Policy benchmarking is a process that enhances system effectiveness, encourages thoughtful consideration, and facilitates knowledge acquisition among stakeholders. It fosters innovation within organisations by allowing policy-makers to gain insights from other organisations or political systems through practical experiences. Interactive learning allows organisations to assess their performance and compare it with others without borrowing or lending policy practices. This approach follows a bottom-up method, with local learning networks established by policy actors in each country. The European high-level group on benchmarking prioritises acquiring knowledge and adopting a grassroots approach, focusing on enhancing analytical preparation and refining learning mechanisms. Policy-makers and stakeholders learn about effective methodologies and diverse circumstances through early engagement and collaboration. The concept of acquiring knowledge and starting from the basics significantly enhances policy benchmarking’s success in fostering innovation and productivity within organisations. Benchmarking is a crucial tool for improving both private and public sectors, contributing to the advancement of democracy through an interactive learning methodology and a bottom-up approach. Democracy emphasises inclusivity and engagement, allowing individuals to make choices based on their personal moral understanding. Policy benchmarking can facilitate these principles by engaging policy-makers, stakeholders, and citizens at every stage of the process. A democratic benchmarking system should accurately represent public preferences and possess political legitimacy, involving equal participation of policy-makers, stakeholders, and citizens in decision-making. Freedom of speech and transparency are fundamental principles of democracy that should be applied to policy assessments. Transparency is essential in a democratic benchmarking process, promoting the disclosure of all relevant information related to public policy execution. Without transparent benchmarking, citizens may not effectively participate as members of the community. Benchmarking serves as a valuable instrument in advancing democracy and cultivating civic duty among individuals.
Policy benchmarking can be divided into two methodologies: the principle of replication and the top-down approach. The first, known as naive and mechanical benchmarking, prioritises performance and does not encourage interactive learning. It involves the unmediated transmission of policy practices, regardless of economic, social, and cultural disparities. The second, the top-down method, involves external government authority compelled by policy organisations to replicate specific practices. However, this method lacks inclusion of policymakers and stakeholders, resulting in a lack of interactive learning. While imitation may gain political support, it is insufficient for achieving long-term performance goals, which require a comprehensive understanding of diverse socio-economic practices and contexts. Policy benchmarking can promote authoritarianism by encouraging the replication of policies and adopting a hierarchical decision-making process. An authoritarian regime is a political system where decisions are made without considering the governing perspectives. It can manifest as a collective dictatorship, oligarchy, or military government. The earliest example of an authoritarian regime is Sparta, where serfs governed the city-state. Institutionalised authoritarianism is characterised by uniformity and lack of democratic control, achieved through the eradication of pluralism and the establishment of a mass society. Limited democratic participation is due to the dominance of a monopolistic external entity or political and economic elite. Authoritarian regimes use bureaucracies for state functions and exert control through surveillance, monitoring, and policing. Policy benchmarking, often criticised for its authoritarian aspects, often promotes uniformity and lack of democratic oversight. This process disregards socio-economic backgrounds and cultural values, leading to the eradication of pluralism. The process can be facilitated by excluding policymakers, stakeholders, and citizens from all stages, promoting authoritarianism through a top-down approach. The authority to establish benchmarks and performance indicators lies with an external governmental entity or influential political elite, who can set targets for authoritative oversight of public institutions and policies. This authoritative evaluation can lead to the forceful adoption of policy practices across organisations or countries, as political actors are hindered from acquiring beneficial practices through democratic discourse. Decisions are made by an external authority that can enforce specific policy practices on other organisations or countries.
Policy networks are crucial for contemporary government and governance, involving the exchange of information, resources, and opportunities between governing elements and societal interests. They transcend traditional interest group politics and are not accountable to the state. Globalisation and the end of the Cold War have led to a matrix of policy networks informing public policy. Policy transfer, influenced by external policies, is increasingly important due to information availability and instantaneous global communication. The participatory opportunity has been enhanced by state transparency, with open information acts and digital government promoting active information exchanges among public organisations. The emergence of big data and the need for real-time decision-making are major trends in this area. The state’s protective functions have also been impacted, with a trend towards a more liberalised and deregulated economy. The ensuring state, which embodies the moral test of government, has been weakened in some countries, while others are moving towards being an enabling state. The state’s role in protecting the economy has also been impacted, with the state becoming the major guardian of the economy through regulatory oversight and bailouts.
Citizen’s participation is often seen as a barrier to long-term policy development, especially in sustainability. Western representative government systems, which allow citizens to elect their representatives, can be problematic due to their focus on immediate outcomes and lack of resources for advocating for marginalized groups. Policy decisions that incorporate the viewpoints of impacted individuals can provide a wider range of inputs and establish public legitimacy. Policy design that considers the democratic context can effectively address systemic inequalities and promote active citizenship, enhancing human dignity, justice, and democratic principles. Deliberative democracy, characterised by the political and public process of considering, evaluating, and deciding on reasons, is essential for sustainable long-term planning. Traditional democratic methods, such as vote aggregation or interest group pluralism, are insufficient for addressing sustainability issues and ethical dilemmas. Deliberative procedures allow communities to engage in discussions and develop solutions using their own language, ultimately assuming responsibility.
Finally, the influence of public opinion is pivotal in assessing the caliber of democracy and maintaining equilibrium between political information and scientific knowledge. In a democratic government, safeguarding rights is imperative, and discontent with policy can result in diminished policy efficacy or a sense of unfulfilled rights.