpretation, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1983 Google Scholar.

35 H.C. 1631, especially Appendix 6.

36 Ibid.

37 Tony Collins, ‘Minister Given Rosy Views on Ailing Payment Scheme’, ComputerWeekly.com, 24 October 2006, http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2006/10/23/219335/Ministers-given-rosy-views-on-ailing-payment-scheme.htm, accessed 4 April 2011.

38 Dolowitz and Marsh, ‘Learning from Abroad’, pp. 5–23.

39 ANZSOG is a not-for-profit company established in 2002 to strengthen the management and policy capacity of the public sector in Australia and New Zealand. It has three core activities: executive education courses; a case study programme; and a research programme.

40 Marsh and Fawcett, ‘Branding and Franchising a Public Policy’.

41 However, OGC subsequently became more conscious that the intellectual property involved in Gateway is valuable and explored ways of raising revenue in this way.

42 Dolowitz and Marsh, ‘Learning from Abroad’, p. 19.

43 NSW Government Procurement, ‘Gateway Review System’, http://www.nswprocurement.com.au/Government-Procurement-Frameworks/Gateway-Review, accessed 4 April 2011.

44 The NSW Gateway Unit performs reviews for Gates 3 to 6 if requested, but very few government agencies ask them to do so. Any projects that are rated as very high risk will also go through the tendering gates as well. The risk profile of a project is determined using the Gateway online risk tool.

45 NSW Treasury, ‘Business Case Gate Review Workbook’, Sydney, NSW Treasury, June 2009.

46 On the importance of this see: Dolowitz, David, Greenwood, Stephen and Marsh, David, ‘Policy Transfer: Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed, But Why Red, White and Blue?’, Parliamentary Affairs, 52: 4 (1999), pp. 719–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 See especially, Ogden, J., Walt, G. and Lush, L., ‘The Politics of “Branding” in Policy Transfer: The Case of DOTS for Tuberculosis Control’, Social Science and Medicine, 57 (2003), pp. 179–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.