It’s time to move from the ‘what’ to the ‘how’.

The need for genuinely entrepreneurial states that have the capacity and capability to search for new directions and ways of doing things, while bringing long-term focus and stability has never been higher. Or trickier. And, in response to having little spare money to spend, a long list of problems, and ever present threats on the horizon there has been a re-emergence of mission-orientated and responsible approaches to policy-making (Kattel, 2022).

What this has done, is put the lack of capability at an administrative level of government (Grimbert, Zabala-Iturriagagoitia & Ville Valovirta, 2024) to deliver these types of policies in the spotlight.

—

This presentation is an analysis of where policy starts and the capabilities within HMRC to frame, design and deliver them. I will demonstrate why our policy design process, and challenge-driven administration efforts to improve them, are limited. I will then propose the implementation of a mission-driven policy commissioning framework that looks to embed the dynamic capabilities needed to deliver both innovation policies and policies that promote long-term stability.

—

But first, let’s slow down and breakdown where policy starts.

As we all know, HMRC shares a ‘policy partnership’ with Treasury. Where Treasury is responsible for tax policy, HMRC is responsible for the administration of tax policy by developing and implementing the policy before creating the services to deliver it.

On paper, this means that Treasury holds the strings to initiate and shape new tax policies while HMRC should be focused on fixing and improving existing policy.

—

In reality, this relationship is a lot more fluid. With no ‘formal’ commissioning process in place, it means that when we look at this relationship with a systems perspective we quickly come to understand the sheer volume of actors and influences policy teams within HMRC are dealing with. It’s an attack on the senses and a system that reinforces the opaque role of senior civil servants – pulling the strings and often acting in their own interests.

—

This is important to frame because it has a profound impact on the early stages of policy making – it reinforces the traditional linear approach to Whitehall programme governances that manages risk by predicting, planning and making decisions upfront.

This means that policy teams are receiving requests to investigate policies with the biggest decisions having been made when the least is known, the intent behind the policy unclear and absolutely no consideration of users needs (Radical How, 2023). The cherry on top is that they are not given the license to challenge this, they are expected to deliver on the ask in a series of stages before finally inflicting it on the public.

—

Wendy Williams in her review of the Windrush scandal in 2020 summarised these challenges and the impact they have on policy teams by noting that although caseworkers had followed guidance, they had not been encouraged to challenge decisions where they felt the outcomes were incorrect, ultimately leading to a culture where warning signs inside and outside of the home office where ignored. This is something policy teams within HMRC are experiencing today.