Future-proofing public management.
Date: 2021-06-04
Institutions: European University Institute
Subjects: apprenticeship, citizens' Europe, community resilience, designs and models, educational guidance, governance, management, populism, professional qualifications, public property, research policy

POLICY ANALYSISFUTURE-PROOFING PUBLIC MANAGEMENTSTG Policy PapersISSUE 2021/11 MAY 2021Author:Claudio M Radaelli School of Transnational GovernanceSCHOOL OFTRANSNATIONALGOVERNANCEEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Taking  a  forward-looking  perspective,  I  present  eight  pressure 
points  on  public  management,  concerning  learning,  science, 
populism,  citizens,  design,  humility,  guidance  vs.  practice,  and 
problem vs. mystery. To deal effectively with these points, we need 
a map of core skills and values organised around the conceptual 
framework of capacity. By distinguishing ‘capacity to do what’ and 
‘capacity for what purposes’, I draw some implications for training 
the public managers of resilient societies.

A draft version of this paper was delivered to the STG seminar on Future-Proofing Public Managements, Fiesole, 25 
March 2021. I wish to express my gratitude to the STG colleagues and to our formidable external discussants: Guy 
Peters, Rubina Zern-Breuer, Caroline Paulick-Thiel, and Tony Verheijen. Special thanks to Michael Bauer, Thomas 
Delhais,  Edoardo  Ongaro,  Kalypso  Nicolaidis,  George  Papaconstantinou,  Diane  Stone,  and  Gaia  Taffoni  for  the 
conversations around the themes of this paper and the comments sent on different iterations of the draft. Finally, 
I wish to gratefully acknowledge the project Procedural Tools for Effective Governance (Protego) funded by the 
European Research Council http://protego-erc.eu

Authors and acknowledgements:Claudio Radaelli | Professor of Comparative Public Policy, EUI School of Transnational GovernanceThe opinions of the authors represent personal opinions and do not represent the position or opinion of the European University InstituteSCHOOL OFTRANSNATIONALGOVERNANCE1. WHAT HAS CHANGED? 

What  are  the  core  skills  and  values  of  the 
public  manager  of  the  2020s?  To  answer  this 
question, one has to first know how to identify 
them.  We  have  to  approach  this  task  with 
creativity and when necessary go beyond the 
existing literature.

Being  based  on  empirical  observations  of 
‘what has already happened’, the literature can 
only inform us in limited ways about the future 
in  rapidly  changing  environment.  At  best,  it 
can  draw  our  attention  to  weak  signals  and 
emerging trends. But let us briefly look at what 
the literature has to offer – with the caveat that 
this will be just a cursory illustration. To begin 
with, we find a debate on the legacy of the so-
called new public management (NPM), the role 
of  post-NPM  and  research  on  specific  topics 
and  approaches  with  no  special  attachment 
to  the  NPM  categories  and  labels.  Broadly 
speaking, if the NPM was centred on structures 
such  as  joined-up  government,  independent 
agencies  and  outsourcing,  the  new  wave 
is  more  about  capacity,  learning,  bottom-
up  solutions  and  polyarchic,  polycentric 
in 
experimental  governance.  Examples 
this  field  are  behavioural  insights  in  public 
administration, policy innovation labs, and the 
politics of advice and provision of science and 
policy expertise. 

From  different  perspectives,  another  body  of 
research points to the characteristics of effective 
public administration – a good example being 
the  foundations  of  motivation  in  the  public 
sector.  A  further  thread  directs  us  toward  the 
fundamental  issues  of  ethics,  the  concept  of 
good  governance,  and  how  to  create  public 
value.  Essentially,  this  is  a  more  fundamental 
philosophical 
explicitly 
soul-searching, 
trajectory, well-represented by a recent volume 
by  Edoardo  Ongaro  on  philosophy  in  public 
administration. 

Whilst  academic  research  is  carrying  out  its 
internal  conversations  on  all  this,  the  public 
sphere  is  no  longer  hinged  to  the  perimeter 
of  the  territorial  state  –Fridays  for  Future 
articulates its action at the transnational level – 

international, 

both in terms of mobilisation and governance 
solutions.  With 
the  Covid-19  pandemic 
regulatory responses, the economic packages 
for  ecological  transformation  and  innovation, 
and  the  rise  in  the  political  attention  for  the 
sustainable development goals, the locus (local, 
national, 
trans-governmental) 
and identity of ‘the public manager’ is shifting 
rapidly. Back in 1997, Guy Peters talked about 
puzzled public managers who can’t steer and 
shouldn’t row. This is no longer the central theme 
of the public management literature. And yet, 
Covid-19 may look like the opportunity for more 
steering via command-and-control regulation, 
public spending, and the entrepreneurial state 
(with the caveat that these are three different 
approaches, not a single vision of the state and 
public administration). 

“

Not every policy innovation 
is socially acceptable and 
automatically future-proofed. 
Values and sense of purpose are as 
important as entrepreneurial skills

“

However,  the  sheer  scale  of  complexity  and 
tasks  goes  well  beyond  what  a  steering  state 
might  possibly  do.  One  argument  is  that 
usually  it’s  markets  (not  states)  that  create 
innovations  and  societies  that  produce  social 
innovation. Another argument revolves around 
polycentricity. Scholars of climate governance 
(among others) refer to polycentricity in action 
as  standards  for  the  public  management  of 
climate policies across all levels of governance, 
from  cities  to  transnational  fora.  Here  is 
our  proposition:  Rather  than  focusing  on 
steering versus rowing, let us stimulate policy 
entrepreneurship  across  those  who  manage 
and those who lead. As it will become clear from 
the remainder of this paper, entrepreneurship 
is  not  by  itself  accountable  and  normatively 
justified. Not every policy innovation is socially 
acceptable  and  automatically  future-proofed. 
Values and sense of purpose are as important 
as entrepreneurial skills.

3

STG | Policy Papers Issue | 2021/11 | May 20212.  THE  (SUSTAINABLE)  FUTURE  IS 
NOW

the 

At the EUI School of Transnational Governance, 
we focus on the transnational dimension with 
a  worldview  informed  by  the  sustainable 
challenge  of 
development  goals, 
democratizing  transnational  governance,  the 
transformation  and  consolidation  of  digital 
markets,  the  green  deal  of  the  European 
Union,  gender  equality,  and  the  celebration 
of  diversity  and  human  dignity.  Our  interest 
is  empirical  and  normative:  we  care  about 
democratic  values  and  socially  responsible 
innovation;  we  are  worried  about  the  impact 
of  populism  on  public  management;  and  we 
believe  that  decisions  should  be  informed 
by  robust  evidence  and  balanced  values. 
Management  should  not  just  ‘manage’  but 
contribute  to  accountable  and  trustworthy 
decision-making  processes.  One  of  the  most 
pressing issues in transnational governance is 
indeed  accountability,  given  that  so  much  of 
this  mode  of  governance  eschews  traditional 
democratic accountability via elections.

“

One of the most pressing issues in 
transnational governance is indeed 
accountability, given that so 
much of this mode of governance 
eschews traditional democratic 
accountability via elections

“

in 

instrumental 

These  values  are 
the 
identification  of  our  mission  for  the  future 
of  public  management.  We  cannot  think 
exclusively about ‘responses’ – to the multiple 
policy  crises,  to  the  priorities  of  international 
and transnational institutions, to the demands 
of citizens. This word, response, already implies 
a  reactive  mode  of  governance.  Key  to  the 
success of public management is the capacity 
to  anticipate  –  which  includes,  but  is  broader 
than,  to  predict.  To  anticipate  in  a  clearly 
defined,  trustworthy  chain  of  accountability 
is  a  formidable  challenge  for  policy  and 
institutional  design.  Equally  challenging  is  to 
achieve that by empowering citizens in terms of 
participation to the creation and management 

of the public goods and services. The bar is very 
high, yet only by addressing these challenges 
can we keep our societies away from the perils 
of technocracy and populism.

Whilst  we  are  reflecting  on  the  weak  signals 
and  trends  identified  in  the  literature,  the 
world  is  already  changing  in  tangible  ways. 
The  sustainability  trajectories  emerging  in 
public  opinion,  the  transnational  mobilisation 
of  social  movements  and  professions,  and 
(among international organisations) the United 
Nations,  the  European  Union  and  the  OECD 
are  a  useful  point  of  departure.  Importantly, 
our  vision  for  a  sustainable  future  is  not  top-
down,  from  what  the  institutions  do  down  to 
the  citizens,  with  bureaucracies  in  the  middle 
to  ‘manage’  the  conveyor  belt.  Citizens  have 
shown formidable capacity to understand their 
role in delivering public health outcomes and 
to  adapt  and  internalize  the  effects  of  their 
behaviour on others. To illustrate: Nonviolence 
is  person-power  displayed  in  contexts  as 
different  as  the  pandemic  and  transnational 
solidarity  aimed  at 
toppling  dictators. 
Consequently,  our  challenge  is  to  bring  the 
public management mission beyond the dyad 
state-market  and  address  explicitly  the  triad 
of  citizens-state-markets.  It  is  refreshing  to 
hear  about  this  concept  of  the  triad  from  an 
economist  like  Wendy  Carlin:  in  the  Financial 
Times, she argued that Covid-19 has reset the 
narratives  in  economic  theory  about  citizens. 
It  is  indeed  citizens  that  are  dealing  every 
day with the balance between precaution and 
innovation - managing risks in the slow path to 
recovery.

3. PRESSURE POINTS

The list of pressure points on public managers 
and public administration can be and probably 
is very long. We take a selective approach and 
highlight what seem to us the most acute:

3.1. Learning 

To begin with, ‘learning in and across crisis is 
the new normal’ pre-requisite for sound policy-
making.  Policy  has  to  be  appraised,  made 
and  delivered  in  a  world  where  crises  can  be 
multiple,  nested,  fast  or  slow-burning.  This 
makes anticipatory governance and innovation 

4

STG | Policy Papers Issue | 2021/11 | May 2021much  more  relevant  than  responsive  modes. 
How  do  public  managers  learn  in  a  crisis?  
What are the implications for Schools that train 
and  support  learning  processes  in  complex 
organisations?

The  classic  Bayesian  sequence  of  learning 
implies that a public manager starts with some 
prior  assumptions  and  beliefs  about  policy. 
Over  time,  she  observes  evidence,  reasons 
on  the  implications  of  the  evidence,  modifies 
her  priors.  And  finally,  having  changed  policy 
beliefs,  she  changes  behaviour.  This  way 
learning produces policy change. 

In  a  crisis,  however,  this  is  not  necessarily 
the  sequence  we  observe.  Behavioural  and 
evolutionary  economics  as  well  as  cognitive 
psychology 
illustrate  a  different  causal 
relationship based on stimuli and behavioural 
responses. Something difficult and challenging 
suddenly appears on the screen. Policy makers 
try a course of action because not responding 
is  inconceivable  (think  of  the  fast  pattern  of 
attacks  on  sovereign  debts  or  the  contagion 
pattern of a virus). If the feedback is positive, 
they  learn  that  the  response  works.  Over 
time, these patterns of stimulus and response 
solidify into something that can be learned as 
a pattern of causes and effects – doing X is the 
right response to Y. Policy makers then change 
behaviour (stimulus-response associations) and 
they learn over time. 

learned.  They 

They  do  not  change  behaviour  because 
they  have 
learn  because 
they  have  changed  behaviour  in  the  crisis. 
Evidence-based Bayesian learning in complex 
organisations  comes  at  the  end  of  the  casual 
process.  An  implication  is  that  we  need  to 
support  evidence-informed  responses  and 
policy  learning  in  novel  ways,  taking  into 
account  the  extremely  tight  time  dimension 
of  crises.  Here 
insights 
literature  can  help,  altering  the  condition  of 
default.  Artificial  intelligence  can  support  the 
process  of  validating  feedback  quickly  and  in 
rigorous  ways.  Risk-risk  analysis  is  also  useful 
in  providing  checklists  and  ways  of  framing 
risk  decisions  that  are  not  contingent  on  the 
length  of  time  available  for  learning.  Another 
implication  (this  time  positive)  is  that  resilient 
belief  systems  may  not  be  a  major  hindrance 

the  behavioural 

to  change.  Surprise  may  trump  prior  beliefs 
and narrow considerations about elections and 
the  short-term  interests  of  elected  politicians 
– so we may have to worry less about this.  In 
a  paper  with  Jonathan  Kamkhaji,  I  found  this 
surprising lesson from the EU responses to the 
crisis of the Euro area. Knowledge of different 
causal mechanisms of learning under different 
types  of  crisis  can  therefore  lead  us  to  the 
identification  of  a  precious  skill-set  for  public 
managers.

“

The necessity to learn from 
the experience of others has 
increased in an inter-dependent 
world of multiple crises.

“

learning 

What  about  cross-country  learning?  Over  the 
years,  we  have  witnessed  a  disenchantment 
with 
international 
from  generic 
‘best  practice  guidance’  –  guidance  that 
is  not  grounded  on  a  realistic  appreciation 
of  context.  At  the  same  time,  the  necessity 
to  learn  from  the  experience  of  others  has 
increased  in  an  inter-dependent  world  of 
multiple  crises.  Extrapolating  the  right  lesson 
from the experience of other countries or other 
transnational  regimes  is  key  to  success  –  and 
fortunately there are models and suggestions 
on how to do this. Building capacity for these 
types  of  learning  is  yet  another  key  step  for 
future-oriented public management schools.

3.2. Populism 

The second pressure point comes from attacks 
on  bureaucracies,  regulators,  managers  of 
statistical  offices  brought  about  by  populist 
leaders  and  non-accountable  advisors.  Often 
these  attacks  take  place  in  popular  media 
or  the  blogsphere  –  domains  where  the 
mandarins are not at ease. Bureaucrats are not 
influencers by training and aspiration. Yet they 
have to learn how to navigate the new brave 
media world and respond in appropriate ways.  
Incidentally, this is not the first time we witness 
attacks on the public sector managers – those 
familiar  with  the  history  of  Thatcherism  may 
recall Sir Keith’s Reading List. But the virulence 
and  forms  of  these  attacks  are  new  types  of 
pressure, documented in a recent STG paper. 

5

STG | Policy Papers Issue | 2021/11 | May 2021It  follows  that  the  concepts  of  capacity  and 
resiliency  need  to  be  adapted  by  addressing 
this pressure point. Training is one of the most 
solid  ways  to  build  resiliency.  Another  lesson 
comes  from  the  field  of  policy  narratives:  In 
making and delivering policies during populist 
administrations,  public  organisations  can  be 
empowered by policy narratives that explicitly 
counter  populist  narratives  but  at  the  same 
time take into serious considerations the public 
anxieties  and  dissatisfaction  with  elite-driven 
policy.

3.3. Science 

Thirdly  comes  science  and  the  wider  scene 
of  evidence-informed  policy.  How  do  we  as 
societies  make  sense  of  science?  There  is 
demand  for  more  evidence  and  science  in 
handling  the  problems  of  the  planet.  Fridays 
for  Future  has  made  popular  among  the 
young  generations  the  belief  that  science 
is  indispensable  to  the  achievement  of  the 
sustainable development goals popular among 
the young generations. We also witness the rise 
of new advocacy organisations that instead of 
protecting the interests of this or that scientific 
profession,  argue  across-the-board  for  more 
transparent,  accountable,  systematic  usages 
of  science  in  the  public  policy  process  –  see 
the  International  Network  for  Government 
Science  Advisors,    Sense  about  Science  and 
Science  for  Democracy.  At  the  same  time, 
recent episodes of vaccine nationalism and the 
contradictory  political  responses  to  objective 
risk  assessments  carried  out  by  independent 
agencies  have  yet  again  contributed  to 
popular misconceptions about science. In the 
transnational  domains,  questions  arise  about 
what  kind  of  open  science  for  whom.  A  step 
towards  clarification  was  taken  by  the  United 
Nations, with the April 2020 General Comment 
on the Right to Science. This is not (just) the right 
of scientists to carry out research in freedom. It 
is the right of every citizen to make regulators 
and  governments  accountable  for  how  they 
use evidence-based tools and more generally 
science in policy formulation process. 

For us this scenario of contradictory pressures 
amidst  popular  demand  for  science  and  an 
emerging  right  to  science  has  implications 

on  training  in  the  field  of  evidence-informed 
policy. Among other things, country managers 
should  learn  how  to  report  (to  the  UN  for 
example)  on  the  implementation  of  the  right 
to science, with what indicators of freedom of 
research,  and  what  toolbox  for  evidence  and 
science-informed policy. It is not inconceivable 
to  imagine  that  the  UN  will  establish  its  own 
rapporteur on the right to science in the near 
future. 

The second implication for public managers is 
to  recognise  that  there  are  different  possible 
experts (as Claire Dunlop puts it) in the policy 
process, with their own motivations and roles. 
To  manage  expertise  and  empower  scientists 
by  training  them  on  their  different  roles  in 
various types of policy processes is a driver of 
resiliency  in  the  public  administration  of  the 
future.

And  here  is  a  third  implication:  much  as  we 
want  to  improve  on  explaining  to  public 
managers and politicians why and how science 
should matter in public choice, we should also 
be  committed  to  empowering  scientists  by 
exploring  with  them  the  policy  process.  For 
too  many  years  public  management  schools 
have  more  or  less  successfully  tried  to  train 
public managers on the value of science. Now 
we  should  also  train  scientists  to  navigate 
the  maze  of  decision-making  in  transnational 
governance  settings  and,  more  generally, 
complex  public  policy  processes.  Among 
other  things,  this  requires  translational  social 
sciences  –  that  means,  social  sciences  which 
gauge the quality of their findings in terms of 
how well they can be translated in knowledge 
usable by policy-makers and natural scientists. 

3.4. Citizens

We argued above that citizens are policy actors 
and we should go beyond the dyad of markets 
and states. Elinor Ostrom introduced the notion 
that complex problems in the domains of ‘the 
commons’ can be solved by communities that 
devise  their  own  rules,  strategies  and  norms 
–  in  one  word,  institutional  rules  can  emerge 
from the society and local communities. Across 
borders,  the  question  of  how  to  govern  the 
commons is everywhere, from data to climate. 

6

STG | Policy Papers Issue | 2021/11 | May 2021Recent  studies  show  that  a  powerful  citizens-
centred  resource  is  available  across-nations: 
that, 
transnational  solidarity.  But  beyond 
where  should  public  management  sit 
in-
between  citizens  and  global  governance? 
Representative  democracy  is  not  available  in 
transnational  governance.  Regulations  and 
public  policies  can  however  gain  legitimacy 
through  transparency  and  evidence-based 
tools  –  consultation  being  a  common  tool. 
But  traditional  approaches  to  instruments  to 
include  citizens  in  the  development  of  public 
interventions have their own limitations. Some 
years  ago  a  study  on  consultation  practice 
exposed  the  phenomenon  of  the  missing 
stakeholder and called for consultation 2.0. 

“

Across borders, the question 
of how to govern the 
commons is everywhere, 
from data to climate  

“

responsible 

For those like us who train future leaders, the 
question is how to encourage the emergence 
of  accountable  and 
leaders 
transnational  governance. 
in  polycentric 
This  requires  a  combination  of  leadership 
skills  but  also  values  such  as  cohesiveness, 
social  sustainability,  and  empowerment  of 
marginalised  (arguably  missing)  stakeholders 
and  citizens.  In  multi-level  systems  like  the 
European  Union, 
less 
concerned about managing from the top and 
more  about  the  governance  of  polycentric 
subsidiarity.

leaders  should  be 

3.5. Learning Humility and Phrónesis

One  cornerstone  of  a  sensible  approach  is 
regulatory  humility  –  or  prudence  –  possibly 
flanked  by  epistemic  humility  on  the  side  of 
experts. Phrónesis is practical wisdom gained 
by making choices with prudence. Because the 
world of public management is constellated by 
fiascos  and  policy  disasters,  one  risk  to  avoid 
is to approach future-proof management with 
the assumption that the public sector is always 
benevolent and guided by the most correct and 
usable knowledge. Especially when combined 
with the potentials of artificial intelligence and 
the  possibility  of  spending  in  deficit,  this  risk 

of educating a new generation to the (wrong) 
idea  of  the  civil  servant  as  super-hero  must 
be  mitigated  by  a  healthy  dose  of  phronesis 
or  regulatory  humility.  The  regulators  have 
become nudgers of citizens with the toolbox of 
behavioural  public  administration,  but  public 
officers too have their own biases – hence we 
must nudge the nudgers and correct their bias 
with appropriate institutional and tool design. 
Evidence-informed  policy  must  be  balanced 
by ethical considerations. Artificial intelligence 
must be approached with the realisation that it 
can also be a weapon of techno-populism.

3.6. Design

No  matter  how  much  learning  and  humility 
become  ‘ways  of  doing  things’,  the  proof  of 
the pudding is when a  
policy manager has 
to design and deliver policy. One complication 
with humility is that public managers are under 
pressure  from  elected  politicians  and  public 
opinion  to  ‘do  something’  when  a  focusing 
event appears on the scene. 

The  solution  is  not  ‘to  do  nothing’  –  as 
mentioned,  phronesis  is  learned  by  making 
(prudent) choices, not by avoiding them. Rather, 
the  correct  pathway  is  clarity  on  assumptions 
and  uncertainty  behind 
interventions;  be 
transparent on levels and types of uncertainty; 
keep an evaluative attitude alive in the policy 
cycle; establish clear channels of accountability; 
design  with  empathy  and  probe  incremental 
changes before going for large scale, expensive 
and hard-to-reverse interventions. An example 
is  the  Cynefin  approach  grounded  on  four 
different  types  of  domains  (simple,  complex, 
complicated, chaotic) as opposed to the one-
size-fits-all protocols of intervention.

There  is  a  final,  over-arching  dimension  of 
design. Most of the current design tools such 
as  regulatory  impact  assessment  and  policy 
appraisal  techniques  do  not  integrate  the 
sustainable development goals. Existing tools 
usage  tends  to  neglect  social  benefits  and 
to  ignore  the  effects  of  policy  proposals  on 
gender,  social  inclusion,  the  rural  economy, 
and  bio-diversity.  Here  is  an  opportunity  to 
re-tool  the  tools  in  light  of  the  sustainable 
development goals.

7

STG | Policy Papers Issue | 2021/11 | May 20213.7. Guidance versus Practice

from  procedures  and 

Moving  to  the  fabric  of  management,  policy 
coherence is key to sound policy-making. UN-
DESA  has  recently  produced  eight  guidance 
notes with the explicit objective of encouraging 
cross-national  learning  about  sound  policy 
tools geared towards sustainable development 
goals.  Coherence  requires  fine-tuning  across 
different  policy  sectors  (and  across  different 
time-horizons) of public management tools, like 
risk assessment, regulatory impact assessment, 
foresight,  risk  analysis,  and  evaluation.  The 
challenge  is  threefold.  First,  it  is  a  challenge 
of  moving 
formal 
requirements to practice. We should train less 
about the methodological guidance on policy 
tools like impact assessment and more about 
the  practice  of  using  impact  assessment  to 
challenge  our  assumptions  and  correct  our 
bias. Evaluation, to consider another example, 
is  more  than  a  tool.  It  is  the  development  of 
a  curious  attitude  and  an  evaluative  mindset. 
Second,  there  is  the  challenge  of  carrying 
out  these  tasks  with  anticipatory-innovative 
mindsets across the so-called nexus of sectoral 
domains - An example of nexus is agriculture-
energy-food-climate, addressed by CECAN in 
the  UK.  Third,  foresight  techniques  are  more 
trustworthy  if  they  are  deployed  in  inclusive, 
participatory ways. An example: Delphi can be 
used to generate among participants a sense of 
ownership of the futures to which the technique 
assigns  probability.  Scenario  workshops  can 
create  awareness  among  participants  about 
how  their  own  choices  or  omissions  can  lead 
to  certain  outcomes  –  thus  going  beyond 
creating scenarios for the purpose of exploring 
alternative  futures.  Cost-benefit  analysis  can 
be cold or warm. It can be humanised - as Cass 
Sunstein once put it.

3.8. Problem and Mystery

And yet, when the right approach to design is 
identified  and  practice  is  not  undervalued  in 
the  name  of  abstract  guidance,  what  should 
leaders  and  bureaucracies  offer  as  future-
proof ‘solutions’? Solutions with a big S do not 
exist – otherwise a simple handbook matching 
a  catalogue  of  problems  with  a  catalogue  of 
policy  solutions  would  eliminate  form  the 
market  the  whole  literature  on  public  policy 

and  administration.  In  reflexive  mode,  the 
analysis  leading  to  solutions  should  embrace 
dichotomies,  trade-offs  and  enigmas.  It  is 
impossible  and  wrong  to  bracket  them  away. 
We  believe  that  to  experience  surprise  and 
puzzlement  are  analytical  and  emotional 
pathways to good problem-solving choices. 

The philosopher Gabriel Marcel distinguished 
between  the  categories  of  “problem”  and 
“mystery”.  The  world  is  broken  when  every 
challenge  is  reduced  to  a  “problem”  and 
we, as societies, do no longer allow room for 
mystery. A problem is something external to us, 
something we can look at from a certain distance, 
dissect, inspect and analyse. Problems can be 
solved  by  techniques,  methods,  algorithms. 
In a paradoxical way, this notion of problem is 
meta-problematic. A mystery, instead, can only 
be  approached  by  someone  who  is  involved 
–  and  the  identity  of  the  individual  asking  or 
seeking  answers  is  an  important  dimension. 
The  problem  is  before  me.  The  mystery  is  in 
me.  If  the  questioner  changes,  the  question 
inside  the  mystery  changes.  We  have  seen 
in  the  Covid-19  pandemic  how  some  of  the 
challenges are correctly identified as problems, 
but other mysteries of bio-politics, the deeper 
sense  of  the  relationship  with  the  others 
and  our  work,  our  city,  our  planet  require  a 
different approach. These mysteries are crucial 
in  the  shift  towards  innovative,  anticipatory 
governance where so many dimensions cannot 
be  calculated  as  problems.  In  the  end,  after 
much debate on policy solutions as whole-of-
government and whole-of-society, we are now 
facing the whole-of-person moment.

4. PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 
ACUPUNCTURE

To deal successfully with the pressure points, we 
need a sort of public management acupuncture 
– I borrow this term from a conversation with 
Thomas  Delahais.  I  suggest  we  stimulate  the 
sensory  nerves  of  capacity.  There  are  at  least 
three fundamental types of capacity that flow 
through the body of public organisations. They 
can  be  described  as  capacity  to  absorb,  to 
analyse and finally to manage tools. Extending 
this framework, we can think of acupuncturing 
with  our  analytical  ‘needles’  both  capacity  to 
do what and capacity for what purposes. 

8

STG | Policy Papers Issue | 2021/11 | May 2021c.  The whole process of making and delivering 
policy  is  where  ideas  become  actions. 
Actions must be directed by an attitude of 
reflexivity, openness, and humility

d.  To gain legitimacy for public policies is an 
ultimate purpose of a resilient, trustworthy 
public management, especially in times of 
populist  attacks  on  bureaucracy  and  open 
denials of the value of science

The two dimensions are portrayed in table 1.

“Capacity to do what” means the following:

a.  To genuinely listen and absorb 

b.  To  analyse  with  empathy,  embracing 
(whole-of-

mysteries  and  dichotomies 
person)

c.  To  anticipate  (the  crisis,  the  future,  the 

missing stakeholders) when managing

“Capacity  for  what”  covers  the  following 
reasons  and  purposes  of  adding  public 
value:

a.  Learning is a fundamental mission of future-

oriented public management

b.  Design  is  the  consequence  of  the  type  of 

analysis illustrated above

Table 1 – The two dimensions of capacity: to do what and for what

Enhancing 
capacity 
to…. 

Learn 

Design 

Policy-making (from decision to 
delivery) 

Gain Legitimacy 

Embrace the notion of 
citizen as policy-maker 
beyond the dyad state-
market 

To listen and 
to absorb 

Learn how to pose 
questions and challenge 
priors and bias 

Utilise and compare prototypes and probes 
especially when facing crisis conditions 

Turn international guidance into context-
sensitive good practice 

Look global for lessons but adapt them so 
that they are fit for purpose in local context 

Deliver whilst listening to feedback 

Whole-of-policy-cycle: Engage 
stakeholders and citizens beyond policy 
formulation  

Whole-of-society and whole-of-person 
approach 

Empower scientists to navigate the 
policy process and public administration 

Identify who is accountable for listening 

Identify, extrapolate and 
validate lessons from 
crisis and international 
experience 

Evaluate before designing new policy 

Assess proposals by integrating 
sustainability / sustainable development 
goals in the tools of policy formulation 

To analyse 

Learning to anticipate 
with an evaluative, 
evidence-informed 
attitude and mindset, 
open to mysteries 

To anticipate 

Re-tool the analytic tools to make them 
socially inclusive; create social engagement 
with science and evidence-based policy up-
stream, do not wait for the end-stage of 
design 

Design socially-responsible institutions and 
tools to appraise innovation and radical 
policy change 

Foresight and anticipatory techniques used 
in transparent, accountable, humanised 
ways 

Analyse performance by measuring 
progress towards sustainable 
development 

In delivery, substantive content is as 
important as robust narratives: do the 
reforms and explain-narrate them 

Embrace dichotomies and trade-offs in 
the analysis 

Explain how analytic methods and 
criteria contribute to sustainability 

Communicate both analyses and their 
margins of uncertainty 

Foster ownership of the scenarios and 
visions for the future 

Communicate how the future is 
appraised and anticipated by warm 
usages of the techniques and openness 
to mysteries 

Shift from guidance to practice 

Bring questions of delivery and 
compliance upfront in the policy 
formulation process 

Keep an evaluative mindset across the 
policy cycle; impact assessments as ‘living 
documents’ in support of delivery 

Nudge the nudgers with appropriate 
institutional design to avoid status-quo 
bias and encourage anticipatory attitudes 
in bureaucracies 

9

STG | Policy Papers Issue | 2021/11 | May 2021 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
5. CONCLUSIONS

This  paper  has  explored  the  topic  of  future-
proofing public management. There is no one-
size-fits all solution to create (‘in the lab’ so to 
speak) innovation and policy entrepreneurs. We 
also need to distinguish between leaders and 
managers, although the boundaries are blurred 
as shown by the presence of entrepreneurship 
in  public  bureaucracies.  Within  the  world  of 
management,  a  fundamental  distinction  is 
between  those  who  are  already  in  executive 
positions and need dedicated training and the 
mission to create the new generation of policy 
thinkers in Masters programmes. 

There are for sure formidable pressure points, 
as  we  have  seen.  But  these  pressures  also 
direct us towards opportunities for innovative 
training  programmes.  Instead  of  thinking  of 
specific topics and tools, we have argued for a 
predisposition  towards  anticipation,  learning, 
listening  and  empowering.  This  does  not 
mean  that  the  next  generation  of  leadership 
and  management  programmes  should  aim 
at  an  all-knowing  individual.  Humility  and 
appreciation  of  humility  are  essential  to  keep 
the eyes and mind open towards learning and 
a wise approach to artificial intelligence. 

10

STG | Policy Papers Issue | 2021/11 | May 2021The School of Transnational Governance (STG) delivers teaching 
and high-level training in the methods, knowledge, skills and prac-
tice of governance beyond the State. Based within the European 
University Institute (EUI) in Florence, the School brings the worlds 
of academia and policy-making together in an effort to navigate 
a context, both inside and outside Europe, where policy-making 
increasingly transcends national borders.

The School offers Executive Training Seminars for experienced pro-
fessionals and a Policy Leaders Fellowship for early- and mid-ca-
reer innovators. The School also hosts expert Policy Dialogues and 
distinguished  lectures  from  transnational  leaders  (to  include  the 
STG’s Leaders Beyond the State series which recorded the experi-
ences of former European Institution presidents, and the Giorgio 
La Pira Lecture series which focuses on building bridges between 
Africa and Europe). In September 2020, the School launched its 
Master-of-Arts in Transnational Governance (MTnG), which will ed-
ucate and train a new breed of policy leader able to navigate the 
unprecedented issues our world will face during the next decade 
and beyond.  

The STG Policy Papers Collection aims to further the EUI School 
of Transnational Governance’s goal in creating a bridge between 
academia and policy and provide actionable knowledge for pol-
icy-making.  The  collection  includes  Policy  Points  (providing  in-
formation at-a-glance), Policy Briefs (concise summaries of issues 
and recommended policy options), and Policy Analyses (in-depth 
analysis of particular issues). The contributions provide topical and 
policy-oriented perspectives on a diverse range of issues relevant 
to transnational governance. They are authored by STG staff and 
guest authors invited to contribute on particular topics.

School of Transnational Governance
European University Institute
Via dei Roccettini, 9, I-50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI), Italy
Tel. +39 055 4685 545
Email: stg@eui.eu

www.eui.eu/stg

Co-funded by the 
Erasmus+ Programme 
of the European Union

The European Commission supports the EUI through the European Union budget. 
This publication reflects the views only of the author(s), and the Commission cannot 
be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained 
therein.

© European University Institute, 2021

doi:10.2870/050753 
ISBN:978-92-9466-012-1
ISSN:2600-271X
QM-BA-21-011-EN-N

11

STG | Policy Papers Issue | 2021/11 | May 2021