IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v147y2024ics0264837724002965.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ideals and practicalities of policy co-design – Developing England’s post-Brexit Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes

Author

Listed:
  • Little, Ruth
  • Tsouvalis, Judith
  • Escoffié, José Luis Fajardo
  • Hartley, Susan E.
  • Rose, David Christian

Abstract

There are few examples of where co-design has been applied to active policy development on the scale or level of complexity of England’s post-Brexit Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes. ELM offers a fascinating ‘laboratory’ to analyse how co-design at this scale works in practice. This paper offers the first in-depth empirical assessment of the process from the perspectives of both the policy makers and stakeholders who were involved in the initial phase of ELM co-design from 2018 to 2020. Using interview data, we provide critical insights for both academics and government on 'pragmatic' applications of co-design to active policy development and reflect on what this tells us about the wider processes of policy development that may need to change in order to accommodate this more ‘democratic’ approach. Our analysis, which identified key barriers to co-design as articulated by institutional stakeholders and civil servants, revealed a mismatch between the principles and practices of ‘co-design’ in the initial development of ELM. These early-stage challenges included: (i) a lack of shared decision-making and empowering stakeholders to contribute to problem-definitions; (ii) confidentiality requirements that introduced barriers to information-sharing; (iii) insufficient transparency and feedback on what happened to stakeholder’s contributions in terms of policy development; (iv) an absence of detail on the schemes, including proposed approaches, payment rates, advice, baseline measures, the kinds of ‘outcomes’ expected, and monitoring mechanisms; and (v) a repetition of themes that participants had already discussed. Many of these mismatches may be common to other policy arenas. We argue that improved application of policy co-design in government will rely on wider changes to political processes and the institutional culture and practices within the civil service.

Suggested Citation

  • Little, Ruth & Tsouvalis, Judith & Escoffié, José Luis Fajardo & Hartley, Susan E. & Rose, David Christian, 2024. "Ideals and practicalities of policy co-design – Developing England’s post-Brexit Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:147:y:2024:i:c:s0264837724002965
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107343
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837724002965
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107343?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Henning Schaak & Jens Rommel & Julian Sagebiel & Jesus Barreiro-Hurlé & Douadia Bougherara & Luigi Cembalo & Marija Cerjak & Tajana Čop & Mikołaj Czajkowski & María Espinosa-Goded & Julia Höhler & Car, 2024. "Who Can Predict Farmers' Choices in Risky Gambles?," Post-Print hal-04677299, HAL.
    2. Lynn Frewer & Brian Salter, 2002. "Public attitudes, scientific advice and the politics of regulatory policy: The case of BSE," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(2), pages 137-145, April.
    3. de Boon, Auvikki & Sandström, Camilla & Rose, David Christian, 2022. "Perceived legitimacy of agricultural transitions and implications for governance. Lessons learned from England’s post-Brexit agricultural transition," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    4. Josephine M. Chambers & Carina Wyborn & Melanie E. Ryan & Robin S. Reid & Maraja Riechers & Anca Serban & Nathan J. Bennett & Christopher Cvitanovic & María E. Fernández-Giménez & Kathleen A. Galvin &, 2021. "Six modes of co-production for sustainability," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 4(11), pages 983-996, November.
    5. Ostrom, Elinor, 1996. "Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 1073-1087, June.
    6. Bateman, Ian J. & Balmford, Ben, 2018. "Public funding for public goods: A post-Brexit perspective on principles for agricultural policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 293-300.
    7. George Cusworth & Jennifer Dodsworth, 2021. "Using the ‘good farmer’ concept to explore agricultural attitudes to the provision of public goods. A case study of participants in an English agri-environment scheme," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 929-941, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thong Anh Tran & Van Touch, 2024. "How agricultural extension responds to amplified agrarian transitions in mainland Southeast Asia: experts’ reflections," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(4), pages 1773-1789, December.
    2. Urquhart, Julie & Ambrose-Oji, Bianca & Chiswell, Hannah & Courtney, Paul & Lewis, Nick & Powell, John & Reed, Matt & Williams, Chris, 2023. "A co-design framework for natural resource policy making: Insights from tree health and fisheries in the United Kingdom," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    3. B. Clark & A. Proctor & A. Boaitey & N. Mahon & N. Hanley & L. Holloway, 2024. "Animal health and welfare as a public good: what do the public think?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(4), pages 1841-1856, December.
    4. Jacob Torfing & Eva Sørensen, 2019. "Interactive Political Leadership in Theory and Practice: How Elected Politicians May Benefit from Co-Creating Public Value Outcomes," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, July.
    5. D'Alberto, R. & Targetti, S. & Schaller, L. & Bartolini, F. & Eichhorn, T. & Haltia, E. & Harmanny, K. & Le Gloux, F. & Nikolov, D. & Runge, T. & Vergamini, D. & Viaggi, D., 2024. "A European perspective on acceptability of innovative agri-environment-climate contract solutions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    6. Jane Freedman & Tamaryn L. Crankshaw & Yasmin Rajah & Victoria Marcia Mutambara, 2024. "“But We Just Need Money”: (Im)Possibilities of Co‐Producing Knowledge With Those in Vulnerable Situations," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 12.
    7. Anthony Bennett, 1998. "Sustainable public/private partnerships for public service delivery," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 22(3), pages 193-199, August.
    8. Valentina Burksiene & Jaroslav Dvorak & Mantas Duda, 2019. "Upstream Social Marketing for Implementing Mobile Government," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, July.
    9. Brian Dill, 2010. "Public-public partnerships in Urban water provision: The case of Dar es Salaam," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 611-624.
    10. Eggers, Jorg & Laschewski, Lutz & Schleyer, Christian, 2005. "Agri-Environmental Policy: Understanding the Role of Regional Administration," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24496, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. A. Arrighetti & G. Seravalli & G. Wolleb, 2001. "Social Capital, Institutions and Collective Action Between Firms," Economics Department Working Papers 2001-EP08, Department of Economics, Parma University (Italy).
    12. Pargal, Sheoli & Gilligan, Daniel & Huq, Mainul, 2000. "Private provision of a public good - social capital and solid waste management in Dhaka, Bangladesh," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2422, The World Bank.
    13. Gaetano Martino & Giulia Giacchè & Enrica Rossetti, 2016. "Organizing the Co-Production of Health and Environmental Values in Food Production: The Constitutional Processes in the Relationships between Italian Solidarity Purchasing Groups and Farmers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-22, March.
    14. Svetlana Suslova, 2016. "Collective Co-Production in Russian Schools," Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 4, pages 144-162.
    15. Xing Xiong & Xinghou Yu & Yuxin Wang, 2022. "The impact of basic public services on residents’ consumption in China," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, December.
    16. Bouquet, Emmanuelle, 2009. "State-Led Land Reform and Local Institutional Change: Land Titles, Land Markets and Tenure Security in Mexican Communities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1390-1399, August.
    17. Colvin, John & Blackmore, Chris & Chimbuya, Sam & Collins, Kevin & Dent, Mark & Goss, John & Ison, Ray & Roggero, Pier Paolo & Seddaiu, Giovanna, 2014. "In search of systemic innovation for sustainable development: A design praxis emerging from a decade of social learning inquiry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 760-771.
    18. Philippe BANCE & Marie-J. BOUCHARD & Dorothea GREILING, 2022. "Conclusions and Directions for further Research," CIRIEC Studies Series, in: Philippe BANCE & Marie-J. BOUCHARD & Dorothea GREILING & CIRIEC (ed.), New perspectives in the co-production of public policies, public services and common goods, volume 3, chapter 0, pages 259-274, CIRIEC - Université de Liège.
    19. Sophie King & Peter Kasaija, 2018. "State-movement partnership in Uganda: Co-producing an enabling environment for urban poverty reduction?," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series esid-098-18, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    20. Luciana Cingolani & Tim Hildebrandt, 2022. "Incentive Structures for the Adoption of Crowdsourcing in Public Policy: A Bureaucratic Politics Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-16, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:147:y:2024:i:c:s0264837724002965. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.