What gets done and why : implementing the recommendations of public inquires
By: STUTZ, Jeffrey R
.
Material type: 
ArticlePublisher: Toronto : IPAC, September/Septembre 2008Canadian Public Administration 51, 3, p. 501-521Abstract: Public inquiries are often the instrument of choice when governments decide to re-think their approach to large issues, yet there has been little empirical research on how effective they are. This article is an evidence-based look at what affects the implementation of recommendations made by public inquiries. It considers eleven inquiries, examining how they operated, their political and administrative setting, and what action was taken on the recommendations. The central hypothesis is that governments do implement the recommendations of public inquiries under certain conditions. Such implementation extends not only to technical, incremental recommendations but also to recommendations involving systemic changes. The findings point to the role of judges who head and preside over inquiries as policy influencers. Often buffered by inquiry counsel or policy staff, judges may test potential recommendations with governments and other interested parties. The impact of inquiry hearings suggests that public inquiries do not necessarily serve a government's wishes to delay action. If inquiry hearings are the top item in the news, it is hard to see how that furthers a government agenda to bury the issues
Public inquiries are often the instrument of choice when governments decide to re-think their approach to large issues, yet there has been little empirical research on how effective they are. This article is an evidence-based look at what affects the implementation of recommendations made by public inquiries. It considers eleven inquiries, examining how they operated, their political and administrative setting, and what action was taken on the recommendations. The central hypothesis is that governments do implement the recommendations of public inquiries under certain conditions. Such implementation extends not only to technical, incremental recommendations but also to recommendations involving systemic changes. The findings point to the role of judges who head and preside over inquiries as policy influencers. Often buffered by inquiry counsel or policy staff, judges may test potential recommendations with governments and other interested parties. The impact of inquiry hearings suggests that public inquiries do not necessarily serve a government's wishes to delay action. If inquiry hearings are the top item in the news, it is hard to see how that furthers a government agenda to bury the issues
Click on an image to view it in the image viewer
There are no comments for this item.