|
|
|
Policy dialogues share the common aim that discussion and careful consideration should contribute to a well-informed health policy decision. However, the specific objectives of policy dialogues can vary in several ways. Objectives may differ depending on the timing of the dialogue and the policy development process. Similarly, the importance of the different ways in which dialogues can contribute to the development and implementation of an evidence-informed policy may vary; the extent to which the aim of the dialogue is to reach a consensus may vary; and the ways in which the policy dialogue feeds into the policy development process may also differ.
A consideration of the ways in which these objectives may differ can help to develop a clearer shared understanding of the objectives of a policy dialogue. In turn, this can help to ensure that a policy dialogue is better designed to achieve its objectives.
Policy dialogues can occur at different times in relation to the policy development process. If they occur early in the process, the objectives may focus primarily on clarifying and framing the problem and identifying viable solutions, and less on the descriptions of the options and their implementation. Alternatively, if they occur later in the process they may focus primarily on the advantages and disadvantages of the options and implementation strategies being considered, and less on the description of the problem and identification of viable options.
The timing of the policy development process may also vary. There may be an urgent need, for example, to address a particular problem or make a policy decision because of the specific nature of the problem or the availability of a narrow window of opportunity. In such instances, the objective of the policy development process might be more focused on contributing towards achieving a consensus and reaching a decision. Or the problem and circumstances may be such that a longer time frame would be better suited to the policy development process. In such cases, the objective of the policy process might be more explorative and focus on contributing towards achieving a process that will enable a more credible decision to be taken.
There are many ways in which a policy dialogue can contribute to the development of evidence-informed health policies and some have been described already in this guide. Not all of these, it should be noted, will be of equal importance and while such a long list of objectives is unlikely to be useful, it may serve as a useful checklist for agreeing on the most important objectives of a policy dialogue. Subsequently, this can be used to design a dialogue in which priority is given to achieving the objectives selected.
All policy dialogues are intended to contribute to a well-informed health policy decision, but they may vary widely in terms of how they are intended to feed into the policy development process. Policy dialogues may be organised entirely by public policymakers to feed formally into a decision. Or they could be initiated in an entirely different way, primarily by people without decision-making authority and be one of many inputs feeding into the development of a policy. The specific objectives and outputs of a policy dialogue (and how it should be designed) will depend on how it is intended to fit within the policy development process
The degree to which achieving consensus in a policy dialogue is desirable will depend on: the timing of the dialogue, the key ways in which the dialogue can contribute to evidence-informed policymaking, and how the dialogue is intended to feed into the policy development process. If a decision is needed urgently, it is more likely that the objective of the dialogue will be to obtain consensus and that the development of a shared understanding of the pros and cons of the considered options will be a high priority. This is also likely to be the case if the policy dialogue is intended to feed directly into a decision. Conversely, if a decision does not need to be made urgently, or the policy development process is still at an early stage, then obtaining consensus is unlikely to be as important. In such circumstances, clarifying and framing the problem and identifying viable solutions are likely to be priority objectives, and the dialogue is one of many inputs into the policy development process. It should also be noted that in many situations obtaining a consensus may be counter-productive but this does not necessarily preclude the possibility of a consensus emerging spontaneously.
After agreeing on the specific objectives of a policy dialogue, it may be helpful to identify measurable markers of success for each objective. These could help to guide what needs to be done following the policy dialogue and help to aid its evaluation.