User:AbrahamLai/sandbox
 | |
| Type | Democracy |
|---|---|
| Minimum Requirements | A venue, time, date, 2 participants or above |
| Participants | Politicians, businessperson, stakeholders, social workers |
Policy Dialogue
[edit]A policy dialogue is a deliberative policy and decision-making process, involving typically two groups or individuals with different perspectives but a mutual interest on an issue to achieve their objective by exchanging ideas and building consensus recommendation through evidence based discussions.[1][2][3][4][5][6] A policy dialogue can also be involved with more than two groups or individuals.[1][2] The participants generally sit together at a table or across multiple tables during a policy dialogue.[1][7][4] It is a practice commonly used in many countries by politicians, businessperson, stakeholders and social workers to form a policy framework to improve their economy, health and education system or help the individuals in need.[7][2][5][6]
A policy dialogue represents a discussion or negotiation between two or more groups or individuals where the participants focus on improvements and reforms.[7][5] Every participant on the table has a right to contribute their ideas.[2][4] It is used as a tool that allows both sides to acknowledge and understand each other's perspective through open discussions and mutual understanding in order to form a practical solution that resolves their problems and achieves their targets.[7][2] The use of this practice aims to bring groups with diverse interests together, which allows them to emphasize on a fair policy or regulatory of their common interest and demand.[2][7] The use of a policy dialogue is often associated with challenging and complex issues including changes in the policies of health and education systems, commonly in low and middle-income countries.[8][9][5][3] It can also be used for general issues.[2] A policy dialogue has a life cycle, generally starts with the beginning, progresses to the middle and ends with the final stage.[2]
The intent and participants of a policy dialogue may vary.[8] A policy dialogue can be conducted by any individuals involved in policy and decision-making, typically between civic, public and private sectors including policymakers such as the government officials and politicians to participate on one side of the discussion along with businessmen, social workers or stakeholders participating on the other side.[2][5][6][7] Both parties share a mutual interest but different perspectives on the same issue and intend to reach a solution.[1][2][3][4] A policy dialogue can also be organized for only policymakers in a situation where the governments or political parties share different perspectives but a mutual interest on the same issue.[8] For example, these participants include the governments of two different nations in hope of reaching an agreement that suits the demands of both countries.[10]
The Purpose of Using a Policy Dialogue
[edit]
The use of a policy dialogue represents the ideology of democracy.[2] Every participant in a policy dialogue is given an opportunity to inform the other participants of their own perspectives, which allows every participant's ideas to be listened to and understood by every other participant.[5][3][11] [4]The perspectives or ideas of every participant will be taken into consideration that determines the final outcome of the discussion in order to ensure fairness.[2][5]A policy dialogue results in an effective deliberation in the informal decision-making processes by allowing open discussions, which subsequently influences the latter formal processes.[2] The use of a policy dialogue aims to respond to challenging problems, resolve organizational issues and form an evidence-informed policy through communicating in an accepted and shared dialogue by both parties.[2][11] [6] It also prevents an unclear deliberation process and premature decisions by the policymakers.[2]
The use of a policy dialogue assumes the individuals in different positions share varied views on an issue and they are prohibited from having the equal access to information about the issue. For instance, an individual that provides a service is knowledgeable within the specific industry whereas a government official is experienced in the implementation process of a policy[1][4][7]. A shared dialogue ensures every participant has a mutual understanding of the issue as it creates transparency and fairness in implementing a policy.[8][1][3][2][7] Transparency builds trust between stakeholders and it allows both parties to be equally informed by creating an opportunity to clarify conditions and demands to agree upon.[4][3][5]
The use of a policy dialogue increases the accountability of the policymakers by granting them authority in partaking a policy dialogue that aims to resolve the issue addressed and implement new policies. [3] The use of a policy dialogue acknowledges the power differences between groups and individuals by assuming the policymakers have authority in the alteration or introduction of a policy.[7][1][3] [4][12] This particular acknowledgement allows the policymakers with authority, such as the government officials or political parties to act on identifying and improving on lacking areas after taking into account of the interests and demands of other participants.[1][4][12]
The Procedures to Conduct a Policy Dialogue
[edit]A policy dialogue is normally constructed through a set of procedures. First of all, the issue or conflict is addressed prior to organizing a dialogue.[2][1][4] A minimum of two sides on this conflict is to be established.[7] The interests and agendas of both parties as well as the purpose of having a policy dialogue about this issue are required to be clear and communicated.[12][1][3][2][5] The willingness and commitment of the stakeholders to participate in the dialogue is expected.[1][2][5][7] A limited amount of stakeholders are allowed to participate in the dialogue to ensure an efficient, reliable and valuable discussion.[1][4][8] A date and time is selected and set for the attendance of the participating stakeholders.[8] A physical or virtual venue and a number of rules for the dialogue are established to protect and provide both parties a fair opportunity throughout the discussion.[2][8][4] These rules include providing both parties an equal chance to express their opinions and ideas as well as having the access to the same information.[4][3][5]
The middle stage of a policy dialogue allows information exchange between two parties and it provides the capacity for participants to listen to each other, express their perspectives and interpret the issue.[2][5] A mutual agent facilitating the dialogue in order to keep the emphasis on the common objectives can be employed.[4][1][2][5] An amount of time is allocated for a dialogue in order for stakeholders to develop relations, communicate, acknowledge the interests and ideas of all stakeholders and finally seek a majority agreement based on the shared information.[8][5] The stakeholders can work together after gathering the shared information from the dialogue to discover and create the most considerate approach to the interests of all parties.[2][8] In the cases of health and education systems, it is common to prioritize the public needs for the final agreement.[5]
The final procedure will be designing an outcome as the overall agreement for all parties.[2][3] Some factors can be taken into consideration while finalizing an outcome from the policy dialogue, including the cost-effectiveness and alternative allocations of action.[4][9] The policymakers make an informed decision to whether establish the policy framework after listening to and understanding every participant's perspective, assessing the needs and measuring the benefits of various outcomes.[2][9]
Controversy
[edit]The standard definition of a policy dialogue is often misunderstood by the general public as different nations and sectors fail to hold a consensus on the interpretation of the term. [12][3] In some countries, the process of and desired result from a policy dialogue are both varied.[12] Organizations also tend to conduct policy dialogues with their preferred method in certain sectors, which causes the inconsistency in the explanation of the term.[3][12] For instance, the officials in China have a different method of communication and negotiation in regard to the aid process than the United States Agency for International Development.[12] In French-speaking regions, it is common for the community to mistake policy for politics as both words are written or pronounced identically in the French language.[3] This common misunderstanding leads to misinterpretation of the policy dialogue as an exclusive debate between only government officials or political parties.[3]
The use of a policy dialogue for the policy-making process allows policymakers to exercise their authority to proceed the final decision with or without following the agreement between all parties resulted from a policy dialogue, which can potentially lead to an inconsiderate approach to the interests of other stakeholders.[3] In certain countries, the government officials are capable to claim the privilege on the access to particular information and refuse to disclose or share to other stakeholders in a dialogue, which can prevent a fair exchange of information.[5]
The Use of Policy Dialogue by Organizations within Districts
[edit]Policy Dialogue on Chemical Weapon Disposal
[edit]The United States Department of Defense established the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) program in 1996, whose program manager later conducted an assessment and organized a policy dialogue on chemical weapons demilitarization issues due to the public opposition in Richmond, Kentucky and Pueblo, Colorado.[13] The ACWA appointed The Keystone Center, a neutral and non-profit organization specializing in resolving health and environmental issues to facilitate this dialogue in hope of providing an opportunity for discussion and building a consensus.[14][15][13] 35 stakeholders were invited and they were the affected communities, public interest groups, state officials with a wide range of perspectives.[15] These stakeholders were the active participants in debates to influence the policy decisions in regard to this issue and their views ranged from supporting the incineration of chemical weapon to opposing this process and seeking alternatives.[13][15] Prior to inviting them to the upcoming dialogue, the interests and opinions of the stakeholders were gathered and analyzed through multiple processes including public meetings, private discussions and interviews to prevent irrelevant, inconsistent and unprofessional perspectives.[13] These individuals were chosen to represent their groups and be involved in the dialogue with multiple ground rules set to ensure the free exchange of ideas among the stakeholders.[13] The objective of this dialogue was to build a consensus on selecting and demonstrating at least two alternative non-incineration technologies that address the objections for the destruction of chemical weapons.[13][15] The dialogue was established in May 1997 and the stakeholders have met twelve times since its inception.[15]
The factors to consider in the policy dialogue included the health impacts on the nearby communities from the release of agent, trustworthiness of the army to handle the chemical weapons and hazard of the motoring process and waste products.[13] The main recommendations from the dialogue was to demonstrate at least two alternatives to incineration, emphasize on the evaluation of public health, safety and environmental protection, consider and apply a safe and cost-effective and timely demonstrated technology at all chemical weapons sites, and adopt transparent demilitarization programs to the public.[13][15] Overall, the stakeholders agreed upon the demonstration of several alternatives and eventually decided on continuing the safest alternative technology for the destruction of all chemical weapons.[15][13] Seven proposals on the possible demonstrations were submitted by the technology providers for initial consideration and three were selected by the United States Department of Defense for demonstration.[13]
Policy Dialogue on Early Childhood Development
[edit]The World Bank proposed a guide on early childhood development to facilitate a policy dialogue for policymakers to create a policy framework in developing countries in order to invest in the early childhood development of children and equip them to be prepared as independent and skilled adult.[9][16] These early childhood investments focus on areas including nutrition, learning, health, security and safety, and responsive care-giving.[9][16][17] The stakeholders are the ministers of finance, planning and social affairs.[9] The main factors to be considered and analyzed are the benefits in the physical development, cognitive development, language development, social and emotional development of children in both short and long term.[9][16] Another considerable factor is the costly compensation for the individuals from malnutrition and lack of intellectual stimulation in early childhood, which can both potentially lead to linguistic and cognitive development delays.[9][16] [17] An assessment on the quality of the existing services, population needs, and socioeconomic, demographic, nutrition, education and health status of a country is required to be completed prior to setting a policy framework.[9][16]
The main objective includes; investing on areas that create the enhancement of kindergarten readiness, reduction in high-risk behavior, improvement of the children's physical and mental health, and cognitive and social emotional abilities.[17][9][16] As a part of the consensus building, the government is suggested to set up a policy framework to visualize a set of strategies and the clarification on the responsibilities of early childhood development programs to ensure improvement and future well-being.[17][9]
Reference
[edit]- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m "How to Conduct a Policy Dialogue". Knowledge Translation Network Africa. 2017.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y Andler, Peter (December 2003). "Policy Dialogue". Beyond Intractability.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p "Policy dialogue: What it is and how it can contribute to evidence-informed decision-making" (PDF). World Health Organization. February 2015.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o "Conducting a Policy Dialogue to Achieve Results" (PDF). Women in Informal Employment Globalizing and Organizing. July 2013.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Jacob, W.James (2011). "Policy Dialogue" (PDF). Education Policy and Data Center.
- ^ a b c d Torjman, Sherri (June 2005). "Policy Dialogue" (PDF). Maytree.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k "Policy Dialogues: A description and examples". Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i "Organising and Running Policy Dialogues". Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care. November 2011.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Naudeau, Sophie (2011). Investing in Young Children: An Early Childhood Development Guide for Policy Dialogue and Project Preparation. Washington: World Bank. pp. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 47, 70, 71, 72. ISBN 978-0-8213-8526-5.
- ^ "Israel-Mexico: The fourth policy dialogue". Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 19 October 2009.
- ^ a b Damani, Zaheed (2016). "The use of a policy dialogue to facilitate evidence-informed policy development for improved access to care: the case of the Winnipeg Central Intake Service (WCIS)". Health Research Policy and Systems. 14 (1): 78. doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0149-5. PMC 5070349. PMID 27756401.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ a b c d e f g McCullough, Aoife (July 2011). "Review of Literature and International Practice in Policy Dialogue" (PDF). Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Beaudet, Robert (1999). Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons. Washington, USA: National Academy Press. pp. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 15, 22, 33, 34, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170. ISBN 0-309-06639-5.
- ^ Warren, David (8th of May 2000). "Chemical Weapons Disposal: Improvements Needed in Program Accountability and Financial Management" (PDF). U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO).
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ a b c d e f g "Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment Program" (PDF). Program Executive Office Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives. December 2001.
- ^ a b c d e f "G20 DEVELOPMENT WORKING GROUP: INVESTING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT" (PDF). Early Childhood Development Action Network. March 2008.
- ^ a b c d Grantham-McGregor, Sally (2007). "Developmental potential in the first 5 years for children in developing countries". Lancet (London, England). 369 (9555): 60–70. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60032-4. PMC 2270351. PMID 17208643.