Open Policy Making in the UK – to Whom Might Policy Formulation be ‘Opening Up’?

Abstract

This article explores recent UK government aspirations towards ‘open policy making’ (OPM). Against a backdrop of scholarly literatures on power inequalities in policy making, I consider to whom processes of policy formulation under a banner of OPM are expected to be ‘opening up’. The article draws on an analysis of government documents from 2012–2018 plus some supplementary data from expert interviews. It notes aspirations towards ‘opening up’ policy formulation to new experts and a particular preoccupation with encouraging private sector involvement. Ideas which may boost ordinary citizens’ input are also part of what ‘makes up’ UK Government OPM, though citizen involvement appears restricted, sitting uneasily alongside commitments to austerity influencing how ‘openness’ is understood.

Lived experience evidence in disability policy making

“…The ways in which citizens are engaged in policy making and its implementation are multifaceted. This includes being heavily involved in agenda-setting and co-governance (Goulart and Falanga 2022), serving as lay members on committees or boards (Edwards 2014), participating in collaborative research such as participatory action research (PAR) (Greenhalgh and Wieringa 2011;Heiskanen et al 2014), proofreading research questionnaires (O'Shea et al 2019), and as participants in qualitative research (Exley 2021;Sesan and Siyanbola 2021).…”

“…Co-production with citizens is viewed as a means of democratising knowledge (Juri et al 2022), leading to a "plurality of knowledge" influencing policy, which is believed to yield beneficial outcomes (Duncan 2017;Beckett et al 2018, p.3), including greater policy success (Exley 2021). Moreover, co-production is seen as enhancing the legitimacy of research and policy making (Reyers et al 2015;Duncan 2017) and as shifting perspectives on what constitutes 'legitimate knowledge' (Beckett et al 2018).…”

“…Interviews and documents suggest that some people are excluded because they do not trust researchers and policy makers: This lack of trust that people with lived experience have towards policy makers and others in the policy making process, along with the resulting barriers to their inclusion in providing evidence, speaks to the issue of whose evidence is valued. The question of who gets a seat at the table, raised in current literature (Beresford 2019;Exley 2021), and both the literature and the documents and interviews suggest that more needs to be done to ensure a diversity of voices are heard. Wibeck et al (2022) argue for a larger table, but there also needs to be a concerted effort to address the lack of trust from particular lived experience groups.…”

The new “corporate state”: The meshing of corporate and political power and the erosion of democratic accountability in the UK

“…Moreover, “participation” in this contest does not guarantee influence or sincere engagement with competing perspectives (Dean, 2017). Exley (2021) argues that “social, political, and economic elites” continue to dominate policy‐making processes despite formal commitments to “evidence‐based” and “participatory” models of formulation. Indeed, Diamond (2020, p. 50) contends that while a variety of voices are now part of the policy‐making conversation, it is management consultants who are increasingly favored and now “comprise the ‘new corporate state’ in Britain.” Next, we discuss the implications of this and offer our concluding reflections.…”

‘Populism’ and competing epistemic communities in English educational policy: A response to Craske and Watson

“…Alongside this dynamic, a thriving 'consultocracy' has emerged, which is made up of consultants and consultancies who contribute to knowledge production (Ball & Junemann, 2012;Gunter et al, 2015). This consultocracy' has joined forces with networks of current and former teachers to reconfigure the policy landscape as part of a wider trend towards polycentricism (Exley, 2014(Exley, , 2020Exley & Ball, 2011), which is supported by new systems of data (Ozga, 2020). The landscape of educational policy expertise is therefore complex and relationships are frequently strained.…”