Comment
What the Olympics can tell us about policy making
The Olympics are now just one year away but the Games are not just of interest to sports fans; they also reveal crucial lessons for policy making.
The Olympics are now just one year away but the Games are not just of interest to sports fans; they also reveal crucial lessons for government policy making
Sand fills Horseguards Parade. Stadiums rise over Stratford. And the big clock in Trafalgar Square spells out the message clearly: the Olympics are now just one year away.
But the Games are not just of interest to sports fans; they also reveal crucial lessons for government in general. For the organisers, London 2012 represents a set of connected challenges – for example, the way in which tickets are distributed can have knock-on effects on a whole range of areas, such as transport, accommodation and security.
As we say in our recent report System Stewardship, this is the situation increasingly faced by the rest of government. Policy makers find themselves overseeing interlinked challenges, often in collaboration with businesses and charities.
But how best to deal with these challenges? The previous Labour administration’s approach was based on driving results from the centre, by monitoring the extent to which targets were ‘delivered’. The coalition’s approach is much more decentralised, with Whitehall creating the conditions for others to achieve public outcomes.
In contrast, the Olympics emphasize the importance of ensuring policy makers can skilfully match responses to the nature of the problem. A one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Consider how these tasks differ:
Building the stadium
© Diego Barbieri/Shutterstock.com
The stadium essentially needs to be ‘right first time’: there is little value in experimentation. The goal is to produce a defined object by a defined time, and the organisers have considerable control over how this happens. Here, clear target-setting and project management from the centre will be the most effective approach.
Selling the tickets
For ticketing, the goals are more complex. The organisers want to raise money by selling tickets, but they also want to distribute tickets in a way that most people consider ‘fair’ and in line with Olympic ideals. Furthermore, although the organisers control how the system works, its success depends on how people react to the options open to them. And, as our MINDSPACE report shows, people may not react in the ways policy makers expect. Therefore, there is value in prototyping the system in advance, in order to test how people will react, and leaving room to adapt the process later, should it appear that the dual policy goals are not being achieved.
Regenerating Stratford
A crucial part of London’s bid was that the Games would kick start growth and development in East London. For a challenge like this, the goals are truly complex – there is even little agreement about what a ‘regenerated’ Stratford would look like. Moreover, this is an area over which government obviously has little direct control: people cannot be mandated to move into an area, nor business to open up there. Indeed, as Jane Jacobs famously argued, attempting to exert such control may be self-defeating. Here, a high-level goal coupled with opportunism, adaptation and enabling frameworks is likely to have the best shot at success.
Of course, these three exemplars cannot represent the whole range of challenges government faces. That’s why in System Stewardship we outline a set of realistic criteria that can help policy makers identify the right approach, regardless of the challenge they confront. But, at the very least, they would benefit if they started thinking whether this challenge is more like building a stadium, running a ticket system, or regenerating Stratford.