While policy capacity has emerged as a major concern as governments are increasingly called upon to address ever more complex problems, there are considerable disagreements on the conceptual definitions of policy capacity, and there are few systematic efforts to operationalise and measure it (Waller 1992; Gregory and Lonti 2008). First of all, there is little agreement as to whether concepts of policy capacity should be restricted to the capacity of a government, or public service, or expanded to include the non-governmental and private sectors.

Most scholars define policy capacity from the perspective of the government as affecting the ability of governments to make intelligent choices (Painter & Pierre, 2005), to scan the environment and set strategic directions (Savoie, 2003), to weigh and assess the implications of policy alternatives (Bakvis, 2000), and to make appropriate use of knowledge in policy-making (Parsons, 2004; Peters, 2004). Fellegi (Canada, 1996) argues for a broader concept of policy capacity that includes the nature and quality of the resources available to review, formulate and implement policies, and the practices and procedures by which these resources are mobilised and used, both within the public service and beyond it to the non-governmental sector and to society as a whole. Whether and to what extent 'governance capacity' differs from 'policy capacity' (Howlett & Ramesh, 2014) remains a key question in the area.

In addition, while it is a cliché to argue that policy capacity is a necessary pre-condition for policy success, there are disagreements about the conceptual and definitional aspects of the subject that have hindered efforts at better understanding and diagnosis and improved policy practice. Some scholars have opted for limited or restricted definitions of the term, arguing that policy capacity is concerned only with the availability or quality of particular skills such as policy advising to support decision-making. Painter and Pierre (2005, p. 2), for example, focus only on capacity for policy formulation when they define the term as: '¿ the ability to marshal the necessary resources to make intelligent collective choices, in particular to set strategic directions, for the allocation of scarce resources to public ends.' Others have kept this relatively narrow focus but included additional skills and resources such as those involved in the acquisition and use of policy relevant knowledge, the ability to frame options, the application of both qualitative and quantitative research methods to policy problems, and the effective use of communications and stakeholder management strategies (Howlett et al., 2010). 

Still others such as Bridgeman and Davis (2000), however, have called for a broader definition, arguing that policy capacity should include the ability of governments to efficiently implement preferred choices of action as well as decide upon them. Yet others have focussed their attention on the meta-level of governance. Parsons (2004), for example, defined policy capacity as the 'weaving' function of modern governments---the ability to weave together the multiplicity of organisations and interests to form a coherent policy fabric. Holmberg and Rothstein (2010) and Rotberg (2014) also go beyond policy formulation in emphasising the systemic and structural preconditions of good governance. Characteristics of governance such as honesty, rule of law, merit appointments, social trust and legitimacy must first be fulfilled, they argue, if analysis is to influence policy-making and policy outcomes and implementation is to succeed.

Defining Policy Capacity: A Conceptual Framework

Policy capacity is defined, in a fashion similar to Gleeson et al., (2009 and 2011), as the set of skills and resources - or competences and capabilities - necessary to perform policy functions. Skills or competences can be categorised into three types: analytical, operational and political. Each of them involves resources or capabilities at three different levels: individual, organisational, and systemic. This definition, comprising three sets of skills and competences and three sets of resources and capabilities, is sufficiently broad to encompass all aspects of policy capacity cited by the authors mentioned above, and allows their similarities and differences to be demonstrated in a clear and straightforward taxonomy. This, in turn, allows for a superior operationalisation of the concept than has been possible hitherto. Our overall conceptual framework of policy capacity is shown in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 ¿Policy Capacity: Skills and Resources

This framework contains several significant departures from past efforts in defining policy capacity. First of all, it is not restricted to a particular function, stage or task in a policy process and covers all policy stages, including agenda setting, formulation, decision-making, implementation and evaluation. It recognises that the nature of challenges in performing these policy functions is quite different, and adequate capacity in carrying out one function does not guarantee the effective performance of other functions. At the same time, it is true that there are often skills and resources that can be shared across task environments.

The second significant difference is that the framework looks beyond the government to understand capacity, and recognises that a wide range of organisations, such as political parties, NGOs, private businesses, and international organisations, as well as multiple government agencies, are involved in policy processes and thus affect the government's capacity to perform. Therefore, while the policy capacity of the government plays a key role in determining policy outcomes, and is the principal subject of inquiry here, the capacity of other stakeholders in policy-making also needs to be taken into account in a similar way.

Third, the taxonomy allows for a nested model of capacities. At the system level, capabilities such as the level of support and trust a public agency enjoys from its political masters and from the society at large (Blind, 2006) as well as the nature of the economic and security systems within which policy-makers operate, are key components of policy capacity. Factors such as trust and available personnel and financial resources are critical determinants of organisational capability and thus of public managers' and analysts' ability to perform their policy work. Political support both from above and below is vital because agencies and managers must be considered legitimate by citizens and policy subjects in order to access resources and support from their authorising institutions and constituencies on a continuing basis, and such resources must also be available for award in the first place (Painter and Pierre 2005).

Fourth, it is worth repeating that the conceptual framework defines policy capacity as the combination of skills and resources. Analytical-level capacities help to ensure that policy actions are technically sound in the sense that they can contribute to attainment of policy goals if carried out; operational-level capacities allow resources to be aligned with policy actions so that they can be implemented in practice, and political-level capacities help to obtain and sustain political support for policy actions (Wu et al., 2010; Tiernan & Wanna, 2006; Gleeson et al., 2009; Gleeson et al., 2011; Fukuyama, 2013; Rotberg, 2014). Although these political, analytical and operational-level capacities are inter-connected, they are governed by different considerations and their contributions to policy process are separable and irreplaceable. They may not all be required for particular actions to succeed, rather some may be more critical than others, a possibility allowed for in this framework's arrangement (Howlett & Ramesh, 2014). The categorisation thus offers considerable advantages in the application of the concept of policy capacity in practice, as improvements over the three types of competences are governed by different processes and considerations which are lost when any are ignored or incorrectly juxtaposed.

Present definitions of policy capacity tend to focus on the macro level, such as the whole government or the country. Yet policy capacity at this level does not exist in a vacuum, and the skills and competences displayed by individual players and institutions can play key roles in drawing up policy. At the individual level, policy professionals ¿ such as policy-makers, public managers, and policy analysts ¿ play a key role in determining how well various tasks and functions in the policy process are conducted. The capacity of these professionals is determined by their knowledge on policy processes; their skills in policy analysis and evaluation; their managerial expertise; and their political judgment. At the same time, however, high levels of individual policy capacity may not guarantee policy effectiveness because resources and capacities are required at the organisational and system levels.

At the organisational level, the availability and effectiveness of information infrastructure and human and financial resource management systems, and the level of political support, can enhance or detract from individual capabilities. Organisations that unduly limit individual decision-making responsibility or undermine morale among policy professionals, for example, can make it hard for an agency to carry out its remit (Tiernan and Wanna 2006; Gleeson et al 2011).

This multi-dimensional perspective on policy and governance capacity allows us to understand better why policy failures are widespread and persistent. Policy successes demand high level of capacities in multiple dimensions ¿ analytical, operational and political ¿ but such conditions are difficult to meet in practice.

A key advantage of the conceptual framework outlined above is that it offers a practical tool for diagnosing and addressing the policy capacity of governments and agencies.

References

Bakvis, H. 'Rebuilding Policy Capacity in the Era of the Fiscal Dividend: A Report from

CanadaGovernance 13, no. 1 (2000): 71-103.

Blind, Peri K. Building Trust in Government in the Twenty First Century: Review of Literature and Emerging Issues, New York UNDESA 2006

Bridgman, Peter, and Glyn Davis. The Australian Policy Handbook. Allen & Unwin, 2000.

Bullock H, Mountford J, Stanley R (2001) Better Policy-Making. London: Centre for Management and Policy Studies, Cabinet Office, United Kingdom.

Canadian Government (1996) Strengthening Our Policy Capacity. Report of the Task Force on Strengthening the Policy Capacity of the Federal Government.

Fukuyama, Francis. 2013. 'What Is Governance?' Governance 26 (3): 347-368.

Gleeson, Deborah H., David G. Legge, and Deirdre O'Neill. 'Evaluating Health Policy Capacity: Learning from International and Australian Experience.' Australia and New Zealand Health Policy 6, no. 1 (February 26, 2009)

Gleeson, Deborah, David Legge, Deirdre O'Neill, and Monica Pfeffer. 'Negotiating Tensions in

Developing Organizational Policy Capacity: Comparative Lessons to Be Drawn.' Journal of

Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 13, no. 3 (June 2011): 237-263.

Gregory, Robert, and Zsuzsanna Lonti. 'Chasing Shadows? Performance Measurement of Policy Advice in New Zealand Government Departments.' Public Administration 86, no. 3 (2008): 837-56.

Holmberg, Sören, and Bo Rothstein. Good Government: The Relevance of Political Science. Cheltenham, U.K.; Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar, 2012.

Howlett, M., and M. Ramesh. 'The Two Orders of Governance Failure: Design Mismatches and Policy Capacity Issues in Modern Governance.' Policy and Society, Is Governance for Everybody?, 33, no. 4 (December 2014): 317-27.

Howlett, Michael, Jonathan Craft, and Lindsay Zibrik. 'Government Communication and

Democratic Governance: Electoral and Policy-Related Information Campaigns in Canada.'

Policy and Society 29, no. 1 (January 2010): 13-22. 

Painter, M., and J. Pierre, eds. Challenges to State Policy Capacity: Global Trends and Comparative Perspectives. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

Parsons, W. 'Not Just Steering But Weaving: Relevant Knowledge and the Craft of Building Policy Capacity and Coherence.' Australian Journal of Public Administration 63, no. 1 (2004): 43-57.

Peters, B. Guy (2004) The Search for Coordination and Coherence in Public Policy: Return to the Center?

Rotberg, Robert I. 'Good Governance Means Performance and Results.' Governance, 2014,

n/a-n/a. doi:10.1111/gove.12084.

Salamon, L. M. 'The New Governance and the Tools of Public Action.' In The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance, edited by L.M. Salamon, 1-47. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Salomonsen, Heidi Houlberg, and Tim Knudsen. 'Changes in Public Service Bargains:

Ministers and Civil Servants in Denmark.' Public Administration 89, no. 3 (September 1,

2011): 1015-1035.

Savoia, Antonio and Kunal Sen (2014) Measurement, Evolution, Determinants, and Consequences Of State Capacity: A Review Of Recent Research, Journal of Economic Surveys.

Tiernan, A., and Wanna, J. 'Competence, Capacity, Capability: Towards Conceptual Clarity in the Discourse of Declining Policy Skills.' presented at the Govnet International Conference, Australian National University. Canberra: ANU, 2006.

Waller, Mike. 'Evaluating Policy Advice.' Australian Journal of Public Administration 51, no. 4 (1992): 440-49.

Wang, Wen. 'Improving the Capacity to Govern Based on Rules in China.' Public Administration Review, 2013

Wu, Xun, M. Ramesh, Michael Howlett, and Scott Fritzen. The Public Policy Primer: Managing Public Policy. London: Routledge, 2010.

Wu, X., M. Ramesh, and M. Howlett. 'Policy Capacity: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Policy Competences and Capabilities.' Policy and Society, 2015.