Designing for adaptation: Static and dynamic robustness in policy‐making

Abstract

Policy tools are chosen and deployed in the expectation that they will continue to work effectively over extended periods of time. This is a tall expectation to meet, given that the nature of policy problems and their contexts change constantly. To continue to operate effectively in the face of these changes and respond to policy feedback from policy actors and outputs, policy mixes must be robust. This robustness is of two types: static robustness in which policy means adapt while policy goals remain unchanged, and dynamic robustness in which both goals and tools change. The first equates robustness with resilience—that is, the ability to bounce back to a previous state and attain original goals in altered contexts caused by some change in internal or external conditions. The second, however, is more complex as it can involve changes in aspects of policy goals as well as means in order to allow policies to adapt more broadly by altering their form in response to changing circumstances. This second type of “dynamic robustness” focuses attention on the need for agility and upon the requisites for the creation of policy designs which allow for substantive changes in form as well as state. The article lays out these concepts and their interrelationships and the kinds of procedural and other tools involved in achieving either. It illustrates their features and differences using examples from different sectoral cases.

Robust governance for the long term and the heat of the moment: Temporal strategies for coping with dual crises

“…A comparison of multiple cases to understand differences in the use of these strategies and how they enhance or decrease robustness will be useful. Furthermore, potentially the strategies could also be applied to design robust crisis-coping processes and policies (Howlett & Ramesh, 2022). Using these five elements as policy design heuristics or even just as a checklist draws attention to certain strategic choices for governance systems and practices that otherwise might well be overlooked or seen as neutral, like: what is the right timing to connect the overwhelming present of acute crises with the more elusive future of creeping crises?…”

“…A system can only be termed robust if it continues to perform its vital functions over an extended period even in the face of nonroutine challenges (Howlett & Ramesh, 2022; Marchau et al, 2019). Robust governance requires both productive anticipation of adverse events, but also well‐functioning mechanisms for delivering thoughtful responses and adapting these responses over time in the face of changing circumstances.…”

Thinking outside the box, improvisation, and fast learning: Designing policy robustness to deal with what cannot be foreseen

“…Ansell et al (2021), drawing from the COVID‐19 experience, propose five dimensions for ensuring robustness: scalability (the capacity to rapidly mobilize and demobilize resources); prototyping (through which new solutions can be rapidly reached through a trial and learning process); modularization; bounded autonomy (thorough which local actors can hold broad‐based ownership and strategic commitment); and strategic polyvalence (the capacity to design solutions that can take new directions according to the context). Another stream of research focuses on the relevance of those procedural tools that favor informal relationships among actors and stakeholder involvement in policy design, monitoring, and surveillance (Bali et al, 2021; Howlett & Ramesh, 2022).…”

The public sector and co‐creation in turbulent times: A systematic literature review on robust governance in the COVID‐19 emergency

“…What makes robustness a distinct approach is its capability to adapt dynamically in the face of challenges of turbulent events (Ansell & Trondal, 2018 ) (Howlett & Ramesh, 2022 ). Indeed, robust co‐creating processes should not be afraid of change but rather accommodate transformation in order to maintain the system's functionality instead of uselessly conserving the system's status (Sørensen & Ansell, 2021 ).…”