14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
42<br />
liabilities.<br />
The coalition government has introduced changes to<br />
reshape <strong>risk</strong> management practices across local government.<br />
The emphasis on breaking up public monopolies and<br />
transferring power away from central government allows<br />
local government to innovate and develop new solutions<br />
to past issues, drawing on the professional judgement<br />
of local government officers. A key challenge involves<br />
providing officers with relevant information so they<br />
have an appropriate <strong>evidence</strong> base to take informed <strong>risk</strong><br />
management decisions and to partake in measured <strong>risk</strong><br />
taking, whereby well-<strong>evidence</strong>d <strong>risk</strong>s are assessed on their<br />
probability and consequences. Under these conditions, local<br />
authorities may reform their <strong>risk</strong> management approaches<br />
by passing on the responsibility for some <strong>risk</strong>s through<br />
contracts, insurance or delegation (to other bodies or<br />
individuals); and by engaging with new actors so they<br />
understand the challenges these <strong>risk</strong>s present, as well as<br />
how to take precautionary and preventative action in order<br />
to protect them from harm. This seems to offer support<br />
to individuals who can assume greater responsibility and<br />
proactively manage their interests, rather than relying on<br />
state intervention. But it also recognizes that certain <strong>risk</strong>s<br />
require onward scrutiny and oversight, because they are too<br />
important to devolve.<br />
National registers, <strong>risk</strong>s and futures<br />
A natural outcome of pan-government <strong>risk</strong> analysis has<br />
been a capacity to compare and contrast many different<br />
types of <strong>risk</strong> that have national strategic significance.<br />
What distinguishes one <strong>risk</strong> or opportunity from another<br />
is its character 43, 44 : not only its magnitude, dimensions<br />
and significance, but also the means by which it might be<br />
realised, how likely it is to come to fruition, the individual<br />
mechanisms by which this might occur, the knock-on<br />
consequences that may emerge, and how it is understood<br />
and managed by those that engage with it 45 . Emerging<br />
naturally from a more joined-up, pan-government approach<br />
to <strong>risk</strong> management, the UK Civil Contingencies Secretariat,<br />
was established in 2001 as the Cabinet Office department<br />
responsible for emergency planning in the United Kingdom.<br />
The role of the secretariat is to ensure the United<br />
Kingdom’s resilience against disruptive challenge. By working<br />
with others, it aims to anticipate, assess and prevent <strong>risk</strong>s; to<br />
prepare and respond in the event of major threats; and then<br />
recover from <strong>risk</strong>s that are realized.<br />
Since 2010, the emphasis of government’s <strong>risk</strong><br />
management has been on national resilience — a focus on<br />
the systemic features essential to ensuring society is robust<br />
to shock and able to recover quickly when adverse events<br />
occur. The National Risk Register of Civil Emergencies<br />
and the National Security Strategy set out government<br />
thinking and embody a strategic perspective 46, 47 . In compiling<br />
these registers, frameworks for analysing and presenting<br />
strategic <strong>risk</strong>s adopted within business settings 48 have been<br />
deployed across government. Notwithstanding the debates<br />
on method 49,50, 51 , one cannot argue with the impact these<br />
national <strong>risk</strong> analyses are having in shaping policy discussions<br />
on the effectiveness of public <strong>risk</strong> management 52 ; the societal<br />
appetite for the current levels of residual <strong>risk</strong>; and on how<br />
national <strong>risk</strong>s might evolve under a variety of possible<br />
futures.<br />
Looking to the far horizon 53 is now widely recognised as a<br />
reserved responsibility of government with respect to public<br />
<strong>risk</strong> management. Recent reviews of capability have called<br />
for a centrally-coordinated approach to horizon-scanning<br />
and foresight activity that, in some ways, mirrors the policy<br />
initiatives on <strong>risk</strong> of the late 1990s discussed above. This<br />
can only lead to a maturing capability and lend support to a<br />
long held view that governments must look beyond fiveyear<br />
terms to ensure genuine preparedness and resilience in<br />
society’s ability to meet the intergenerational and existential<br />
challenges ahead 54 (see Chapters 2 and 10).<br />
TABLE 1<br />
Simplified account of local authority<br />
responsibilities within England 42<br />
Education<br />
Highways<br />
Transport<br />
planning<br />
Passenger<br />
transport<br />
Social services<br />
Housing<br />
Libraries<br />
Leisure and<br />
recreation<br />
Environmental<br />
health<br />
Waste<br />
collection<br />
Waste disposal<br />
Planning<br />
application<br />
Strategic<br />
planning<br />
Police<br />
Fire<br />
Met. areas Shire areas London<br />
Single purpose<br />
MD<br />
SC/UA<br />
SD/UA<br />
Single purpose<br />
City<br />
LB<br />
GLA<br />
MD = metropolitan district; SC = shire county; SD = shire district;<br />
UA = unitary authority; LB = London borough;<br />
GLA = Greater London Authority<br />
Source: Local Government Financial Statistics, England, CLG