Definition: The outcomes, impacts, or the results that the policy sets out to achieve, as specified in the articles of the policy document, as well as broader objectives referred to in the preamble. May be referred to in policy documents as goals, objectives, targets, or commitments.
For policies to be coherent, policy objectives should be aligned or complementary and not contradict or impede each other.
1. Is the policy cross-referencing the policy objectives of another policy?
2. Are the policy objectives aligned between policies? (substance as well as spatial and temporal scales such as deadlines for achievement, and geographical application)
3. Are the EGD objectives mainstreamed into the policy?
Definition: All mechanisms that are put in place by the policy to achieve its objectives. Set of techniques that governments use, aiming at influencing the behavior of organizations or individuals in support of public objectives
For policies to be coherent, alignment of policy instruments is considered beneficial for policy coherence.
Main question:
Would/has putting the policy instruments into practice lead/led to results that are in accordance with 1) the policy’s own objectives, 2) other policies’ objectives, 3) the EGD (CrossGov specific) objectives?
Supporting questions when several policies are evaluated in concert:
1. To what extent are spatial and temporal scales aligned between instrument of the different policies?
2. Do the instruments support the cross-fertilization of information and knowledge across policies with similar instruments?
3. Do policies have shared implementation mechanisms (shared licensing, common indicators, shared monitoring frameworks)?
4. Do the policy instruments provide mechanisms to deal with conflicting objectives, incentives, etc.?
After evaluating the two Coherence Attributes (policy objectives and instruments), the three sets of Explanatory Variables help explaining why a certain level of policy coherence is observed.
It plays a role in the level of coherence:
1. Are the mandates and roles of governmental organizations governing a policy issue clearly defined (overlaps or redundancies)? How does this affect their involvement in policy formulation and implementation, and their collaboration with other organizations?
2. Which intra- and inter-organizational (formal and informal) coordination mechanisms are in place and how do they support coordination across policies?
3. Are spatial and temporal scales of governmental organizations well aligned and also fit-for-purpose for the relevant policy issues areas?
4. How does resource allocation within governmental organizations affect their ability to formulate and implement policies, and to collaborate with other organizations?
5. How do political processes and power dynamics within and between governmental organizations affect their influence on policy formulation and implementation?
It plays a role in the level of coherence:
Example: Is data available and accessible to all actors of the SPS system? Are data gaps and uncertainty accounted for? Are interlinkages across sectors or governance levels well understood? Is data integrated across disciplines and policies? Is data covering relevant spatial and temporal scales to understand a policy problem
2. How do assessments affect policy coherence?
Example: Are the assessments transparent? Which actors were involved in developing the assessments, and are some key providers of data and knowledge missing? Were cross-sectoral effects considered, also reflecting on other policy areas or environmental problems?
3. How do models of knowledge transfer affect policy coherence?
Example: Is knowledge production separated from policy-making (=linear) or is it based on a collaborative process? How well is society integrated in the co-production of knowledge? What are the transfer mechanisms in place?
4. What is the role of Permanent SPSI platforms on policy coherence?
Example: Have formal or informal platforms been established? Are the relevant actors engaged and are the platforms covering cross-sectoral dimensions of policies and facilitating coordination across policy areas and governance arrangements?
5. How does competence and understanding of the problem/subject-matter affect policy coherence?
Example: Do actors in the SPS system have a shared understanding of the problem? Are training and capacity activities enhancing systemic understanding?
6. How does funding and resources affect policy coherence?
Example: Are funding and resources allocated in a way that supports the production and transfer of relevant knowledge across governance arrangements?
It plays a role in the level of coherence:
1. To what extent does stakeholder involvement affect policy choices during design and implementation, and how does this impact coherence across policies?
2. In how far are formal and informal stakeholder involvement mechanisms at different stages of the policy cycle aligned across policies?
3. In how far do participatory processes (e.g. stakeholder platforms) in the process support the involvement of stakeholders across different policy areas/sectors?
4. Are the consultation/participatory processes inclusive, fair, and equitable ensuring contributions of all relevant stakeholders or do power imbalances mean that contributions are biased towards certain stakeholders?
Continue to Module 4 and discover the Toolkit on Policy Coherence Analysis.
Alternatively, you can read the Deliverable 1.3 (CrossGov Policy Coherence Evaluation Framework), providing the full comprehensive methodological approach drafted at the beginning of the CrossGov project.