Preventing Policy Capture in Policy Making, Learning from OECD

The 2018 The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Global Anti-Corruption and Integrity Forum: Planet Integrity revealed that people in the OECD countries are losing faith to their national government. On average, 58% of citizens do not have trust in their government. One of the reasons is because people have questioned the quality of public services. In this paper, I would like to discuss reasons why people tend to distrust their government and what solutions might be taken by governments mainly based on OECD research findings. 

In democracies, attempting to influence and convince other parties on priorities and policy decision through public consultation and lobbying is common reality. In principle, policy decision has to pursue the public interest. However, since policies involving stakeholders who have different interests, those involved parties need to consider strategies to influence public decisions in favor of their interests.    

Clearly, it opens government elites and political parties a temptation to gain unwarranted advantages using their power and authority to impose their interests on public decisions. In many cases public policy decisions have been directed away from the public interests towards the interests of a specific interest of group or individual. Consequently, it can have several impacts, such as:

·         Misallocation of public and private resources for the interest of a particular group or individual;

·         Attract rent-seeking behavior;

·         Endanger sustainable growth;

·         Nurture a vicious circle of inequality due to benefits for particular group or individual’s interests;

·    Decrease trust in government because it may foster the perception that politics are unfair and unduly influenced;

According to OECD Public Governance Reviews in 2017 in their book with the title “Preventing Policy Capture: Integrity in Public Decision Making” this phenomenon is known as “policy capture”.

Many cases reveal that the capture of public decisions can be achieved through a wide variety of illegal instruments, such as bribery, which undermines core democratic values of inclusive and fair policy-making. OECD report in 2017 revealed that no country is immune to policy capture. It also happens in Indonesia.   

Sadly, currently we got news about graft case committed by Malang city council members and the local government. As news reported by the Jakarta Post on September 4, 2018, in total, 41 of 45 Malang City Council members or more than 90% have been accused in the graft case.

Another similar case, as reported by Kompas on August 23, 2018, acting governor of Jambi, Zumi Zola was accused of bribing 53 members of the Jambi Regional Representative Council. It was also reported that Zumi would have bribed the board members for a total amount of Rp.16.5 billion for getting approval of the regional regulation of the regional budget and expenditure of the Jambi.

Policy capture violates the trust and power of society. As we know, in a democratic system, people have placed their trust and authority in their democratic government through an election. People give up their power and authority to the group of elites either in government or parliament to take care of them and trust the elected elites to work for public interests. Thus, policy capture is illegitimate and breaks core democratic values. 

OECD has identified factors that facilitate policy capture of public decision-making processes as follows:

Opportunity

·         Unchecked discretion

·         Technical complexity

·         Opacity of decision-making

Plus

Ability and capacity

·         Availability of resources

·         Concentration and inequalities

·         Recurrent benefits

·         Stable captor networks

Equal to Inherent higher risks and capture

Source: OECD Public Governance Reviews Preventing Policy Capture Integrity in Public Decision Making (2017)

As can be seen from the formula above, we identify that if the process of making policy lacks of appropriate accountability mechanisms and not visible to public, a policy capture tends to occur. Moreover, if the issue is too complex, public may withdraw their interest and control to the process. 

In term of ability and capacity, arguably government elites can easily mobilise ample of amount of budget to bribe political members to approve their programs. On the other hand, political elites depend on large monetary supports to finance their election campaigns and maintain their constituents happy. It is like a win-win relationship to maintain a stable policy network between government elites and political members that makes policy capture flourish in many democratic countries. Take the two cases in Malang and Jambi above as our examples we can be assured that the factors identified by OECD are valid.

Now, how could we reduce a policy capture and what are strategies to overcome the phenomenon?  Fortunately, OECD has proposed a complementary model that we could possibly adopt and adapt it in the Indonesian context. The model is not intended to replace current anti-corruption strategies, but it has a function to be a complementary tool. The Four complementary strategies against risks of policy capture are as follows:

1.      Levelling the playing field: Promoting stakeholder Engagement

2.      Ensuring transparency and access to information

3.      Address inherent capture risks at organisational levels through internal integrity policies

4.      Promoting accountability of decision-makers through Supreme Audit Institutions competition authorities and regulatory agencies

Source: OECD Public Governance Reviews Preventing Policy Capture Integrity in Public Decision Making (2017)

As suggested by OECD in their model, in order to ensure the inclusive and fair participation of different interests, involved parties have to promote and conduct transparency to every step of the decision making processes. However it should be borne in our mind that transparency is a necessary but it is not sufficient to promote accountability and foster confidence in public institutions. Lobbying activities are not forbidden. In many cases, lobbying could improve the quality of policies, but it needs transparency to safeguard the public interest as well as a level of playing field for various interests. In addition, we need policy makers and political elites involving more stakeholders to engage an open debate in order to control and eliminate self-interested arguments.

Lastly, OECD suggests to involving independent Supreme Audit Institutions, competition authorities and regulatory agencies. In case of Indonesia, we advise that government elites and parliament members should involve independent audit institutions or other similar bodies, such as Indonesia's Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi), especially related to policies in political finance and big budget projects.   

To sum up, the proposed strategies could be considered by government of Indonesia as one of the strategies to strengthen anti-corruption strategies. In addition, as OECD would suggest, organisations need to ensure open and free discussion of ethical dilemmas and public-integrity concerns.  

The author is a public official in a ministry in Indonesia. The views expressed are his own and do not reflect the official stance of the institution he is working. His writing is not intended to vilify particular persons or institutions. The content of this article and related references are mainly derived from the OECD paper and the 2018 OECD Global Anti-Corruption & Integrity Forum discussions which the author participated in. He blogs at http://whistleblowing-indonesia.blogspot.com/