Institutionalization Guidebook
Design stage questions
1.
The decision/function space
When thinking about redesign of political systems, it can be useful to think about the scope of design in terms of two dimensions: categories of decisions (e.g. health, education, economy) and decision functions (e.g. agenda setting, proposal development, decision making).
1.1. What categories of decisions should this design address?
design address?
Here are some possibilities worth considering:
Stages of policy making, such as:
- Agenda setting
- Proposal development
- Proposal review
- Decision making
- Implementation
- Oversight, evaluation, feedback
Other functions outside of the policy cycle itself, such as:
- Design and oversight of the policy process
- Integration across policies within a thematic area
- Integration of policies across themes
- Overall planning and budgeting
- Scrutiny
for different bodies?
For example:
- One body performs all functions, for all decisions
- Divide remits by function (e.g. Terrill Bouricius’ multi-body sortition) [Bouricius, 2013]
- Divide remits by theme (e.g. Alexander Guerrero’s Lottocracy) [Guerrero, 2024]
- Divide remits by a combination of function and theme
Here are some criteria to consider, when deciding how to divide the decision-function space into remits.
- Complexity - The scope of any remit should not be too broad for the responsible body to handle effectively.
- Coherence - The parts of any remit should clearly fit into a coherent whole. This will make things easier for the people who carry out the remit, and also make the whole system easier to grasp for anyone.
- Task requirements - The right set of people to carry any part of a remit should be the right ones to carry out all of the remit. This includes the number of members, selection criteria, selection method, and term length.
In terms of task requirements, Terrill Bouricius has identified five types of conflict that can occur from allocating functions with conflicting requirements to a single body [Bouricius, 2013]:
1.
There is a conflict between maximizing descriptive representativeness, versus maximizing interest and commitment among members of a deliberative body . . .
2.
There is a conflict between increasing participation and resistance to corruption through short terms of office, versus maximizing participants’ expertise or familiarity with the issues under consideration through longer or repeat terms . . .
3.
There is the conflict between giving every citizen the right to speak (self-selection) – offering agenda items, information and arguments for the deliberative process (isegoria), versus the danger that the self-selection of those most motivated to speak will promote domination by special interests and steer outcomes away from the common
good . . .
4.
There is a conflict between wanting a diverse body that engages in problem solving through active deliberation, versus independent personal assessment (“private deliberation”) that taps the “wisdom of crowds” and avoids information cascades, which can shut out private knowledge . . .
5.
There is a conflict between maximizing democratic power by allowing a deliberative body to set its own agenda, draft its own bills, and vote on them, versus avoiding the bundling of issues, with the resulting vote-swapping, as well as arbitrary decisions arising from the persuasive powers of a few unrepresentative charismatic members . . .
2.
Bodies
2.1. What body (or bodies) should be responsible for each “remit?”
Most often this will be politicians, high level civil servants, and/or the voting public (through a referendum).
2.2. Decisions about each body
3.
Processes
3.2. For each of these, how should the process work?
- What activities need to happen?
-
When do they need to happen?
(in what order, and/or under
what conditions)
- Who should carry them out?
- How should they happen?
3.3. Governance
4.
Resources and infrastructure
5.
Sustaining and adapting
5.1. What is needed to make this design sustainable?
a. What is needed to maintain political support, even when decision makers change their priorities - and when governments change?
b. What is needed to maintain civil servant support as priorities shift - and when civil servant leaders change?
c. What is needed to maintain sufficient funding?
d. What is needed to maintain stakeholder support?
e. What else is needed?
5.2. How (and by whom, and when) should this design be evaluated and adapted?
6.
Potential problems and opportunities
6.1. Problems of failure
a. What problems could cause the design to fail? (in terms of values, principles, objectives, and constraints)
b. What could prevent these problems?
c. What could limit and/or mitigate the damage if these problems happen?
a. What problems could cause the design to fail? (in terms of values, principles, objectives, and constraints)
b. What could prevent these problems?
c. What could limit and/or mitigate the damage if these problems happen?
6.2. Problems of success
6.3. Opportunities
a. If this design is successful, what new opportunities could it enable?
b. What would it take to realize these opportunities?
References
- Terry Bouricius. 2013. Democracy Through Multi-Body Sortition: Athenian Lessons for the Modern Day in Journal of Public Deliberation 9(1). doi: Link
- Alexander Guerrero. 2024. Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections. Oxford University Press.
Explore more
Get to know our Living Guidebooks
New Frontiers Project
We created three comprehensive and situationally-relevant living guidebooks on institutionalization, the Global South, and difficult issues