21st Century Policy Development





21st Century Policy Day - the Breakfast Panel!

   I spoke last week at a fascinating day on how policy development needs to be rethought, organised by Synthesis of which I am an Associate. The day made clear that both the techniques now available to us (computer modelling, simulation techniques) and our understanding of the elements of our problems (dynamics, feedbacks, behaviours, networks) suggest that we are making as big a policy shift as when big government first became fashionable in the twentieth century.

Then people believed, from the Webbs to Gordon Brown, that government could solve all our problems and make us be happy. Now we are more sceptical of these claims, even though we are starting to measure happiness, and of our government’s ability to devise and execute appropriate policies. Hats off to Matt Hancock and Jesse Norman, MPs who supported last week’s conference and opened and closed it with their own perspectives.

My own contribution to the debate was from my engagement over the couple of decades with infrastructure projects. I found it hard to stop grinning when the Chancellor, in his Autumn Statement, stated that infrastructure supports economic growth, since this is a case I have been making for more than a little while. However, the analytical underpinnings of this argument and how it relates to both the financing and the funding of projects is still not well articulated or understood and I talked about some of these issues in relation to investments that I have been involved in, such as Crossrail, High Speed rail, Thames Gateway Bridge (and more).

Successful policy development requires several different perspectives and this was illustrated in the context of security policy as well as infrastructure. Generating the right analysis is one essential element, but asking the right question is an important starting point, and getting support across the spectrum for a new approach is also key. The right analysis has to address the right question. ‘Is this railway worth paying for?’ is a good question and leads to asking who will pay for it and why. Is it passengers? Or property developers? Or does the taxpayer have to cough up for something unspecified, such as a welfare benefit?

Clear questions also require clearly articulated answers and the challenge to analysts and modellers is to provide models that policy makers can understand and challenge. Models cannot capture everything – by definition they are simplifications. Are the simplifications the right ones? Outcomes are inherently uncertain. Can the model show the likely range of outcomes with any degree of robustness? Our policy makers need to ask these questions of analysts rather than rely on a black box and their academics and civil servants.

There is a risk that one set of black boxes will be replaced by another set – cleverer ones no doubt. I hope not. I myself try to present arguments that have a common sense element but can be backed up by data and models. I need policy makers and politicians to challenge me and everyone else to make sure I succeed in creating these so that we can have a healthy policy debate rather than a technocratic one.

Bridget Rosewell, Partner at Volterra

Photo credit: © Zarina Holmes / Synthesis ISP

High Speed 2 – What Can We Know?

Henry Overman, in the most recent issue of Centre Piece, the journal of the Centre for Economic Performance, concludes that he is sceptical of the benefits of the proposed High Speed line, because the opportunity cost is high. He wonders whether this is the best way to spend government money and if there are more effective projects.


This is a conclusion that is very seductive and needs careful examination. A series of smaller projects, invested over shorter periods, offer more certainty about both their costs and their benefits. They will not be game changers and can therefore be analysed in the context of ‘business as usual’. The Eddington review also came to the conclusion that sets of smaller projects had better ratios of benefits to costs.

The proponents of large projects therefore need to be clear both about their own assumptions and those on which the conclusion above is reached.

In the UK, we undertake extensive cost benefit analysis to reach conclusions about the value of investment. These are based, as Overman points out, on values of time about which it is possible to argue both about values and the ability to work on a train. He comes to no conclusion on these issues – although they are key to the comparison of cost benefit ratios of projects by which one might conclude that small projects are better.

The opponents of High Speed 2 have, after all, made great play of the proposition that it is not ‘worth’ £17bn of taxpayer funding to save 20 minutes in getting to Birmingham. I would agree that if this were the only argument, then it does seem a rather expensive toy.

Overman goes on, however, to point out rightly that the bigger argument about HS2 is about getting to Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle – and indeed points further North – quicker. The argument is really about growth. This is dismissed by Overman as likely to promote growth in the South as readily as in the North. If increased growth is desirable, this might not matter of course, but in fact we know that cities with the fastest employment growth have also seen the fastest growth in rail trips and we know that better and quicker trips attract more travellers. Overman’s dismissal seems to me to be premature, especially when this is such an important part of the case.

I am disappointed that someone who has sat on the HS2 analytical challenge panel has not made some more fundamental challenges. In a stable economy we might choose to invest in transport to save people time, or to give them more pleasant journeys. When the economy needs to change and grow, we are investing for quite different purposes – to make it possible for cities to reinvent themselves and reach new markets. So we cannot compare ‘small’ projects designed for the former purpose, with large projects designed to foster growth.

The Jubilee Line Extension did not pass the cost benefit test. But Mrs Thatcher decided to build it anyway, and now it is full and has been essential to getting Docklands regeneration off the ground. Growth, anyone?

Sorry Henry – get more challenging.

Bridget Rosewell, Managing Partner Volterra

HS2 gets Traction

Justine Greening has announced this week that HS2 will go ahead – which is enormously welcome. It is still surprising how many people have fallen for the proposition that is will be an expensive white elephant. Even the leader writers of the Financial Times have been captured by the Nimbys and the naysayers.
The fact remains that the long distance rail system is creaking at the seams. The West Coast Main Line is one of the busiest railways in Europe and managing its maintenance, even after its refurbishment, is a nightmare. The southern end, with massive commuter use, already needs more capacity. So we don’t just need HS2 to meet projected growth – we need it here and now.
Running infrastructure too close to capacity is risky, just as we see at Heathrow. This has to operate at 98% capacity, so that the slightest thing that goes wrong means lengthy trouble and hours to get the system back into normal running.
But the extra capacity will generate additional benefits. Accessibility is crucial to modern economies. With globalisation and the fact that cities are the focus of growth, intercity connectivity will be a key element in maintaining the UK’s economic performance. Our work for the Core Cities has shown that city centre growth will both generate and be generated by extra trips.

Bridget Rosewell