What gets done and why: Implementing the recommendations of public inquiries

: Public inquiries are often the instrument of choice when governments decide to re‐think their approach to large issues, yet there has been little empirical research on how effective they are. This article is an evidence‐based look at what affects the implementation of recommendations made by publi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Canadian public administration 2008-09, Vol.51 (3), p.501-521
Main Author: Stutz, Jeffrey R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Empirical research
Executive-judiciary relations
Government
Government Policy
Implementation
Independent regulatory commissions
Influence
Policy action
Policy implementation
Policy making
Political influences
Powers and duties
Public administration
Public hearings
Public inquiry
Public interest
Public Policy
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:: Public inquiries are often the instrument of choice when governments decide to re‐think their approach to large issues, yet there has been little empirical research on how effective they are. This article is an evidence‐based look at what affects the implementation of recommendations made by public inquiries. It considers eleven inquiries, examining how they operated, their political and administrative setting, and what action was taken on the recommendations. The central hypothesis is that governments do implement the recommendations of public inquiries under certain conditions. Such implementation extends not only to technical, incremental recommendations but also to recommendations involving systemic changes. The findings point to the role of judges who head and preside over inquiries as policy influencers. Often buffered by inquiry counsel or policy staff, judges may test potential recommendations with governments and other interested parties. The impact of inquiry hearings suggests that public inquiries do not necessarily serve a government's wishes to delay action. If inquiry hearings are the top item in the news, it is hard to see how that furthers a government agenda to bury the issues. Sommaire: Les enquêtes publiques sont souvent l'instrument de choix auquel ont recours les gouvernements lorsqu'ils décident de repenser leur manière d'envisager les grandes questions, or peu de recherches empiriques ont été entreprises pour déterminer de leur efficacité. Le présent article est un examen fondé sur les données probantes de ce qui influe sur la mise en œuvre des recommandations résultant d'enquêtes publiques. Il passe en revue onze enquêtes publiques, examinant comment elles ont fonctionné, quel était leur cadre politique et administratif, et quelles mesures ont été prises à propos des recommandations. L'hypothèse principale est que les gouvernements mettent effectivement en œuvre les recommandations des enquêtes publiques dans certaines conditions. Une telle mise en œuvre couvre non seulement les recommandations techniques croissantes, mais aussi les recommandations concernant les changements systémiques. Les résultats attirent l'attention sur le rôle joué par les juges qui dirigent les enquêtes par l'influence qu'ils exercent sur les politiques. Les juges, souvent utilisés comme tampons par les avocats des enquête publiques ou le personnel chargé des politiques, peuvent tester les recommandations potentielles auprès des gouvernements et autres par
ISSN:0008-4840
1754-7121
DOI:10.1111/j.1754-7121.2008.00035.x