Namur, 18 March 2025
1. The capacity to develop public and collective policies
The way in which a government deals with societal problems and the extent to which it succeeds are not abstract questions but are highly dependent on its capacity to develop public and collective policies (policy capacity) [1]. The effective governments of today are those that have grasped the fact that democratic governance involves better control of the tools that enhance this capacity and that the complexity of the issues requires extensive involvement from actors far exceeding the former methods of consultation and dialogue [2]. This is the thinking that has long led me to speak of public and collective policies, such that contractualisation entailing close cooperation between the various spheres of governance [3] appears to be the only possible way to achieve the common purposes and objectives. Professors Michael Howlett, M. Ramesh and Anthony Perl wrote as much in 2020:
It is important to note that understanding policy capacity requires extending examination beyond the government itself, recognizing that a wide range of organizations, such as political parties, NGOs, private business, and international organizations, as well as multiple government agencies, are involved in policy processes and thus their capacities affect government’s performance. That is, the skills and resources of governments have counterpart in policy-oriented NGO’s that need to be nurtured so that government can be effective. Therefore, while the policy capacity of government plays the key role in determining policy outcomes, the capacity of other stakeholders in policy-making is also an important contributing factor to what will get accomplished [4].
This approach conveys the importance and value of improving the governance competencies and abilities of stakeholders, and therefore also of citizens, where it is a question of responding to the issues and needs of the present and anticipating those of the possible futures.
It is also worth noting that many analysts take the view that no public policy is worthy of the name if it is not collective [5]. Consequently, their definition of public policy itself incorporates interaction between public and private stakeholders, and less frequently citizens [6].
2. In search of a public policy cycle model
There is a long-standing tradition in political science, dating back to Yale Professor Harold Lasswell (1902-1978) [7], of trying to construct, in a normative rather than descriptive way, a public policy cycle model to promote quality decision-making and implementation. From an initial seven stages, this model has evolved and continues to change in line with innovations in science policy and with the views held and the experiments conducted on these processes by researchers and practitioners. Other models are well known and mostly more recent: these include the Harvard Policy Cycle [8] and the European Geosciences Union (EGU) [9], not forgetting the works of Charles E. Lindblom and Edward J. Woodhouse [10], Thomas R. Dye [11], Paul Cairney [12], Michael Hill and Frédéric Varone [13], to mention only those that have been a direct inspiration for me on this issue. They are all of the view that public policy can be modelled in cyclical form, despite the fact that this process is an extremely complex phenomenon, involving a very large number of initiatives, decisions and actions taken by a multitude of actors and organisations. Moreover, they themselves are influenced throughout the iteration process by other operators acting within the system or in its environment [14]. This process, despite the representations made in its regard, is clearly not linear insofar as the repeated to-ing and fro-ing and feedback sometimes means that it resembles an Echternach dancing procession. Meanwhile, their normative, practical and descriptive value is certainly up for debate [15].
At the same time, it is clear that, during this period which stretches from Harold Lasswell to Frédéric Varone, the policy design landscape has also fundamentally changed and influenced the processes. It would be an understatement to say that, despite some still visible or expressed resistance, we have, in the course of a few decades, moved from orthodox government [16] by democratic nation-state to multiactor governance. The latter extends, perhaps, to the form of governmentality favoured by the French philosopher Michel Foucault (1926-1984), whereby citizens play an active role in their own governance since the government is no longer synonymous with the State [17]. In any event, it is a current preoccupation of science and political sociology[18], but let us agree that we are still a long way from this formula: associations often block access to citizens, as unions do to workers and employers’ organisations to companies.
This transformation in public governance, described in detail by Professor Jacob Torfing from Roskilde University, has, in the Western world, gone through at least ten evolutions:
– from sovereignty based on representation of the common good to interactive political leadership with the actors and citizens who support the elected representatives, with a view to introducing new solutions to the issues escalated to them;
– from compliant implementation of public policy programmes to value creation for user, citizens and the community;
– from governance and management based on rigid control to trust-based governance and management, stimulating dialogue between the parties;
– from effective use of existing public resources to mobilisation of new resources, with an increasing focus on co-production and co-creation;
– from monocentric coordination to multicentric coordination based on multi-stakeholder negotiation;
– from governance by the central authority as regards economic regulations and social policy to multilevel (local to international) governance;
– the gradual switch from hard power, based on legal and political coercion, to the use of soft power, based on voluntary standards and continuous dialogue;
– from intraorganisational leadership to interorganisational leadership within networks and partnerships, which creates opportunities for collaboration and mobilisation of economic and civil society resources;
– from public organisations based on stability and continuous improvement to disruptive forms of innovation to solve difficult problems during a period of uncertainty;
– from the traditional passive democracy of the citizen spectator, voter and client to an interactive democracy based on direct participation and political deliberation [19].
This new orthodoxy in public governance is also encouraged and, to a certain extent, driven by the international institutions – World Bank, IMF, United Nations, and even the OECD and the European Commission – which highlight the values and practices that underpin good democratic governance: respect for human rights and the rule of law, government transparency and accountability [20], administrative effectiveness and efficiency, absence of corruption, democratic inclusion, and so on [21].
I am, naturally, aware that, since the beginning of the 21st century, this model has been challenged by the practices of the digital economy and by illiberal tendencies [22] which alter government styles, as Brexit has revealed: the United Kingdom has reverted to a previous style, that of the Churchillian government, whereas, since the 1990s, Downing Street had been a pioneering place in terms of governance [23]. These new changes in style rely on technological developments: control of the internet, rollout of social media with no real regulation, widespread and haphazard use of artificial intelligence, etc. Government styles have also been radically altered by the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 and are affected by the uncertainties posed by climate change for the future. There have been some notable severe weather events, such as those experienced by the Rhineland-Palatinate, North Rhine-Westphalia and Wallonia regions in 2022. On the back of a powerful discourse on the return of the State as the protector and linchpin of civilisation, these emergences have, first and foremost, been stress tests on the capacity of both public and private stakeholders to respond to challenges in major crisis settings. These emergences have also been a breeding ground for the appearance of populist and messianic figures who, taking advantage of institutional systems that are often incomprehensible to citizens, challenge the rules and behaviours of liberal democracy inherited from the 18th century. Their excessiveness reinforces even further the need for rational policymaking, supported by scientific research, even if we know the limits of evidence-based policy [24]. On the pretext of common sense and drawing on their own leadership, these individuals ignore both the fundamental teachings of the sociologists Michel Crozier (1922-2013) and Erhard Friedberg on the involvement of stakeholders as a condition of system change [25], and the demonstrations of the economist Mariana Mazzucato on the innovation capacities of the public actor and the need to create dynamic public organisations [26]. They also forget that striving for rationality in public action is based first and foremost on heuristics [27] and on the accuracy, quality, availability and transparency of data, indicators and measures [28], without which deliberations take the form of water cooler or – should we say in March 2025 – Oval Office talk.
3. A process for the public and collective policies of our time
The model below shows the policy process or cycle itself (in blue). It is accompanied throughout its course by two continuous dynamics which I wanted to differentiate: the watch process (in orange) and the evaluation process (in green). They cover the entire cycle. The centre (in yellow) draws our attention to the fact that the stakeholders are involved throughout the entire cycle (not only at the beginning), during which they interact with the operators of the public and collective policies. Moreover, they are also operators of the policies.
Public and collective policy process (PhD2050, March 2025)
The five phases of the public and collective policy process are as follows:
– identification of the needs and issues;
– (co-)construction and comprehension of the objectives and impacts and selection of resources;
– governmental, contractual, legislative and regulatory legitimation;
– implementation, management and monitoring in line with resources;
– analysis, corrections, continuation or cessation of policies.
3.1. Identification of the needs and issues
Political science postulates that there is no naturality in public problems, and that no social reality constitutes an issue in itself [29]. Any problem is therefore a social construct, a product of voluntary action organised by a number of interacting stakeholders [30].
Thus, the definition – social, then political – of a problem always represents a collective construction, directly linked to the perceptions, representations, interests and values of the stakeholders in question, either individuals or organised groups. Any social reality must therefore be perceived as a historical construction, situated in time and space; consequently, it always depends on the individuals affected by the problem or whose behaviour is identified, rightly or wrongly, as being the source of the problem [31].
Therefore, private or social problems are expressed or driven by civil society, companies or international institutions, and those individuals referred to as policy entrepreneurs by the political science professors John Kingdom and Paul Cairney. Policy entrepreneurs seek opportunities (policy windows) to put issues on the political agenda and become involved in solving them [32]. The demands or requirements of public intervention become public problems only when they are actually put on the political agenda and the public authorities take responsibility for them. It should also be noted that problems previously recognised as public can also be returned to the private sphere. They are generally dealt with according to their severity, scale, novelty, urgency, possible operationalisation, or the pressure exerted by stakeholders, including the media, for them to be put on the agenda [33].
It is often asserted that any public and collective policy needs clear and precise definition of its objectives. This agenda-setting work is not innocuous, since the way in which a problem is identified, and therefore established, will determine in part the ways in which it is perceived, considered and handled [34]. Admittedly, political agenda-setting falls partly within monitoring which will enable anticipation, in other words, taking action to prevent certain threats from emerging or to facilitate the emergence of opportunities. This process, which is developed with and by stakeholders and institutions [35], accompanies the entire political cycle and interacts with it. The timescales are such that there can be no question of tangible political change without constant listening and reviewing in relation to the environment and how it is evolving. Nevertheless, in conjunction with the multiple challenges linked to climate, energy, geopolitical and financial risks, and security, policymaking has become extremely politicised in the European States and, therefore, at the decision-making level. These difficulties strengthen the role and the importance of the administration and the government officials who help to define the problems and set the political agenda, and therefore the policies that will be implemented [36].
The role played by foresight as a governance tool in political agenda-setting is familiar to all practitioners, particularly where such foresight is highly participatory and deliberative and involves stakeholders, actors and even citizens [37]. The objective of proactive governance is to ensure that the agenda is not constantly defined by the daily tussle with dramatic events or a succession of crises.
The needs [38] and issues [39] are clearly numerous, infinite even. How are they defined? How are they appropriated? How are they filtered? They may originate from the elected representatives themselves (for instance, via the political parties) or from outside that sphere (via social actors, scientists or international institutions). Social realities may take on a political nature through a process of politicisation – immigration is one example. Appropriation of the issue, therefore, means putting it on the political agenda, institutionalising it. The way in which the need or issue is expressed is key, since it involves clearly determining the precise question which the policy will have to address, and defining the scope of the intervention, in other words, the elements that will be taken into account. Knowledge of the field of intervention – the themes, the analysis levels (macro, meso, micro) and the various subsystems addressed (economic, social, planning, etc.) – is also essential for defining the need in detail.
3.2. (Co-)construction and comprehension of the objectives and impacts and selection of resources
As part of the co-construction dynamic, stakeholders share their understanding of the need or issue, compare their points of view and seek convergences to find innovative solutions to solve the problem (policy formulation) [40]. This process involves highlighting the possible alternatives and the various options in accordance with the usable resources, whether directly available or not. This is not merely a diplomatic style of work; this phase also has to rely on more elaborate methodological work involving testimonies from stakeholders and social partners, hearings with experts, formal public consultations, consensus conferences, and ex-ante evaluations or preliminary impact analyses. The latter involve trying to establish the most objective comparison possible between what will happen with the political initiative that is to be adopted and what would have happened if the programme or measure had not been implemented [41]. When the stakeholders have reached an agreement, they draw up a narrative [42] and, as stakeholders, they formally commit to the policy to be adopted in order to drive it or support it.
These works form the basis of clear objectives that can be consolidated then fixed, in other words the precise description of the status that must be achieved thanks to the solution that will be adopted and any resources that will be allocated to it. The effects of this deliberative policy-formulation work are never neutral. Even when it is carried out with all the required objectivity, somebody wins and somebody loses [43], unless genuinely win-win solutions prevail… Parliaments are usually fairly well equipped to prepare for this public policy formulation task.
The budgetary issue is clearly crucial. In seeking to respond to the issues and needs, the elected representatives, along with all the other actors and stakeholders, are faced with this constraint: resources are always limited, if not scarce, as a result of national or European standards[44] and the macroeconomic balances that underpin the global system. Apart from budgetary issues, it is also important to mention the constraints associated with the international and constitutional legal standards that delineate public policies and harness the creativity of policymakers. Thus, the demands of the task to be achieved are clear to see. As the Canadian professor Michael Howlett wrote, formulation therefore requires at a minimum that governments have a significant number of officials with a minimum level of analytical capacity, defined as the ability to access technical and scientific knowledge and analysis techniques and to apply them [45].
In addition to the objectives, the operational elements define the intervention instruments and procedures, and the measures to be taken to achieve the objectives and to define the intentions towards the target groups (regulatory procedures, delegations, financial incentives and disincentives, grants, partnerships, co-productions, public enterprises, market creation, investments, institutional reorganisations, etc.). The number of methods leading to formulation is limitless: decision trees, cost-benefit analyses, complex system modelling, etc. It is engineering interlinked with the work of governmental, contractual, legislative and regulatory legitimation that will determine the format of the implementation.
3.3. Governmental, contractual, legislative and regulatory legitimation
This involves transforming the political mandate in the broad sense and legitimating it through all of the regulatory standards and actions required to apply the public policy. This may take the form of a Political-Administrative Programme (PAP). This defines in legal terms the political mandate formulated by the legislature as a solution to the public problem to be solved, in other words, the objectives to be achieved and the rights and obligations imposed on the target groups [46].
Even if the decision process is iterative and runs throughout the entire cycle, from determination of preliminary enquiries and studies to stakeholder meetings and selection and formulation of issues, the formal decisions are taken in the context of the standards chosen or imposed: signing a contract that mobilises stakeholders to shape the future, voting on a decree or a government order, etc.[47].
The action plan consists of all the draft decisions, and it sets the priorities in time and space as regards the groups that will be affected by the adopted policy and the conditions for the specific allocation and consumption of resources. It also involves determining the implementation operator while ensuring that it has the capacities, means and influence to bring the policy to fruition and achieve the objectives within the chosen scope and timescale [48].
3.4. Implementation, management and monitoring in line with resources
Implementation consists of all the processes and actions (outputs) that, after the legitimation phase, are aimed at delivering the objectives of a public or collective policy. Implementation involves confrontation with the reality on the ground at the point at which the services and the priority and secondary actions will demonstrate their capacity to stabilise or transform the target. The implementation of a policy is in essence a sociopolitical process whose rollout and whose substantial and institutional results often remain unpredictable [49]. Interaction with stakeholders and operators, including non-governmental, is continuous. These actors accelerate, decelerate or even impede the implementation depending on their culture, their appropriation of the programme, their involvement and their motivation. Genuine interplay can be observed at the centre or on the periphery of the implementation: the actors that drive the public or collective policy, the target groups, the end recipients, the third-party groups within the decision environment, those that will benefit from the policy, and those that will be harmed by it. The question also arises of the power of government officials over policy formulation and over their political agenda setting and implementation [50].
According to Paul Cairney, implementation failure can be attributed to at least four main factors: poor execution, where it is not realised as planned; a poor policy, where it is implemented correctly but does not have the expected effect; misfortune, where the implemented policy ought to work but is undermined by factors beyond the control of policy-makers; and, lastly, too wide a gap between expectations and achievements, particularly if the expectations are unrealistic [51].
The success criteria, meanwhile, are well known:
– the policy objectives are clear, coherent, well communicated and understood, and are not subject to multiple interpretations;
– the policy is based on a robust theory of cause-effect relationships, which favour its planning and implementation;
– the necessary resources are allocated to the programme (budgets, personnel, physical materials, etc.) and driven by an appropriate, reliable operator;
– the policy is implemented by competent officials and actors who comply with the rules;
– the dependency relationships are minimal, which means that there are few obstacles, veto points, or links in the deliverables chain;
– support from influential groups is maintained throughout the process, even if it is a long-term policy;
– conditions beyond the control of policymakers (socioeconomic, natural, demographic conditions, etc.) are not able to compromise the process significantly [52].
Seeking coherence between all the actions is undoubtedly also a success criterion: the need for the measures to enhance one another rather than impact the system by pulling it in different directions.
3.5. Analysis, corrections, continuation or cessation of policies
Policy determines politics, in other words, new policies are often implemented mainly to resolve problems caused by previous policies. Often public policies continue, or are very slightly revamped or even disguised, out of simplicity or laziness, but mostly because innovation is difficult. It is easier to amend a policy than to create a new one[53].
I should add that it takes a great deal of courage and some good arguments to halt a policy that has been implemented for a while, particularly when it does not involve a political opponent, or is popular or targets recipients who like you – which obviously does not mean that it is effective.
The risk of the cycle is its vocation: to keep pursuing. Circling round and round in search of the solution to the same issues and challenges.
3.6. The ongoing watch process
Establishing a problem is a process that is continuous, non-linear, and open throughout the policy cycle. As previously mentioned, to-ing and fro-ing is possible and even desirable: the environment, the actors, the target groups and the problem itself all evolve. At each stage of policy formulation and implementation, the question is the extent to which the content, stakeholders and institutional context of the policy being studied remain linked to the initial definition of the problem to be solved. Watching is therefore essential: it must be organised in a professional manner and it must report not through occasional meetings (milestones) but continuously. It is also important to impose traceability for certain issues [54].
As Peter Knoepfel and his colleagues have written, a sequential approach to public policies which fails to consider the continuous redefinition process could obscure a fundamental issue in any public action which involves taking into account any substantial or institutional changes in the current policy. A redefinition of the problem to be solved – for instance, on account of a revised interpretation of the initial objective data or knowledge of new facts – should be reflected in a change of policy, and vice versa [55].
Throughout the process, it is necessary to identify behavioural changes in the target groups and the effects on the end recipients and to assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficacy and efficiency of the public and collective policies applied, in conjunction with the evaluation process and in order to enrich it [56].
Therefore, the introduction of this watch system involves looking at the actual agility of public and collective decision-makers and thus their capacity to abandon, for instance during general elections, intentions stated before or at the time of taking up their responsibilities.
3.7. The evaluation process: democratic and continuous
In democratic governance mode, evaluation of public and collective policies consists of analysing – in terms of relevance, efficacy, efficiency, consistency, sustainability and viability – the policies, programmes and projects undertaken in order to improve the quality of decisions, allocate resources better, and report to stakeholders and citizens. Any evaluation requires collaboration and dialogue between its key participants, namely the elected representatives, agents, evaluators, beneficiaries of the policies, programmes, projects or functions, and stakeholders, in other words the individuals and bodies that have an interest in both the policy being evaluated and the results of the evaluation.
Evaluation in this sense is merely a process in which the actors themselves adopt the thinking on the practices and the results of the subject being evaluated. The indicators and analyses must be validated at each stage, and the evaluation must allow continuous expression. What should characterise the evaluator in relation to the actions being evaluated is humility in their approach, not a confrontational relationship with their contacts, which will always end in failure of the evaluation [57].
The evaluation may take place ex ante, in other words, even before the policy is implemented, simultaneously (in itinere) by accompanying its execution, or ex post, in other words, when the implementation is complete. Similarly, evaluation of the effects of the implemented measures should focus above all on their contribution to solving the public problem highlighted at the start[58]. Evaluation employs criteria and establishes effectiveness indicators (are the actual impacts on the target group in line with the objectives – specific impacts – and the operational implementation of the programme?), efficacy indicators (are the expected effects – outcomes – in line with the objectives and what can be seen on the ground?), efficiency indicators (are the desired effects and the outputs proportional – cost-benefit – to the resources used?), and relevance indicators (is the problem posed solved by the programme? [59]).
Moreover, declining public funds increasingly dictates economic evaluation of programmes. This aims to quantify in cash terms the added value associated with a programme by considering all the costs incurred by the programme and all the related benefits, overall and from the perspective of the interests of the community as a whole [60]. Its importance in the current context cannot be denied.
Despite the complexity of its implementation [61], evaluation of public and collective policies is a valuable, knowledge-generating tool designed to inform, guide, validate, improve, legitimate and halt policies adopted by operators and for stakeholders who expect it to produce results. The real issue is to measure the actual effects of a public or collective policy on the ground, the impacts and the outcomes, to record if and how the situation has improved based on the initial situation and the changes in the system, and to determine whether such improvements or transformations are directly attributable to the measures adopted. The changes may have been caused by other factors which need to be identified.
Despite several decades of work, the evaluation field remains largely open to new innovations and to the development of a culture and practices that combine its political, technical and even scientific capabilities [62]. The most important contribution of policy evaluation is that of democratic control of the exercise of power by the public authorities, observed Peter van der Knaap recently. Knaap, who is Director of the independent evaluation service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Netherlands (IOB) and Vice-President of the European Evaluation Society, pointed out that the key function of evaluation – improving democratic government – must be higher on our collective agenda [63].
This discourse is not new. But its actual implementation would be.
3.8. Interactions with stakeholders
All the results of a public policy de facto derive from a particular decision-making process, i.e. repeated interactions between identifiable actors using different resources [64].
Such interactions must be maintained continuously throughout all the sequences in the cycle. Thus, stakeholders take part in a collective learning process which strengthens cohesion between actors and should allow mobilisation around objectives with a view to achieving them. This learning process enables the creation of cognitive capital which can be harnessed further in the future provided that the actors have been respected. A knowledge management process is essential for promoting such interactions.
4. Conclusion: public policies equal to the complexities and challenges
Despite the various developments and new models used to analyse public action, Paul Cairney points out the importance of the actual depiction of the public policy process. The representation of the cycle reminds us that the idea of public policy is its own cause [65]. This formula highlights the way in which the policy process can become self-sustaining and disassociate itself from the initial policy objectives. In such cases, the public policy itself becomes the principal driver of the subsequent policy actions, rather than a direct response to the needs or problems in society. Policy development can thus appear as an end in itself, rather than a means to an end. The depiction of the process also shows us the stages completed by the elected representatives before a decision, which may appear authoritarian, is taken. In addition, it highlights the difference and the gap between the decision and its implementation. Cairney, who is Professor of Politics and Public Policy at the University of Stirling in the UK, also notes that the scepticism that might affect the cycle model is also linked to the loss of optimism felt by both citizens and researchers in relation to the capacity of governments to solve problems based on scientific analyses [66].
This scepticism was expressed by Philippe Garraud when he wrote, in 2014, in the Dictionnaire des Politiques publiques of Science-Po Paris, that a requirement for political intervention does not necessarily fall within solving a problem in a rational way, and that other, less operational, responses may be made, as lip service. Philippe Garraud also wondered – with a degree of cruelty – whether public action has ever actually “solved” a problem as such. The responses from the public authorities are all provisional, he said, subject to numerous constraints, and often circumstantial [67].
Such considerations remind us that we should not, of course, give in to any technocratic or positivist illusions, as public policies are generally formulated in relational rather than rational ways. In addition, they show us that the public and collective policy process is also impacted and punctuated, if not driven, by the political agenda and the electoral cycle (Political Business Cycles) [68], and even by the mandate cycle as is clearly illustrated by the acronym NIMTO (Not In My Term of Office). Coalition policies, which are becoming increasingly necessary, underpin fragile, or even factitious, consensuses, which make them hard to implement [69], especially as the elected representatives, once their powerful speeches are over, often abandon the practical fieldwork to operators who inherit ambiguities in agreements, documents and figures.
Far from indulging in pessimism, which is not in my nature, I would rather share the resolute line taken by Geert Bouckaert, Professor at KULeuven and former president of the United Nations Committee of Experts on Public Administration (CEPA), whose work I regularly follow. He states that:
our societies need systems of governance with public policies that are equal to their complexities and challenges, with capacities for flexibility to remain at that level. Public systems must guarantee societies at least three activities at the same time: providing services, managing crises and implementing innovations. We need public policies that are able to combine these three requirements simultaneously [70].
This probably resonates everywhere, but certainly here.
Let me point out again that, to achieve democratic governance capable of formulating effective public policies, such policies must be collective; in other words, mobilising all the available forces, beyond the public sphere, among academics, associations and, above all, companies, which are drivers of change on the ground.
Philippe Destatte
@PhD2050
[1] Michael HOWLETT, M. RAMESH & Anthony PERL, Studying Public Policy, Principles and processes, p. 13, Don Mills, ON, Oxford University Press, 2020. –
This text constitutes the background paper for the Destree Institute’s study day on 12 March 2025 at the Parliament of Wallonia entitled Progressing in the tools for transforming Wallonia. It promotes a cycle of public and collective policies in five interactive sequences, emphasising the accompanying processes of watch and evaluation, as well as the interactions with stakeholders that must continue throughout the dynamic.
[2] Philippe DESTATTE, La coconstruction, corollaire de la subsidiarité en développement territorial, Hour-en-Famenne, Blog PhD2050, 3 août 2023, https://phd2050.org/2023/08/03/la-coconstruction-corollaire-de-la-subsidiarite-en-developpement-territorial/
[3] Ph. DESTATTE dir., Contrats, territoires et développement régional, Charleroi, The Destree Institute, 1999.
[4] M. HOWLETT, M. RAMESH & A. PERL, Studying Public Policy…, p. 14.
[5] Professor Luc Bernier of the École nationale d’Administration publique du Québec (ENAP) writes that the implementation of public policy must be negotiated with stakeholders. L. BERNIER, La mise en œuvre des politiques publiques, in Stéphane PAQUIN, Luc BERNIER et Guy CHAPELLE, L’analyse des politique publiques, p. 255, Montréal, Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 2011.
[6] This is the case with Peter KNOEPFEL, Corinne LARRUE, Frédéric VARONE et Jean-François SAVARD, Analyse et pilotage des politiques publiques, France, Suisse, Canada, p. 145, Québec, Presses de l’Université du Québec, 2015 which define a public policy as a set of decisions and activities resulting from repeated interactions between public and private actors whose behaviour is influenced by the resources at their disposal and by general institutional rules (concerning the overall functioning of the political system) and specific rules (in the area of intervention under study).
[7] Harold D. LASSWELL, The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis, College Park, University of Maryland, 1956.
[8] A Simplified View of the Policy Process, Harvard Catalyst, 2025. https://catalyst.harvard.edu/community-engagement/policy-research/unknown-61015f3cbb252-61015f57f388a-610bf6bb39406-610bf6ca02c07-610bf6d25a626
[9] European Geosciences Union (EGU) Policy Cycle, 2025. https://www.egu.eu/policy/cycle
[10] Charles E. LINDBLOM & Edward J. WOODHOUSE, The Policy-Making Process, Upper Saddle River NJ, Prentice Hall, 1993.
[11] Thomas R. DYE, Understanding Public Policy, London, Pearson, 14th ed., 2013.
[12] Paul CAIRNEY, Understanding Public Policy, Theories and issues, coll. Textbooks in Policy Studies, London-Oxford-New York, Bloomsbury Academic, 2020.
[13] Michael HILL & Frédéric VARONE, The Public Policy Process, London & New York, Routledge, 8th ed, 2021.
[14] Michael HOWLETT, M. RAMESH & Anthony PERL, Studying Public Policy…, p. 8sv. – P. CAIRNEY, op. cit., p. 17.
[15] P. CAIRNEY, Understanding Public Policy, p. 34.
[16] Jacob Torfing calls public governance orthodoxy the combination of national forms of representative democracy and public bureaucracy with elements of New Public Management (NPM) . J. TORFING, Rethinking Public Governance, p. 2, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton MA, Edwar Elgar, 2023. – On New Public Management and its impact: M. HILL & Fr. VARONE, The Public Policy Process…, p. 320-325. – Also see: Luc BERNIER & Sébastien ANGERS, Le NMP ou le nouveau management public, in S. PAQUIN, L. BERNIER et G. CHAPELLE dir., op. cit., p. p. 229-254.
[17] Par ce mot de « gouvernementalité », je veux dire trois choses. Par « gouvernementalité », j’entends l’ensemble constitué par les institutions, les procédures, analyses et réflexions, les calculs et les tactiques qui permettent d’exercer cette forme bien spécifique, quoique très complexe, de pouvoir, qui a pour cible principale la population, pour forme majeure de savoir l’économie politique, pour instrument technique essentiel les dispositifs de sécurité. Deuxièmement, par « gouvernementalité », j’entends la tendance, la ligne de force qui, dans tout l’Occident, n’a pas cessé de conduire, et depuis fort longtemps, vers la prééminence de ce type de pouvoir qu’on peut appeler le « gouvernement » sur tous les autres : souveraineté, discipline, et qui a amené, d’une part, le développement de toute une série d’appareils spécifiques de gouvernement [et, d’autre part,] le développement de toute une série de savoirs. Enfin par « gouvernementalité », je crois qu’il faudrait entendre le processus, ou plutôt le résultat du processus par lequel l’État de justice du Moyen Âge, devenu aux xve et xvie siècles État administratif, s’est retrouvé petit à petit « gouvernementalisé ». Michel FOUCAULT, Sécurité, Territoire, Population, Cours au Collège de France (1977-1978), p. 111-112, Paris, EHESS-Gallimard-Seuil, 2004.
[18] See: Nathalie SCHIFFINO et Virginie VAN INGELCOM, Citoyens et politiques publiques, in Steve JACOB & N. SCHIFFINO, Politiques publiques, Fondements et prospective pour l’analyse de l’action publique, p. 331-384, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 2021.
[19] J. TORFING, Rethinking Public Governance…, notamment p. 227.
[20] M. HILL & Fr. VARONE, The Public Policy Process…, p. 310-319.
[21] J. TORFING, Rethinking…, p. 10.
[22] Boris VORMANN & Michael D. WEINMAN ed., The Emergence of Illiberalism, Understanding a Global Phenomenon, London, Routledge, 2021. – See also: Philippe DESTATTE, Some « New » Governance Models for Europe and the US, in Cadmus, Vol. 3, Issue 6, World Academy of Art and Science, May 2019, p. 73-89. https://www.cadmusjournal.org/node/719
https://phd2050.org/2019/01/18/waas-wb/
[23] Michael HOWLETT and Jale TOSUN ed, Policy Styles and Policy-Making, Exploring the Linkages, Routledge, 2018. – M. HOWLETT and J. TOSUN ed, The Routledge handbook of policy styles, London, Routledge, 2021. – Jeremy RICHARDSON, The changing British policy style: From governance to government? in British Politics, 2018, vol. 13 (2), p. 215-233. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41293-017-0051-y
[24] P. CAIRNEY, Understanding Public Policy…, p. 19. – Nancy CARTWRICGHT & Jeremy HARDIE, Evidence-based Policy, A Practical Guide to doing it better, Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 2012. – M. HOWLETT, M. RAMESH & A. PERL, Studying Public Policy…, p. 185-186.
[25] Michel CROZIER & Erhard FRIEDBERG, Actors and Systems: The Politics of Collective Action, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1980.
[26] Mariana MAZZUCATO, The Entrepreneurial State, Debunking Public vs. Private Myths in Risk and Innovation, London, Anthem Press, 2013. – Angelina ARMANDY & Marina RIVAL, Innovation publique et nouvelles formes de management public, Paris, La Documentation française, 2021.
[27] Ph. DESTATTE, Opinions which are partial have the effect of vitiating the rectitude of judgment », Heuristics and criticism of sources in science, University of Mons – EUNICE, Mons, 21 October 2021, Blog PhD2050, https://phd2050.org/2021/10/26/heuristics/
[28] M. HOWLETT, M. RAMESH & A. PERL, Studying Public Policy… p. 114-115.
[29] Roger W. COBB & Charles D. ELDER, Participation in American Politics, The Dynamics of Agenda-building, p. 172, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983. – M. HILL & Fr. VARONE, The public policy process…, p. 150-151.
[30] Agenda-setting is the study and identification of all the processes that lead to social facts acquiring the status of a ‘public problem’ that is no longer the result of (natural or social) inevitability or the private sphere, and becomes the subject of media and political debate and controversy. Philippe GARRAUD, Agenda / émergence, in Laurie BOUSSAGUET, Sophie JACQUOT et Pauline RAVINET, Dictionnaire des politiques publiques, p. 58-59, Paris, Presses de Science-Po, 2014.
[31] Our translation. P. KNOEPFEL, C. LARRUE, F. VARONE et J-F. SAVARD, Analyse et pilotage des politiques publiques…, p. 161.
[32] Surfers waiting for the big wave rather than controllers of the sea. John W. KINGDOM, Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, p. 173, Boston, Little-Brown, 1984. – Paul CAIRNEY, Understanding Public Policy, Theories and issues, p. 103, London-Sydney, Bloomsbury Academic, 2020. – M. HILL & Fr. VARONE, The public policy process…, p. 151. – Based on J. W. Kingdom, Steve Jacob and Nathalie Schiffino define policy entrepreneurs as promoters who invest resources (time, energy, money, reputation, etc.) to bring the problem and a solution to the table. S. JACOB & N. SCHIFFINO, Politiques publiques… p. 19.
[33] P. KNOEPFEL, C. LARRUE, F. VARONE et J-F. SAVARD, Analyse et pilotage des politiques publiques…, p. 169-174.
[34] Ph. GARRAUD, Agenda / émergence, in L. BOUSSAGUET, S. JACQUOT et P. RAVINET, Dictionnaire des politiques publiques…, p. 58.
[35] M. HOWLETT, M. RAMESH & A. PERL, Studying Public Policy… p. 100-104.
[36] Lucia VESNIC ALUJEVIC, Eckhard STOERMER, Stress-testing of policy options using foresight scenarios: a pilot case, Publications Office of the European Union – JRC, Luxembourg, 2023.
[37] Ph. DESTATTE, Citizens ‘Engagement approaches and methods in R&I foresight, Brussels, European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Horizon Europe Policy Support Facility, 2023.
[38]. The concept of need can be defined as the sum of the natural and social necessities that condition the material life of human beings living in society. A distinction is made between natural needs (food, housing, clothing) and social needs, and within the latter, between individual needs and collective needs. Marie-Claude MALHOMME dir., Glossaire de l’évaluation, p. 18, Paris, AFIGESE – Collectivités territoriales, Groupe de travail « Evaluation des politiques publiques », 2000. – André Lalande explains that awareness of need generally implies knowledge of the end being pursued and the means by which it can be achieved. Lalande also emphasises the distinction between desire and need, the latter being necessary and legitimate. André LALANDE, Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie, p. 111, Paris, PuF, 1976.
[39] The issue can be defined as an identified problem with the potential for change, whether positive (opportunities) or negative (risks), which must be taken into account in order to develop foresight and determine a strategy. Ph. DESTATTE et Ph. DURANCE dir., Les mots-clés de la prospective territoriale, p. 23, Paris, La Documentation française, 2009.
[40] Michel FOUDRIAT, La co-construction en actes, Comment l’analyser et la mettre en œuvre, p. 17-18, Paris, ESF, 2021. – M. FOUDRIAT, La Co-construction. Une alternative managériale, Rennes, Presses de l’EHESP, 2016. – Yves VAILLANCOURT, De la co-construction des connaissances et des politiques publiques, in SociologieS, 23 mai 2019, 39sv. http://journals.openedition.org/sociologies/11589 – Y. VAILLANCOURT, La co-construction des politiques publiques. L’apport des politiques sociales, in BOUCHARD M. J. (dir.), L’Économie sociale vecteur d’innovation. L’expérience du Québec, p. 115-143, Québec, Presses de l’Université du Québec, 2011. – Y. VAILLANCOURT, La co-construction des politiques publiques : balises théoriques, in L. GARDIN & F. JANY-CATRICE dir., L’Économie sociale et solidaire en coopérations, Rennes, p. 109-116, Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2016.
[41] Philippe DESTATTE, Increasing rationality in decision-making through policy impact prior analysis, Namur, July 12, 2021, Blog PhD2050, https://phd2050.org/2021/07/12/pipa_en/
[42] P. CAIRNEY, Understanding Public Policy…, p. 24.
[43] According to Charles Jones, quote by M. HOWLETT, M. RAMESH & A. PERL, Studying Public Policy… p. 133.
[44] See: Michel CORNELIS et Jean HINDRIKS ea, Manuel des finances publiques, p. 65-118, Bruxelles, Politeia, 2024.
[45] M. HOWLETT, M. RAMESH & A. PERL, Studying Public Policy… p. 137.
[46] P. KNOEPFEL, C. LARRUE, F. VARONE et J-F. SAVARD, Analyse et pilotage des politiques publiques…, p. 190-191.
[47] Ph. DESTATTE dir., Contrats, territoires et développement régional, Charleroi, The Destree Institute, 1999.
[48] P. CAIRNEY, Understanding Public Policy…, p. 27.
[49] P. KNOEPFEL, C. LARRUE, F. VARONE et J-F. SAVARD, Analyse et pilotage des politiques publiques…, p. 155. – M. HOWLETT, M. RAMESH & A. PERL, Studying Public Policy…, p. 210sv.
[50] M. HILL & Fr. VARONE, The Public Policy Process…, p. 195-196. – Also see: Ph. DESTATTE & Filippo SANNA dir., L’excellence opérationnelle dans les services publics, Namur, The Destree Institute – Mielabelo, 2014.
[51] P. CAIRNEY, Understanding Public Policy…, p. 28.
[52] P. CAIRNEY, Understanding Public Policy…, p. 28. – M. HOWLETT, M. RAMESH & A. PERL, Studying Public Policy…, p. 212.
[53] P. CAIRNEY, Understanding Public Policy…, p. 33.
[54] M. HOWLETT, M. RAMESH & A. PERL, Studying Public Policy… p. 107-108.
[55] P. KNOEPFEL, C. LARRUE, F. VARONE et J-F. SAVARD, Analyse et pilotage des politiques publiques, p. 163.
[56] P. KNOEPFEL, C. LARRUE, F. VARONE et J-F. SAVARD, Ibid., p. 147-148.
[57]. I am quoting here almost word for word the definition of evaluation adopted in 2000 when the Wallonia Evaluation and Foresight Society was founded, a text produced jointly and for which I was the writer, together with Jean-Louis Dethier, drawing heavily on the culture of the European Evaluation Society. Ph. DESTATTE, Évaluation, prospective et développement régional, p. 379-380, Charleroi, The Destree Institute, 2001.
[58] P. KNOEPFEL, C. LARRUE, F. VARONE et J-F. SAVARD, Analyse et pilotage des politiques publiques, p. 152.
[59] A public policy is said to be relevant if the objectives that are formulated explicitly or implicitly in the political-administrative programme, and sometimes concretised in the action plans, are adapted to the very nature and the temporal and socio-spatial distribution of the problem that it is supposed to solve. Once this is done, the question of the relevance of a public policy represents the most ‘political’ dimension, and therefore the most delicate and sensitive, that an evaluation has to examine. This is why political and administrative leaders often exclude it from the scope of the evaluation that an external expert must study as part of their mandate. P. KNOEPFEL ea, op. cit., p. 293.
[60] Moktar LAMARI, Performance économique des politiques publiques, Évaluation des coûts-avantages et analyse d’impacts contrefactuels, p. 18, Québec, Press de l’Université du Québec, 2022.
[61] P. CAIRNEY, Understanding Public Policy…, p. 32.
[62] Marie-Hélène L’HEUREUX et Steve JACOB, Évaluation des politiques publiques, in S. JACOB & N. SCHIFFINO, Politiques publiques.., p. 265-327.
[63] Peter van der KNAAP, Evaluation without democracy: learning for what, accountable to whom?, European Evaluation Society, December 3, 2024. https://europeanevaluation.org/2024/12/03/evaluation-without-democracy-learning-for-what-accountable-to-whom/ – Also see: P. van der KNAAP, Valérie PATTYN & Dick HANEMAAYER, Beleidsevaluatie in theorie en praktijk, Het ontwerpen en uitvoeren van evaluatie- en rekenkameronderzoek, p. 58-60, De, Haag, Boom Bestuurskunde, 2023.
[64] P. KNOEPFEL, C. LARRUE, F. VARONE et J-F. SAVARD, Analyse et pilotage des politiques publiques, p. 148.
[65] ‘Policy as its own cause‘. P. CAIRNEY, Understanding Public Policy…, p. 36.
[66] P. CAIRNEY, Understanding Public Policy…, p. 34-36.
[67] Philippe GARRAUD, Agenda / émergence, in Laurie BOUSSAGUET, Sophie JACQUOT et Pauline RAVINET, Dictionnaire des politiques publiques, p. 63, Paris, Presses de Science-Po, 2014
[68] M. HOWLETT, M. RAMESH & A. PERL, Studying Public Policy… p. 111-112.
[69] Luc BERNIER, La mise en œuvre des politiques publiques, in Stéphane PAQUIN ea dir., L’analyse des politique publiques…, p. 259.
[70] Geert BOUCKAERT, Pourquoi aurons-nous besoin, au XXIe siècle, de plus et d’autres politiques publiques ? Préface à S. JACOB & N. SCHIFFINO, Politiques publiques, Fondements et prospective pour l’analyse de l’action publique…, p. 11. Our own translation from French. – See also: Geert BOUCKAERT & Christopher POLLITT, Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, Into the Age of Austerity, Oxford University Press, 2017.
