I started a discussion in this column last week on the phenomenon of policy failures in Nigeria. The roots of this problem, I argued, are poorly designed and implemented policies. Two recent events, since I wrote the piece, have helped to bring the extent of the problem into sharp focus. First, the Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) did a special report on abandoned projects in Nigeria, which showed that there are 11,800 abandoned federal government projects, including 130 power projects, all running into several trillions of naira. Then, at a project management workshop in Kaduna organised by the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO), the world body said that over 60 percent of projects fail in Nigeria. According to UNIDO, “Nigeria invests millions of dollars on projects, yet experiences over 60 percent project failure within the framework of governmental systems”.
Now, this evidence suggests that the problem has reached epic proportions, morphing into a national crisis. Surely, when a country achieves just about 39 percent success in all its projects, as Nigeria evidently does, there is a serious failure of governance. Without a doubt, this is a candidate for Buhari’s governance reform. Going forward, President Buhari and, indeed, all the state governors, should embed the culture of sound policy-making in their governments, including ensuring that programmes and projects meet the standard operating procedure (SOP) to secure their success.
The president should also establish a Delivery Unit in the presidency (and the state governors in their individual offices), the type that Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister, established in No 10 Downing Street, while in office, to track the delivery of government programmes. Tony Blair’s “deliverology” concept, popularised by his special adviser on policy delivery, Michael Barber, has at its core an effective Delivery Unit at the centre of government to enable, say, a president or a governor to monitor and ensure successful implementation of government programmes. The individual leadership of the president or the governor, coupled with an institutional structure, such as a Delivery Unit, can certainly make a significant difference to policy or project outcomes.
But leadership can only help reinforce and strengthen the policy process, it cannot replace it. The policy process involves a systematic approach to policy development. I will discuss it next, drawing on existing body of knowledge. Of course, there is no single “one-size-fits-all” approach to policy making, but the insights here reflect global best practices.
So, let’s start with some overarching principles. A few years ago, the UK Cabinet Office published “Professional Policy-Making for the Twenty-First Century”, setting out nine characteristics of good policy-making. According to this report, policy should (i) be forward looking, that is, take a long-term view, (ii) be outward looking, e.g., benchmark and learning from others (iii) be innovative and creative (iv) use evidence, by drawing on quality information from a variety of sources. Other characteristics are that policy should (v) be inclusive, making sure that no sections of society are excluded from its benefit (vi) be joined up, i.e. through close collaboration with all interested parties, (vii) evaluate, i.e. through feedback loops and early warning mechanisms, (viii) review, through performance measurement, and (ix) learn lessons by knowledge pooling and management and by capturing institutional memory.
These characteristics are, of course, not the policy process itself, but overarching or cross-cutting principles. As many policy practitioners know, the main stages in the policy process are design, implementation, evaluation, review and feedback. The last three stages can be captured under one broad category known as policy maintenance. So, let’s look at the key elements of the three stages.
Policy design
The truth, often ignored by many policy makers, is that, like a building, the design of a policy or project will determine its success or failure. And that everything about a policy or project, including the implementation and evaluation, starts with its design. Internalising this policy truth is a key to good policy-making. The following are the broad activities at the design stage.
Understanding the nature of the problem and identifying the need for a policy
The UK Treasury’s Green Book, which UK policy makers use to appraise policies and projects, puts it succinctly. It says: “The first step before any government intervention is to ensure that two prerequisites are met. First, that there is clearly identified need, and second, that any proposed intervention is likely to be worth the cost”. One cannot overemphasise the imperative of ensuring that policies and projects are driven by needs and users’ preferences, but, unfortunately, many government policies and projects in Nigeria are politically driven rather than needs based. Every president or governor wants to create big projects for a legacy regardless of present or future needs!
Another problem is that policy development in Nigeria is hardly underpinned by rigorous analysis and use of evidence. Yet, it takes sound analysis to understand the nature of a problem and the type of policy intervention needed to tackle it. Without rigorous, evidence-based, analysis, a policy or project may be based on a misunderstanding of the problems or of peoples’ needs, resulting in misdirected effort and wastage of resources. But you can’t have sound analysis without reliable data and staff with the appropriate research and analytical skills. Sadly, policy-making in Nigeria suffers from paucity of accurate statistics and of policy makers with the right research and analytical skills. These weaknesses should be addressed to improve the quality of policy-making in the country.
Now, assuming there is a need for policy intervention, the objectives of the policy should be stated clearly. Evidence has shown that many policies fail because they have no clearly stated objectives that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound, known by the acronym SMART. Another critical step at this stage is options creation and appraisal. No policy maker should develop a policy without first generating a range of options and then recommending one or a combination based on sound appraisal. The purpose of an options appraisal is to find a workable and cost-effective solution that meets the policy objectives. Clearly, at this stage, the policy maker should prepare a business case for the policy. Every good policy or project is based on a strong business case justifying it.
Assessing how policies are likely to work in practice
Obviously, having a good policy or project idea is not enough. It is important to make sure that it can work in practice. And the best way to assess how practical a policy or project is likely to be is to involve those who have to implement it in its design. Policy makers rarely involve the implementers of a policy in its design, but this often poses implementation challenges later on. Even when stakeholders are consulted on the design of a policy, it is often done in a formulaic or perfunctory way. But this could result in stakeholders being half-heartedly committed to a policy or even opposing it. Thus, policy makers need to consult in a constructive and an open-minded way, and respond reasonably to the views and concerns of stakeholders. They should also carry out behavioural analysis to understand how stakeholders or users are affected by a policy/project and how they are likely to react to it. It’s important to give adequate attention to human behaviour in policy design.
Identify and assess risks to performance and delivery
Risk assessment is a key and distinct task that must be carried out as part of policy design. And this involves ensuring that those required to implement the policy/project have the necessary capability. Some projects fail in Nigeria because the contractors lack the capacity to deliver. They were selected not based on proper procurement procedures but political factors. But this poses a huge risk to delivery.
There is also the risk of a policy or project not being inclusive, that is, excluding sections of society from its benefits. Successive Nigerian governments have spent trillions of naira on programmes and projects, which did virtually nothing to reduce poverty and inequality. After all, why are 110 million Nigerians still living below the poverty line, according to Vice President Yemi Osinbajo? I believe it’s time every major policy or project in Nigeria is subjected to anti-poverty and anti-inequality tests. In the UK, for instance, every government policy must satisfy the public sector equality duty, under the Equality Act 2010, to ensure, among other things, that it advances equality of opportunity. And the UK Treasury’s Green Book recommends that every policy or project appraisal should include a distributional analysis to ensure that the policy considers, and adjusts for, social impact, fairness and equity outcomes.
To tackle poverty and inequality in Nigeria, as President Buhari and Vice President Osinbajo are clearly keen to do, we need to look at how government programmes and projects benefit small businesses, market women and other traders, artisans, farmers and others likely to be excluded from mainstream economic activities, instead of concentrating the wealth of the nation in the hands of a few super-rich people! Distributional analysis should be an integral part of policy making in Nigeria.
Policy implementation
As I said last week, policy makers should think implementation from the outset, as part of policy design. Most policies and projects fail because implementation has not been well thought through and planned. In a report, the UK National Audit Office (NAO) listed the following as typical implementation problems: (i) over ambitious timescales, (ii) lack of appropriate skills or training by the implementers, (iii) poor project management, (iv) inadequate contingency planning and (v) poorly defined roles and responsibilities. Thus, according to the NAO, policy implementation is more likely to be successful if government departments (a) have a well-developed implementation plan, (b) identify and manage risks, (c) exercise reliable project management, and (d) have a clear communication strategy.
Of course, there is no sure-fire recipe for policy or project success. However, I believe that the policy environment in Nigeria would be greatly enhanced if projects are underpinned bya robust business case, a strong implementation plan, recognised project management methodologies, such as PRINCE2 or AGILE, and a good communications strategy to market the policy/project to general public and key stakeholders, such as the business community. If the president and the governors take up my advice and establish a Delivery Unit in their offices, one of the tasks of this unit should be to ensure that all government programmes and projects satisfy the above best practice conditions!
Policy maintenance
The policy process does not, however, end with design and implementation. Performance management and measurement are critical to track the success of a policy or project in achieving its objectives and in securing the expected benefits. Furthermore, every project should be evaluated to assess its actual outcome against what was expected and to ensure that lessons are learned and fed back appropriately to guide future policy actions.
I started this piece with evidence of the chronic and acute nature of policy/project failures in Nigeria. As the UK-based Institute for Government points out, “When policies fail, the costs can be significant; repeated failure can erode confidence in government and in the democratic process itself”. Nigeria is experiencing perennial policy and project failures. This is bad for governance and bad for democracy. It’s time to act to stop the malaise!
Olu Fasan
