A Study of Nepal’s public policy processes: policymakers’ perception and use of information in decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Public policymaking in Nepal, from formulating formal policies to making public administration decisions, has been primarily based on the implementation of existing laws, following political guidance, and incorporating bureaucratic experience. The idea of evidence-based policymaking is new to Nepal. The15th Plan (2019/20 - 2023/24) makes reference to evidence-based policymaking in health and social sectors (NPC, 2020). The idea of evidence-based policymaking, which demands a rigorous scientific method to produce evidence for what works and making policies based on that, originated in the medical sector and was adapted in social sectors as well (Baron, 2018). In view of the fact that scientific evidence often comes with a degree of uncertainty, and, most importantly, interacts with several factors of the policy process and other forms of knowledge, to be compromised in the end, evidence-informed policymaking becomes a more accurate characterization of the policy process in most contexts (Cairney and Oliver, 2017; Chupein & Glennerst, 2018). How scientific evidence and other relevant information is gathered, processed, and used in the policy process is a topic of study in the scholarship of public policy, public administration, and organization management. Several studies demonstrate that policymaking and decision-making often take place in a highly political context relying on various factors such as political pledges, availability of a wide variety of input sources, relationships, and outcome interests of policy actors (Bowen & Zwi, 2005; Oxman et al., 2009; Head, 2013, 2015; Snilstveit et al., 2016; Philips et al., 2020). Evidence-based decision-making is particularly prominent in policymaking during pandemic crises (Baekkeskov & Rubin, 2014; Baekkeskov, 2016) and the COVID-19 pandemic indeed has highlighted the need and the complexity of evidence use in policymaking (Caestecker & Wissman, 2021; Gao & Yu, 2021; Rubin et al., 2021). COVID-19, an epidemic of unprecedented effect and global and national responses, created a unique context for practising evidence-based and evidence-informed policymaking in an emergency situation. Some studies conducted in this period showed that evidence-based decision-making does not necessarily yield similar policies in similar circumstances, nor much learning between contexts (Rubin et al., 2021). Nepal’s policy response to COVID-19 started early on with the activation of the Infectious Disease Act of 1964 for emergency health service and management, and a series of policy decisions and activities to contain the spread of disease starting from the border control and formation of high-level COVID-19 Crisis Management Center (CCMC) and Case Investigation and Contact Tracing (CICT) teams in March 2020; the first lockdown imposed on 24 March 2020; and instructions and support for quarantine and isolation, diagnostics tests, public health protocol including physical distance, use of mask and sanitization, clinical management of patients, distribution of relief material, vaccination and monetary and financial policies for supporting the impacted economic sectors. All levels of government including federal, provincial, and local levels were variously involved in policymaking, decisions, and implementation. Our interest was to explore how policymakers and decision-makers collect and use the information required for policy and decisions. The literature survey showed there is a scarcity of studies on the public policy process in Nepal. The few studies exposed that national research is scarce, and, on top of that, they have produced information of insufficient relevance and quality for policymaking, and there is poor communication between the research community and policy community (Dhimal et al., 2016; Limbu, 2019; Dhakal, 2019; Pasanen et al., 2019; Tiwari et al., 2021). Drawing from several theoretical studies that identified individual and organizational factors for acquiring, processing, and using evidence and information for policy decisions (Lasswell, 1956; Kingdon, 2013; Bowen & Zwi, 2005), and informed by the few studies done on Nepal’s policy process (Dhimal et al., 2016; Pasanen et al., 2019; Tiwari et al., 2021), we developed a conceptual framework for the acquisition, processing and use of information by decision-makers, with factors at play at those steps. We then set our research objectives. The overall aim of the study was to map policymakers’ knowledge sources, acquisition process, and application of the knowledge to make decisions and policies, and the specific objectives were as follows:1. Identify the sources of information policymakers rely on to make policy decisions. 2. Identify and analyze the factors influencing the access to and processing of information by policymakers. 3. Identify and analyze the institutional and socio-political factors that influence information-seeking behaviour and knowledge use process We used a mixed method research design combining a quantitative survey and qualitative in-depth interview to collect information on the perception and experience of policymakers, decision-makers, implementers, advisors, and facilitators at three levels of government, collectively identified as policymakers in this study. A questionnaire was developed around the themes of information source, information-seeking behaviour, organizational norms and values, the attitude of policymakers, and available resource and capacities. For the qualitative part, semi-structured questions covering the themes of sources of information, quality of information, access to information, use of information, and knowledge of politics were used. We revised these tools based on their pre-tests and discussion among the research team. We used convenience sampling to include policymakers from the federal government, and five local level governments of Bagmati Province including one metropolitan, two municipalities, and two rural municipalities. For the quantitative survey, we received responses from 71 respondents which covered the Office of the Prime Minister, Federal Ministry of Health and Population, Ministry of Home Affairs, Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority, CCMC, office of the chief ministers, relevant ministries of Provincial government including members of Provincial Committee for Disaster Risk Reduction and Management, District Committee for Disaster Risk Reduction and Management and Local Committee for Disaster Risk Reduction and Management including the Ward Chairs of local governments. The survey and interview were conducted during the period between April 2, 2021 and June 18, 2021. The time coincided with the imposition of the second lockdown imposed in Nepal and affected the data collection activities in the field. For example, we had planned and contacted 200 individuals for the survey, but we managed to collect data from 71 respondents. We employed the SPSS package to clean and analyze the survey data. Data entry and cleaning were followed by analysis for each question and between two or more questions. The results of the surveys have been presented in tables and graphical figures. For qualitative data collection, we conducted in-depth interviews with semi-structured questions with 21 people from Federal, Provincial, and Local levels. We used mostly online platforms (Zoom) in the journey of data collection amidst this COVID-19 crisis and lockdown situation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for themes and content. We also conducted an extensive desk review of existing secondary literature to explore policy processes, models of policymaking, the information sources of the knowledge base, and policy documents. Desk review of literature on public policy revealed that the policymaking process follows five broad stages which are agenda setting, policy formulation, adoption, implementation, and review, and often takes place in a highly political context relying on various factors such as political pledges, availability of a wide variety of input sources, relationships and outcome interests of policy actors. Evidence-based policymaking refers to a rational model where scientific evidence are taken as the basis for policy. Evidence-informed policymaking takes into account the evidence as well as inevitable practical compromises made during the process. Since pieces of evidence are not always in a form of information translatable to a policy, the qualifiers evidence-based and evidence-informed are often used interchangeably in the literature. The participants in this study used ‘evidence’ and ‘information’ loosely to indicate a spectrum of rigour and use of information in decision-making, concurring the interchangeability of the terms evidence-based and evidence-informed in the policy process. The study of policy processes in various contexts is a huge scholarly enterprise worldwide. However, there is very little study on the policy process practised in Nepal. Policy processes in normal times and an emergency might follow different norms. COVID-19 pandemic brought a unique challenge for policymakers to make quick decisions in an uncertain and rapidly developing situation. Major policy responses to COVID-19 in Nepal started with the activation of the Infectious Disease Act of 1964 for emergency health service, management, and formation of a rapid response team, and a series of policy decisions and activities to contain the spread of disease starting from the formation of high-level COVID-19 Crisis Management Center (CCMC) and Case Investigation and Contact Tracing (CICT) teams, border control, lockdown, quarantine, diagnostics tests, public health protocol including physical distance, use of mask and sanitization, clinical management of patients, distribution of relief material, vaccination and monetary and financial policies for supporting the impacted economic sectors. All levels of government including federal, provincial, and local levels were variously involved in policymaking, decisions, and implementation. The objective of this study was to find how officials with authority, advisors, and personnel involved in the implementation collectively identified as policymakers collected, processed and used information relevant for policy and decision-making in real-life situations mostly focusing on the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study identified the nature of various aspects of information processing for policymaking including information source, information-seeking behaviour, organizational norms and values, the attitude of policymakers, and available resource and capacities. The findings are broadly in concurrence with the findings of studies done elsewhere and filled a gap in the research of the policy process in Nepal and also helped identify areas of reform and rectification. 1. Policymakers used or were comfortable with all sources of information including networks, media and observations, government documents, consultations, experts’ views, social media, public opinion, and websites of organizations, research, scientific papers, and ideological faith. There was no dramatic difference in preference for sources, except that while federal-level policymakers sought international protocols, local-level policymakers relied on governmental directives and circulars. Experts with roles in advising policymakers sought more academic sources and scientific research findings. 2. Policymakers' perception regarding factors influencing information-seeking behaviour was more or less equally distributed among all factors presented to them which included economic conditions, new scientific findings, technological change, interest groups, political activities, business lobbying, institutional incentives, social recognition, personal interest, capacity to access and process information, the credibility of information sources, relevance of information context, easily accessible and useable information. Business lobbying as a factor was slightly less agreed upon. However, this was identified as a factor in addition to bureaucratic interest in a certain context by federal-level policymakers. Emergency situations and information deficits also influenced information-seeking behaviour often leading to decision-making influenced by public sentiments shaped by celebrity experts. A difference between policy decisions in a normal time and an emergency situation was also revealed, the former requiring more robust or more legitimate information. 3. Most policymakers agreed that the credibility of information is important. However, relevance and the ease of the use of information received more importance than credibility of information. Policymakers also recognized that validating information is time-consuming work and it is aggravated by a lack of information system in our bureaucracy and, furthermore, a culture of frequent transfer of officers without transfer of knowledge and information to incoming officers. 4. Policymakers agreed that existing regulatory mechanism and government’s mandate, support, willingness, and interest for making evidence-informed policy are critical elements for conducive organizational culture/environment to formulate policy. Participants identified hindering administrative structure and policymakers’ own resistance to organizational change as factors hindering the evidence-informed policymaking process. The qualitative study particularly shed more light on the hindering factors by being more specific regarding the situations. Hierarchical administrative system and inter-agency competition were identified as factors dictating the policy process. 5. Organizational resources and capacity were also identified as important factors in policymaking. Lack of policy infrastructure and knowledge about COVID-19, initial policy dependence on World Health Organization (WHO), gradual learning of international experiences and finally responding to local specific needs based on governmental guidelines and local information exemplified the situation and course of policy strengthening. 6. The factors that influenced policymakers’ favourable attitude included enhanced social reputation/recognition, organizational incentives, reciprocal benefits/support, the joy of helping others, and power influence. 7. Policymakers involved in policymaking for responding to COVID-19 at the national level claimed a rather relatively professional process including information-backed policies, engagement with academics and experts, high-level coordination mechanism of the government, quick research and analysis offered by the research institutions, and use of the trusted sources. 8. Limited access to reliable information, lack of financial resources, lack of political will, and lack of knowledge and skills were the most significant barriers in policymaking. Resources, political willingness, attitude, organizational and professional culture, capacities, and trust in information sources determined whether and to what extent use of information is allowed in policymaking. In the context of COVID-19, a situation like information overload, misinformation, and disinformation was also identified as barriers. Rigidity or lack of flexibility in higher-level guidelines and lack of resources were the major constraints in the implementation of policy decisions. Lack of inter-agency coordination at all levels of government surfaced as another major barrier mostly in implementation but also in policymaking and review of policies. Finally, one-off policy decisions to address immediate problems without consideration of the long-term implication were also seen during COVID-19. Based on the findings of the survey, discussion and literature review we have put forward the following policy recommendation to improve the policy and decision-making process in normal as well as emergency situations. 1. Meta-policy for use of evidence in decision-making - There should be a meta-policy for policymaking to follow the policy cycle in general and have a standing manual or Standard Operating Procedure for decision-making that clearly instructs the decision-maker to follow a procedure with a first step of ensuring all relevant information is collected, screened for their relevance and reliability and used. For this, the Good Governance (Management and Operation) Rules 2007 (2064) can be amended to add such instructions. 2. Strong knowledge brokering - In an emergency situation, assistance from an external support group can be taken. However, it better complements the already existing advisory system. The Good Governance (Management and Operation) Rules 2007 (2064) has provision for appointing advisors (Article 22-23). A new provision to identify the possibility of getting assistance from an external support group and general guidelines for the mechanism of assistance would be adequate for this purpose. For a larger purpose of evidence-informed public policymaking, structural strengthening of the research-policy interface is imperative. 3. Academia as a partner for policy research - Academic research by virtue of its disciplinary limitation and epistemology is not in a form of ready-to-use evidence which reduces its relevance to policymaking. A clear need emerges that our researchers must be encouraged with more resources, orientation, and incentives to produce more policy-relevant knowledge. We recommend working out a policy and mechanism for orienting and incentivizing academia for contributing to policy research. 4. Institutional memory and repository - The lack of a system for institutional memory of the information used in policymaking surfaced as a critical problem. We recommend for public organizations have a repository of information and references for each major decision process. 5. More power and resources at the local level - In the context of response to the COVID-19 pandemic, this study revealed that local-level decision-makers and implementers found the orders and circulars from the higher authority too rigid to adapt to local needs and opportunities. We recommend more power and resource to the local government for services to people in all situations, whether normal time or emergency situation.