A governance explainer: What does TAPIC stand for and where did it come from?
Image: Greer, Wismar and Figueras. 2016.
The TAPIC Governance Framework: What is it? Where did it come from?
A number of us here at the HMP Governance Lab have used the TAPIC governance framework in our research and practice. In this post, we thought we should try to explain where the TAPIC governance framework came from and how it can be used.
Wait… what is governance again?
Governance is one of the more slippery concepts in policymaking. There are lots of different definitions in use. But the basic idea is that governance refers to how policy decisions get made and implemented.
Are all policy problems governance problems?
No, definitely not. We think it’s important to understand when some other factor is negatively affecting the policy or outcome in question, such as a lack of money or resources, a legal constraint or a policy idea that has been proven not to work. When encountering a policy problem, officials and analysts should first ask ‘is this a governance problem?’.
This is important because in some cases improving governance won’t do much to improve the outcome that you care about. We need to consider the causal mechanisms between improvements in governance and changes in desirable outcomes.
The broader context behind this is that governments, international agencies and stakeholders have often been guilty of focusing on governance to the exclusion of other concerns such as adequately funding or resourcing a program. Some governments use participation in ‘governance’ projects to mask or distract from anti-democratic behavior, e.g., their poor record on human rights.
Hold up- if that’s the case, isn’t governance an inherently problematic concept?
It’s definitely used in some problematic ways. The World Bank’s ‘good governance’ agenda comes to mind. In the 1990s, the World Bank began using the idea of ‘good governance’ to set conditions on aid. In this context, the measurement of ‘good governance’ ties in with a whole body of valid criticisms about how international bodies, rich countries and donor organizations relate to poorer countries and their populations.
We like Merilee Grindle’s argument that while governance is a useful concept, its normative counterpart, ‘good governance’ should be avoided. She argues that frameworks around ‘good governance’ have attracted more and more components over time, to the point where we’ve lost track of the causal relationship between governance and policy outcomes. She suggests instead that we should talk about ‘good enough’ governance and a problem-driven approach to reform that takes context into account.
In general, users of governance frameworks should avoid treating governance as a shopping list of desirable qualities that might not be very coherent, relevant or feasible given the resources and power of relevant decisionmakers. They shouldn’t recommend ‘one size fits all’ governance solutions that don’t take local context into account. And they shouldn’t use or endorse governance frameworks that make assumptions about how organizations and systems work or use governance as a substitute for thinking more carefully about complex issues like development, poverty or equity.
How does all this relate to the ‘TAPIC’ acronym you keep talking about?
TAPIC stands for Transparency, Accountability, Participation, Integrity and policy Capacity. We think that it’s useful to break down governance activities into those domains as part of figuring out what kind of governance problem you have and how it might be addressed.
That sounds made up. And I thought you were trying to avoid a ‘shopping list’ approach?
Hah! We actually did a really thorough review of existing literature on governance frameworks to look at which related concepts were being used and what they meant. Following that review, we clustered the concepts together through many rounds of iterative discussion. Condensing the longer list down to get at the core concepts was our way of trying to move towards a more practical, problem-focused way of assessing governance. We ended up with five core domains.
T is for Transparency – making clear decisions, their grounds and the decision-makers.
A is for Accountability – ensuring that anybody who acts must account for their actions to appropriate other actors who can reward or punish them.
P is for Participation – ensuring that people who are affected by a decision can express their views about it in a way that ensures they are at least heard.
I is for Integrity – a system in which organizations and jobs have clear definitions, and procedures such as hiring and contracting are regularized and clear.
C is for policy Capacity – employing the necessary expertise to assist policy-makers in avoiding, diagnosing and remedying policy failures and unintended consequences.
So how should someone interested in addressing a governance problem apply the TAPIC framework?
Once they are sure that it’s a governance problem that’s causing the outcomes they’re interested in, they would use the TAPIC domains to think about what kind of governance problem they have. The point of doing this is to help move towards some practical potential solutions as well as getting more specificity about the potential pitfalls of reform.
For example, if the problem is about opaque procedures, poor communication, information hoarding, or distrust of decisionmakers, then it might be a problem of transparency. Ways of addressing a transparency problem include creating oversight mechanisms like watchdog committees or inspectorates, procedural changes like regular public reporting or open meetings or any other intervention aimed at producing clear, accessible and usable public information.
When thinking about solutions to a transparency problem, it might be useful to think about the costs and benefits of each. Releasing information to the public might help to improve scrutiny of policy decisions. But it can be costly to release information, and the result of this effort might just be to give more accurate information to the most mobilized and resourced groups in society. In this way, thinking about potential reforms and their relative merits is important in order to land on a solution that is likely to actually make a difference.
You can read some of our work on TAPIC here:
Strengthening Health Systems Governance: Better Policies, Stronger Performance
Fences and Ambulances: Governance for Intersectoral Action on Health
