1.

Prof. Trivellato's lecture:

• Proposed a notion of public policy (intervention aimed at a given population with the intention of effecting a change to a condition and/or behaviour),
• Proposed a definition for the appraisal of public policies, which is that of evaluating the effects of a public policy, in other words an analysis that makes it possible to separate changes attributable to the impact of the policy from those that would have occurred anyway (where the crucial question revolves around the definition of causal link),
• Consequently proposed a scientific paradigm based on counterfactual logic,
• Presented two examples applying the proposed scientific paradigm at a national level (1. financial incentives to companies to ensure greater stability for temporary workers, 2. job-finding guidance services for unemployed workers),
• Presented best practices taken from the experience of some countries (USA-2002, educational policies/what works clearing house; Germany- 2002-2005, employment policies / Harz reforms; France-2007, job placement policies; Great Britain-2008, welfare policies/consultation and non-ex post evaluation of the new welfare programme for employment presented by Prime Minister Brown),
• Provided some general considerations (lessons learnt) based on analyses of best practices, the drafting of policies and appraisal of their effects, highlighting how the appraisal of the impact of public policies is an integral part of the policymaking process,
• Went on to describe the Italian experience of policy appraisal, highlighting the modest progress made, but also the encouraging signs,
• Drew some prudent conclusions on the Italian situation: the half full, half empty glass,
• On the reasons for the half empty glass, identified the weakness of demand for appraisals on the part of policy makers in the administration as well as public opinion,
• Called for a review of the institutional set-up, with changes that would emphasise the difference between government and parliament, and strengthen the control and evaluation functions of the latter in relation to public policies,
• Expressed the hope that opinion makers might increase their role in raising an awareness of and interest in the evaluation of effects.

2.

I would like to link my reactions to Prof. Trivellato's address to a point in his conclusions, namely that of the weakness of demand for appraisals on the part of public administrations and policy makers. On this point I would like to mention three things.

Firstly though, I would like to stress that the weakness of demand for appraisals of the impact of public policies is closely tied up with the backwardness of the policymaking process taken as a whole (starting with the drafting of public policies, their implementation and monitoring, and of course evaluation). The best practices considered in the address pointed indeed to the appraisal and planning of policies as being closely integrated, and basically indissoluble.

3.

Let me now go on to the three aspects relating to the weakness of demand for the appraisal of the effects of public policies and to prospects for a rise in such demand.

First aspect (which is currently hampering demand for evaluation)

Public administrations do not have the skills needed to conceive policymaking processes that have the characteristics suggested by best practices. There are of course problems relating to the academic background of public managers and officials (biased in favour of legal disciplines, especially in the ministries), but there is also the problem of training and the development of skills after their entry in the public administration.

This weakness has not been remedied by policies and strategies to innovate and modernise public administrations in recent years.

Perhaps the action most worthy of note concerns the "Programma Cantieri", of the Public Works Department, which pinpointed the need to strengthen the capabilities of public administrations in managing policymaking processes (from planning to evaluation) as being among its five priorities. The Cantieri programme aimed to enhance the capabilities of administrations through a number of initiatives for the development and dissemination of knowledge and know-how, including numerous manuals to be used by public administrations, two of which have been concerned with the very subject of policymaking processes. The programme lasted from 2002 to 2005.
Policies and strategies for civil service training have also been inadequate from this point of view.
One can get an immediate idea of the road still to be travelled in Italy on the subject of training simply by looking at the range of initiatives offered by the National School of Government, in Great Britain, which works to heighten the knowledge and skills of the central Administration in defining sound, effective public policies.
Available programmes are of particular interest due to the relevance of policymaking in the range of training on offer and to the breadth of topics tackled (including for example the analysis and use of evidence and evaluation of the impact of proposed policies) and to the recipients, which include the Ministers themselves. There is a Ministerial Programme based not on traditional lessons and training methods but on the specific needs of single ministers.

I also believe that many Italian politicians could benefit from such help, because the considerations regarding the lack of knowledge and skills applies to them too. Moreover, the considerations on the nature of political action and related problems concerning consensus and legitimation pointed out by Trivellato certainly hold good for politicians.

Second aspect (favouring the demand for appraisal)

This is the demand, especially at a European level, for monitoring and appraisal in some policy areas through the initiation of a number of open coordination processes, particularly in the sectors of healthcare and welfare policies, within the framework of the Lisbon Strategy.

A recent analysis conducted by Maurizio Ferrera on behalf of Formez on the modernisation of the welfare sector shows that although the open coordination method is a ‘soft law' instrument (i.e. it is not binding for decisions taken by member States), it has undoubtedly had a positive impact in promoting cultures and approaches oriented towards solving collective problems, has induced institutional learning dynamics and has encouraged the development of specific institutional capabilities in the areas of programming, monitoring and appraisal. It has also drawn the attention of political decision-makers towards new policy goals and new intervention tools.

Consequently, participation in open coordination processes in the sphere of healthcare and social affairs has stimulated the launch of concrete and structured initiatives to gauge needs, observe policies and redefine policy goals. This does not mean however that these sectors are no longer faced by numerous problems in terms of administrative capability, simply that this stimulus has had positive effects, and will continue to do so in the future, just as in general positive effects and stimuli for evaluation demand can come from the progressive opening up of governments to dialogue on policies, not only at a European level, but also, for instance, within the OECD, regarding many sectors.

Third aspect (which ought to be a favourable factor)

The characteristics of new decision-making processes, occurring increasingly in multi-actor contexts, are marked by the fragmentation of institutions and the multiplicity of interests involved.
Public policies are increasingly marked by responsibilities shared at multiple institutional and administrative levels, due to supranational integration processes and to the transformation of national institutions, caused by decentralisation and federalism processes, raising the decision-making power of Regions and local authorities in many policy areas.
Added to this is the growing role of non-public actors (e.g. private interest groups, companies, citizens, non-profit associations, etc.).

The presence of several voices in the public arena, the holders of different viewpoints and interests, requires valid arguments to back up decisions (and debates). Being informed about what worked with previous policies and being aware of what proved to be a failure enables individual actors to be stronger and more credible when they put forward proposals.

If the process of formulating public choices becomes complicated, if the phases of the decision-making process multiply, if policy areas are extended and the number of actors involved in single issues increases, there is a parallel rise in opportunities to promote and use evaluation studies and to gauge the effectiveness of proposed solutions. Appraisal is thus a great cognitive resource, and is particularly necessary in decision-making processes formed in this way.