Public Inquiries, Policy Learning, and the Threat of Future Crises

Abstract

This book is animated by a simple but very important question. Can post-crisis inquiries deliver effective lesson-learning which will reduce our vulnerability to future threats? Conventional wisdom suggests that the answer to this question should be an emphatic no. Inquiries are regularly vilified as costly wastes of time that illuminate very little and change even less. This book, however, draws upon evidence from an international comparison of post-crisis inquiries in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom to show that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the post-crisis inquiry is an effective means of learning from disaster and that they consistently encourage policy reforms that enhance our resilience to future threats. This evidence is accompanied by a re-booted conceptualization of the public inquiry, which better recognizes the complexity of the modern state, the challenges of policy learning within it, and contemporary forms of public policy scholarship.

Left on the shelf: Explaining the failure of public inquiry recommendations

“…The explanatory sections of the article emerged from a focus on the outcomes of learning in each case, which was driven by a policy learning framework (see Stark ). However, a key objective of the project related to determining what worked within the cases and how inquiries might be improved to produce more effective outcomes.…”

“…In the context of an inquiry, for example, governments can rhetorically claim that implementation is occurring if some form of enactment has taken place. This may mean recommendations being accepted ‘in principle’ or ticked off through descriptions of the implementation process as ‘continual’ or ‘ongoing’ (Stark ). Institutionalization, however, denotes a more meaningful form of behavioural change that is established through a combination of technical reform and value adjustment.…”

“…Forms of memorialization, particularly in relation to traumatic events that inquiries have investigated, offer opportunities to recall past lessons, historical stories or the traditions of an agency (Linde ). Knowledge can also be recalled via training and human resource development practices within policy‐making agencies (Stark ) or via the creation of accountability mechanisms, specifically calibrated to inquiry‐driven reforms, which can ensure that agencies do not forget past failures (Stark ). Indeed, oversight is included in the model precisely because it connects with knowledge institutionalization and recall.…”

“…In the processes that acquire information, for example, seconded public officials (Stark ), external researchers and experts from epistemic communities (Haas ) and advocacy coalitions (Sabatier and Jenkins‐Smith ) are all likely to influence evidence gathering. Moreover, inquiries now regularly engage in international lesson‐drawing efforts (Rose ) which means that proximate international agencies will also influence the evidence upon which recommendations are built.…”

Learning from crisis: The role of enquiry commissions

“…However, less attention has been paid to the specific institutional channels for learning, such as enquiry commissions, hearings or internal evaluations (but see Stark, ). Enquiry commissions—understood here as temporary bodies set up by political authorities after a crisis to assess crisis preparedness and response—are one of the principal tools of governments for drawing lessons from crisis.…”