<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog</link>
	<description>Institute for Government Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 08:28:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Am I a little bit pregnant? Why language matters in policy making</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5945/am-i-a-little-bit-pregnant-why-language-matters-in-policy-making/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5945/am-i-a-little-bit-pregnant-why-language-matters-in-policy-making/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 15:13:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nick O'Shea</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Connecting Policy with Practice: People Powered Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Policy-making]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=5945</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[However, before that work gets underway, I wanted to focus on one of the themes from the first meeting of Connecting Policy and Practice programme – that of policy becoming increasingly underpinned by economic and business models. Language matters My course-mate, Pat Russell correctly reminded me that there are ten* types of people • Those who understand binary • And those who don’t. She is right; and in a world where suddenly the answer to all the world’s problems seems to be economic, there is an alarming use of economic jargon making its way into how we talk about new policies and public service transformation. Sadly, much of this language is being used incorrectly and at times, incoherently. The reason accuracy here matters is that economic language is increasingly used to make the case for significant changes to public services. But when used erroneously, such words become meaningless and can call those proposals into question. Binary: All or nothing For example, there has been some chatter at a few consultation events and in the justice sector recently about the potential for semi binary measures of reducing reoffending. What can this mean? The best thing about binary measures is that, a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5945/am-i-a-little-bit-pregnant-why-language-matters-in-policy-making/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Championing an innovative public sector</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5907/championing-an-innovative-public-sector/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5907/championing-an-innovative-public-sector/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 13:42:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Marco Steinberg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Better policy making]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=5907</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Across the world, systems of government are increasingly under strain, caught in a rut towards obsolescence – that’s my claim, at least. Whenever I declare my position many are surprised. &#8216;But you are from Finland! Surely you are not talking about Finland too?&#8217; Well, yes I am. Within the European context, Finland has the same underlying challenges as the rest of the Union. Our symptoms may appear less severe, but the problem is the same. And the underlying problem is that our governments have not been built for the challenges they are facing. They are siloed and administrating, rather than integrated and innovating. And while the public sector is still relatively strong, its size and legacy impedes it from doing more of what we need it to do. Now, don’t get me wrong – I am a huge supporter of a strong public sector and actually think that Finland has a great opportunity to use the size and strength of the sector for innovation. My argument is not about reducing the public sector in favor of market innovation. Rather, we need to answer the questions: how should the public sector be designed to meet today’s challenges? what are the principles [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5907/championing-an-innovative-public-sector/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stepping outside the day job – the start of something different</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5880/stepping-outside-the-day-job-the-start-of-something-different/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5880/stepping-outside-the-day-job-the-start-of-something-different/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 14:45:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Russell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Connecting Policy with Practice: People Powered Change]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=5880</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So why am I doing this? A life-long civil servant, I have had many roles in the Department for Work and Pensions – from frontline operations to policy delivery and strategy development. I have seen excellent service delivery – and bad! I have seen policy developed with great thought and insight and I have seen policies not deliver as expected because crucial factors were overlooked or not thought through. But above all, I have worked with – and still do – people who want to make a difference to the lives of citizens who need support and who get frustrated when the system just doesn’t work properly. I am currently working on Social Justice – the part of government that is helping the most disadvantaged people turn their lives around. The day of the first workshop. The prospect of time out of the office to focus on something in depth was exhilarating and there was a real buzz among people arriving at IfG’s offices in Carlton Gardens. Everyone I spoke to was keen to be there and seemed really committed to the agenda. Chatting over coffee was a great way to mix informally and I could see people making connections [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5880/stepping-outside-the-day-job-the-start-of-something-different/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Probation reform: doing it all?</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5861/probation-reform-doing-it-all/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5861/probation-reform-doing-it-all/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 15:08:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom Gash</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PbR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Probation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=5861</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Chris Grayling is in parliament today explaining his complex set of probation reforms to MPs. Never one to shirk a challenge, Grayling plans to: Outsource the bulk of probation services, predominantly to private sector organisations Extend services to those who have served prison sentences of under 12 months, who previously were not monitored post-release Introduce a new contractual payment mechanism, which will aim to pay providers more when those they are supervising offending either less or not at all Change the conditions of supervision for ex-offenders (ideas floated include compulsory cannabis testing and GPS tagging) Significantly reduce the amount spent on probation services ; all while changing the geographical basis on which these services are provided Doing any one of these things would be difficult. Doing all of them makes this join the list of some of the most ambitious public service reforms currently being pursued – along with Universal Credit, NHS reform and schools reform. The Institute for Governments’ work shows that creating new ‘public service markets’ is difficult and rarely do government or new public service providers get things right first time. Ambition increases the risks that things will go wrong – and a safer route would have [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5861/probation-reform-doing-it-all/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>News management</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5850/news-management/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5850/news-management/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 16:31:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jill Rutter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Parliament and the political process]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=5850</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The UK has no equivalent of the US’s state of the union speech – when the President holds the Houses of Congress in awe with a tour of the world interwoven with some folksy stories and gets a standing ovation. Instead we have the odd ritual of the Queen announcing a series of legislative commitments, followed by a bit of ritual House of Commons knockabout. And the one person who gets an uninterrupted hour to pronounce on the state of the Britain is the Chancellor in his Budget. Over time, the Queen’s speech has evolved from a very formal list of bills into a statement of political intent. And that is why we now have “statement” legislation. The Government wants to signal toughness on immigration – so that is the flagship bill – even though it is far from clear that the new powers it will contain add much to existing ones. There is another – inevitable – bill to &#8216;cut crime and protect national security&#8217; – to add further, no doubt, to the 4000 criminal offences created between 1983 and 2009. And legislation to boost growth – which might be asking a bit too much of the law. It [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5850/news-management/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Beyond the spreadsheets and on to the streets: what policy makers can learn from the front line</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5826/beyond-the-spreadsheets-and-on-to-the-streets-what-policy-makers-can-learn-from-the-front-line/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5826/beyond-the-spreadsheets-and-on-to-the-streets-what-policy-makers-can-learn-from-the-front-line/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 11:38:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nicola Hughes</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Better policy making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[better policy making]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=5826</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While efforts to improve use of data and evidence in policy making are all to the good, stories and experience must also be part of the policy making toolkit. Our partnership with the Big Lottery Fund is helping policy makers connect with the real world. Going out, observing, listening, talking to the people that are affected by the policy decisions you help make or seeing a public service in action might sound obvious but is still too much the exception than the rule. Ministers have a ready source of stories from their constituency surgeries and out on the campaign trail, but the civil servants advising them in Whitehall have too few opportunities to leave their desks and develop an in-depth understanding of what is really going on. That disconnect can frustrate both sides, and is acknowledged in the Civil Service Reform Plan. The IfG and Big Lottery Fund programme which recently kicked off &#8211; Connecting Policy with Practice &#8211; aims to give policy makers a broader understanding of how policy ideas translate (or don’t) on the ground. It connects a group of 30 Whitehall policymakers and frontline practitioners running services for people with multiple and complex needs, and for young [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5826/beyond-the-spreadsheets-and-on-to-the-streets-what-policy-makers-can-learn-from-the-front-line/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Politics of prosperity</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5832/politics-of-prosperity/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5832/politics-of-prosperity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 14:25:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Miguel Coelho</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Better policy making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[growth]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=5832</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier this week, the politicians on the Public Accounts Committee joined the long list of people concerned about the UK’s infrastructure deficit. Their report portrayed the Treasury’s Infrastructure Plan as “a list of projects, not a real plan with a strategic vision and clear priorities”. It urged government to “ensure that the legislative and regulatory framework provides sufficient certainty to secure the necessary private sector investment…[as] uncertainty over government policy can deter or delay investment…and lead to additional costs”. It also noted that, in this regard, the statutory framework provided by the Energy Bill is “coming rather late in the day, when the energy crunch is fast approaching”. These and other remarks echo the results of the London School of Economics Growth Commission, which found that lack of clarity about strategy, frequent reversals of policy and prevarication over key decisions undermine investment in infrastructure. One example illustrates the wider problem. It has been clear for years that the UK’s power-generating capacity would come under pressure in the second half of this decade as there were plans in place to close down dirty coal and ageing gas plants. Yet, seven Secretaries of State and five white papers in the past ten [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5832/politics-of-prosperity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>To bee or not to bee: giving science advice in government is not for the fainthearted</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5815/to-bee-or-not-to-bee-giving-science-advice-in-government-is-not-for-the-fainthearted/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5815/to-bee-or-not-to-bee-giving-science-advice-in-government-is-not-for-the-fainthearted/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:12:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jill Rutter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Better policy making]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=5815</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With a month of taking office, the new Government Chief Science Adviser, Sir Mark Walport, has become a pantomime villain to at least one environmental commentator, branded as an industry stooge for an article he wrote in the Financial Times in advance of the European debate. Indeed the article went further – to claim that science advisers did less speaking truth to power and instead acted as front men (fall guys) for politicians. So what does the bee story tell us about scientific advice and government? First, it illustrates that scientific advice can inform – but not necessarily settle – issues. In this case there are laboratory studies which suggest significant potential for neonicotinoids to damage bee colonies – but some inconclusive field trials by Defra’s science agency. Some experts criticise the quality of those trials. Defra itself acknowledges the need for more research. Scientists disagree on what the balance of the current evidence base suggests in the right course of action. Second, it illustrates how rapidly evidence is conflated with values. So environmental groups think the evidence points to the need for a ban; those who use neonicotinoids think it doesn’t. Evidence becomes more like evidence in a court [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5815/to-bee-or-not-to-bee-giving-science-advice-in-government-is-not-for-the-fainthearted/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alternatives to the pulpit</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5800/alternatives-to-the-pulpit/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5800/alternatives-to-the-pulpit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:54:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom Gash</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Better policy making]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=5800</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan-Smith has urged the wealthy to hand back their benefits. Shadow Secretary of State for Health, Andy Burnham, meanwhile, has re-opened the low pay debate, urging firms to pay staff the ‘living wage’ and suggesting Labour might legislate to end ‘zero hours contracts’, which force employees to be available for work but don’t guarantee any set hours of employment. Both politicians are arguably speaking out because they have been frustrated in their desires to achieve change through legislation. David Cameron limited Duncan-Smith’s room for manoeuvre by pledging in the election campaign to protect pensioner benefits. Andy Burnham, meanwhile, lacks the necessary power to change wage rules now – and, if returned to office, might lack the appetite to impose a regional minimum wage. The idea that a government with little money and no appetite to regulate or tax has to fall back on appeals to a higher morality to change behaviour ignores a set of potentially effective tools, as we have argued before. Small, simple administrative changes can have big effects. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has proven, for example, that changes to the wording of tax letters can have a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5800/alternatives-to-the-pulpit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Progress on progress: how (not to) measure prosperity</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5773/progress-on-progress-how-not-to-measure-prosperity/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5773/progress-on-progress-how-not-to-measure-prosperity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:34:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Miguel Coelho</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Better policy making]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=5773</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is well known that the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is ill-suited as a measure of material living standards. Efforts to find alternatives abound, ranging from surveys of well-being to a multiplicity of measures that lump together various indicators of prosperity into one overall score. We have contributed to this debate through the LSE Growth Commission report published earlier in the year. Last week this somewhat crowded and competitive arena welcomed a new member to much fanfare &#8211; the ‘Social Progress Index’ (SPI), published by a Washington-based think-tank. It made headlines the fact that the UK came second amongst a sample of fifty countries, outstripping the United States, Germany, France and Japan for overall progress in providing for ‘basic human needs,’ laying the ‘foundations for individuals to enhance and sustain wellbeing’ and offering ‘opportunity for all citizens to reach their full potential.’ The team of US economists (Harvard and MIT) that produced the index make bold claims about the distinctiveness of their creation. This index, they argue, is different in that it does not allow for standard, uni-dimensional economic indicators like income, but focuses instead on a broad range of social indicators that seek to capture what ‘really matters to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5773/progress-on-progress-how-not-to-measure-prosperity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
