Sensemaking
#6Key Findings
The UK performs well in international comparison (rank 6) in the category of sensemaking.
Foresight efforts are led by the Government Office for Science. A separate innovation agency offers a strategic foresight function called the Discovery Hub. Connecting these foresight activities to regular government decision-making can be a challenge.
Regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) typically accompany government interventions affecting the private sector, civil society or public services, assessing benefits and burdens. The threshold for conducting a full RIA starts with effects of £5 million. Researchers have questioned the value of these assessments, arguing that they are not systematically integrated into decision-making.
RIAs consider a wide range of indicators, including social, environmental and ecological factors, though economic indicators are often prioritized. While ex post assessments are seen as a vital part of policymaking, definitions of success and failure are frequently politicized.
Foresight efforts are led by the Government Office for Science. A separate innovation agency offers a strategic foresight function called the Discovery Hub. Connecting these foresight activities to regular government decision-making can be a challenge.
Regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) typically accompany government interventions affecting the private sector, civil society or public services, assessing benefits and burdens. The threshold for conducting a full RIA starts with effects of £5 million. Researchers have questioned the value of these assessments, arguing that they are not systematically integrated into decision-making.
RIAs consider a wide range of indicators, including social, environmental and ecological factors, though economic indicators are often prioritized. While ex post assessments are seen as a vital part of policymaking, definitions of success and failure are frequently politicized.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent can the central government foster the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization?
10
9
9
The central government can foster the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the central government can foster the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
5
4
3
4
3
The central government is rarely capable of fostering the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
2
1
1
The central government is not capable of fostering the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
Foresight in the UK is led by the Government Office for Science (GOS), which has been running a foresight program for the past twenty years, publishing over 30 reports on diverse topics. The government’s chief scientific adviser (GCSA) decides on topics based on various criteria, including identifying a clear customer within the government, ensuring there is added value from GOS leading the work, requiring long-term thinking, and informing government preparedness for potential changes. New projects must also be timely, filling key evidence gaps or informing upcoming government strategies, and should have the potential to inform significant, identifiable policy outcomes.
The GOS also maintains a blog that provides a platform for policymakers, stakeholders, and academics to connect with findings from its Futures, Foresight, and Horizon Scanning program. Additionally, NESTA, an innovation-focused agency, has an in-house strategic foresight function called the Discovery Hub. This hub supports teams across NESTA in using futures tools and methods to explore emerging trends and technologies that will impact their work.
Following a review led by Nobel Prize-winning scientist Paul Nurse, the government adopted recommendations to provide a more strategic approach to departmental research and development programs, engage in more sophisticated dialogue with academia, and make available documents outlining the most important research questions facing each department. The GCSA and the Government Office for Science serve as a bridge between private foresight and the government, with AI highlighted by Prime Minister Sunak as a crucial area for the UK to advance. Generally speaking, the challenge is not the lack of foresight activity but connecting that activity to routine government decision-making.
Citations:
https://foresightprojects.blog.gov.uk
https://www.nesta.org.uk/project/discovery-hub/
The GOS also maintains a blog that provides a platform for policymakers, stakeholders, and academics to connect with findings from its Futures, Foresight, and Horizon Scanning program. Additionally, NESTA, an innovation-focused agency, has an in-house strategic foresight function called the Discovery Hub. This hub supports teams across NESTA in using futures tools and methods to explore emerging trends and technologies that will impact their work.
Following a review led by Nobel Prize-winning scientist Paul Nurse, the government adopted recommendations to provide a more strategic approach to departmental research and development programs, engage in more sophisticated dialogue with academia, and make available documents outlining the most important research questions facing each department. The GCSA and the Government Office for Science serve as a bridge between private foresight and the government, with AI highlighted by Prime Minister Sunak as a crucial area for the UK to advance. Generally speaking, the challenge is not the lack of foresight activity but connecting that activity to routine government decision-making.
Citations:
https://foresightprojects.blog.gov.uk
https://www.nesta.org.uk/project/discovery-hub/
Graph View
To what extent does the government conduct high-quality impact assessments to evaluate the potential effects of prepared legislation before implementation?
10
9
9
The government draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
8
7
6
7
6
In most cases, the government draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
5
4
3
4
3
The government rarely draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
2
1
1
The government does not draw on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
In line with the government’s Better Regulation Framework, updated in September 2023, Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) typically accompany all UK government regulatory interventions that affect the private sector, civil society organizations, and public services. The objective of RIAs is to assess the benefits and burdens of planned measures. Provisions exist to account for the impacts of UK-wide legislation on devolved administrations. There is also an obligation to produce a post-implementation review to verify the accuracy of RIA estimates, fulfillment of predictions, and achievement of intended policy outcomes. A standard template and additional guidance are available for completing RIAs. RIAs are independently scrutinized by the Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC), and each department has a better regulation unit.
In 2018, the threshold for conducting a full RIA was raised from effects exceeding £1 million to £5 million. Consequently, the number of RIAs carried out fell from a peak of 664 in 2011 to an average of 175 annually in the three years preceding the pandemic. The RPC report for 2022–2023 notes that it “reviewed 109 submissions from 23 different departments, agencies, and public bodies. This remains in line with the typical number of cases submitted to the RPC for scrutiny over the past five years.” Historically, the largest number of RIAs were for the departments responsible for business, transport, and the environment. The use of RIAs was particularly inconsistent during the politically charged Brexit process, with the government resisting pressure to release all relevant documentation in a timely manner.
Academic research has questioned the value of these assessments, as their results are not systematically integrated into the decision-making process. However, RIAs are certainly applied. Both the RPC and a House of Lords inquiry published in October 2022 criticized the variable quality of RIAs and delays in producing them. The Lords’ report bluntly stated: “unfortunately, this improvement has not survived the dual challenges of Brexit and the pandemic, during which time the speed of legislating meant that corners were cut. We had hoped that the return to more normal working would provide an opportunity not just to reinstate the previous IA system but to improve it: this has not happened.” The RPC found “an alarming increase in the number of impact assessments (IAs) that have been red-rated as ‘not fit for purpose’” and noted “a significant increase in the number of IAs submitted late to the RPC – in some cases when the legislation was already before Parliament. This undermines the purpose of the Better Regulation Framework in allowing us to inform parliamentarians of the robustness of the evidence supporting regulatory proposals.”
In summary, despite a sound system for assessing the impact of regulatory proposals, implementation difficulties have detracted from its effectiveness. The title of the Lords’ report is telling: “Losing Impact: Why the Government’s Impact Assessment System Is Failing Parliament and the Public.”
Citations:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/652fa291d86b1b00143a5183/RPC_Corporate_Report_2023_-_Final.pdf
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/30141/documents/174647/default/
In 2018, the threshold for conducting a full RIA was raised from effects exceeding £1 million to £5 million. Consequently, the number of RIAs carried out fell from a peak of 664 in 2011 to an average of 175 annually in the three years preceding the pandemic. The RPC report for 2022–2023 notes that it “reviewed 109 submissions from 23 different departments, agencies, and public bodies. This remains in line with the typical number of cases submitted to the RPC for scrutiny over the past five years.” Historically, the largest number of RIAs were for the departments responsible for business, transport, and the environment. The use of RIAs was particularly inconsistent during the politically charged Brexit process, with the government resisting pressure to release all relevant documentation in a timely manner.
Academic research has questioned the value of these assessments, as their results are not systematically integrated into the decision-making process. However, RIAs are certainly applied. Both the RPC and a House of Lords inquiry published in October 2022 criticized the variable quality of RIAs and delays in producing them. The Lords’ report bluntly stated: “unfortunately, this improvement has not survived the dual challenges of Brexit and the pandemic, during which time the speed of legislating meant that corners were cut. We had hoped that the return to more normal working would provide an opportunity not just to reinstate the previous IA system but to improve it: this has not happened.” The RPC found “an alarming increase in the number of impact assessments (IAs) that have been red-rated as ‘not fit for purpose’” and noted “a significant increase in the number of IAs submitted late to the RPC – in some cases when the legislation was already before Parliament. This undermines the purpose of the Better Regulation Framework in allowing us to inform parliamentarians of the robustness of the evidence supporting regulatory proposals.”
In summary, despite a sound system for assessing the impact of regulatory proposals, implementation difficulties have detracted from its effectiveness. The title of the Lords’ report is telling: “Losing Impact: Why the Government’s Impact Assessment System Is Failing Parliament and the Public.”
Citations:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/652fa291d86b1b00143a5183/RPC_Corporate_Report_2023_-_Final.pdf
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/30141/documents/174647/default/
To what extent does the government effectively incorporate sustainability assessments within the framework of RIAs?
10
9
9
High-quality sustainability assessments are incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
8
7
6
7
6
High-quality sustainability assessments are, for the most part, incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
5
4
3
4
3
High-quality sustainability assessments are rarely incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
2
1
1
Sustainability assessments are not incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
In the United Kingdom, the RIA process aims to support sustainable policymaking. These assessments consider a wide range of indicators, including social, environmental, and ecological factors, though economic indicators are often prioritized. The RIAs analyze the impact of regulation over various time periods – short, medium, and long term – and attempt to account for external shocks and irregular developments. A sustainable development impact test is required for all relevant policy proposals. The devolved governments in Scotland and Wales have shown innovation in this area. The Scottish Government’s National Performance Framework and the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 are notable examples of their efforts to integrate sustainability into policy planning and assessment (de Vito 2024).
Citations:
de Vito, L. 2024. “Foresight for Sustainable Development and Well-Being Governance in Wales.” https://shapingwalesfuture.blog.gov.wales/2024/01/29/foresight-for-sustainable-development-and-well-being-governance-in-wales/
Scottish Government. 2024. “National Performance Framework.” https://nationalperformance.gov.scot
Citations:
de Vito, L. 2024. “Foresight for Sustainable Development and Well-Being Governance in Wales.” https://shapingwalesfuture.blog.gov.wales/2024/01/29/foresight-for-sustainable-development-and-well-being-governance-in-wales/
Scottish Government. 2024. “National Performance Framework.” https://nationalperformance.gov.scot
To what extent do government ministries utilize ex post evaluations to improve existing policies?
10
9
9
High-quality ex post evaluations serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
High-quality ex post evaluations frequently serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
5
4
3
4
3
High-quality ex post evaluations rarely serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
2
1
1
High-quality ex post evaluations are not utilized to make adjustments to public policies.
Evidence-based decision-making is deeply rooted in the United Kingdom’s governance traditions, and ex post evaluations are as vital to public policymaking as impact and sustainability checks. The OECD ranks the United Kingdom second among its 40 members for its approach.
Specialist analytical functions were recently consolidated into the Analysis Function, a cross-government network of around 16,000 people involved in generating and disseminating analysis across government and beyond. Its aim is to improve the analytical capability of the Civil Service and support informed decision-making throughout the government.
Analytical approaches to evaluation are detailed in the Magenta Book and the Green Book, with support from the Cross-Government Evaluation Group coordinated by HM Treasury. Additionally, the Aqua Book provides guidance on good practices for working with analysis and analytical models. The Behavioral Insights Team (formerly within the Cabinet Office but now an independent consultancy) and the What Works Network (coordinated by the Cabinet Office) promote the increased use of evaluation methods, especially randomized controlled trials.
The Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC) serves as the independent regulatory scrutiny body for the UK government. Committee members are appointed through open competition and have backgrounds in the private and voluntary sectors, business, the legal profession, and academia. The committee assesses the quality of evidence and analysis used to inform government regulatory proposals, providing independent advice and scrutiny to ensure ministerial policy decisions are based on accurate evidence and help produce better regulation. The RPC evaluates the quality of the government’s RIAs and examines all published ex post evaluations. If the RPC submits a recommendation to the government, it is expected to be implemented into law. Businesses can directly address the RPC if they disagree with or feel disadvantaged by a specific governmental regulatory assessment. Despite the technical proficiency of these evaluation mechanisms, political reality often tempers their effectiveness. Policy success and failure are frequently contested through a partisan lens, and the incumbent government may not always seek routine assessments of its record.
Citations:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/regulatory-policy-committee/about
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-magenta-book
Specialist analytical functions were recently consolidated into the Analysis Function, a cross-government network of around 16,000 people involved in generating and disseminating analysis across government and beyond. Its aim is to improve the analytical capability of the Civil Service and support informed decision-making throughout the government.
Analytical approaches to evaluation are detailed in the Magenta Book and the Green Book, with support from the Cross-Government Evaluation Group coordinated by HM Treasury. Additionally, the Aqua Book provides guidance on good practices for working with analysis and analytical models. The Behavioral Insights Team (formerly within the Cabinet Office but now an independent consultancy) and the What Works Network (coordinated by the Cabinet Office) promote the increased use of evaluation methods, especially randomized controlled trials.
The Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC) serves as the independent regulatory scrutiny body for the UK government. Committee members are appointed through open competition and have backgrounds in the private and voluntary sectors, business, the legal profession, and academia. The committee assesses the quality of evidence and analysis used to inform government regulatory proposals, providing independent advice and scrutiny to ensure ministerial policy decisions are based on accurate evidence and help produce better regulation. The RPC evaluates the quality of the government’s RIAs and examines all published ex post evaluations. If the RPC submits a recommendation to the government, it is expected to be implemented into law. Businesses can directly address the RPC if they disagree with or feel disadvantaged by a specific governmental regulatory assessment. Despite the technical proficiency of these evaluation mechanisms, political reality often tempers their effectiveness. Policy success and failure are frequently contested through a partisan lens, and the incumbent government may not always seek routine assessments of its record.
Citations:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/regulatory-policy-committee/about
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-magenta-book