From Vision to Execution: Operationalizing Foreign Policy at the Bureaucratic Level

By Bernard Yegiora 

Assessment Task 3 in Foreign Policy in PNG is designed to test not only a student’s ability to think about foreign policy in theoretical terms, but also their capacity to translate abstract policy statements into operational strategies. In Semester 2 of 2024, students authored foreign policy reviews that set out broad visions and strategic directions for PNG’s external relations. The challenge now is to revisit those proposals and move them from the rhetorical plane into the bureaucratic machinery of government. This is where policy vision is tested against institutional realities.

The assignment is built around a critique by former diplomat and academic Lahui Ako, who noted that nearly all of PNG’s foreign policy statements have been “ambiguous, and ad hoc, lacking that required bureaucratic support and capacity to operationalize them into an actual foreign policy white paper.” This observation highlights a structural weakness in PNG’s foreign policy practice: grand statements are issued, but without the institutional follow-through necessary to turn them into binding frameworks. The task requires students to grapple directly with this gap between political pronouncements and bureaucratic execution.

Assessment Task 3 challenges students to turn their 2024 foreign policy reviews into a bureaucratic implementation strategy aligned with Vision 2050 and MTDP IV, addressing Lahui Ako’s critique of PNG’s ad hoc foreign policy.

A core element of the case study is aligning foreign policy with national development strategies. Students must show how their foreign policy vision connects with Vision 2050, Medium Term Development Plan IV, and sectoral strategies such as education, trade, or defence. This ensures that foreign policy is not treated as an isolated domain, but as an instrument that must serve national development. Key performance indicators and policy targets drawn from national planning documents will anchor their proposals in existing governance structures.

Institutional mapping is the second layer of the assignment. Students must identify which government agencies—such as the Department of Foreign Affairs, Department of Defence, Department of Trade and Investment, and inter-agency committees—would carry the responsibility of implementing their policy vision. Beyond identification, students must assign roles, responsibilities, and accountability lines, thereby mirroring the type of planning exercise that takes place within government bureaucracies. This builds student awareness of how fragmented and under-resourced bureaucratic structures can be harnessed, coordinated, or reformed to deliver policy outcomes.

The implementation framework is where proposals must become practical. Students will outline short-, medium-, and long-term steps, complete with proposed budgets, timelines, and coordination mechanisms. Monitoring and evaluation strategies are also expected, reinforcing the principle that policy success is not just about launching strategies but sustaining them over time. In doing so, students must acknowledge that political cycles in PNG often disrupt bureaucratic continuity, and propose ways to buffer their strategies from electoral turnover.

Capacity gaps and reform needs are another central focus. Students will identify the skills, resources, and systems required to operationalize their policies, alongside legislative or structural reforms that may be needed. Addressing bureaucratic bottlenecks honestly—such as limited technical capacity, corruption risks, or donor dependence—ensures that their recommendations are grounded in institutional realities rather than academic idealism.

Risk assessment rounds out the assignment by compelling students to anticipate challenges. These may include political instability, inter-agency rivalries, lack of budgetary support, or conflicting donor priorities. Each identified risk must be accompanied by mitigation strategies, demonstrating that policy implementation is as much about managing uncertainty as it is about executing plans. The emphasis here is on resilience and adaptability within the PNG public service context.

The final output will be a 2,500-word written report and an 18–20 minute oral presentation. Both components are weighted toward clarity, realism, and the ability to operationalize ideas. The written report carries 30 marks and will be assessed on policy summary, strategic alignment, institutional framework, implementation planning, reform needs, risk analysis, recommendations, and structure. The oral presentation carries 10 marks, rewarding delivery, accuracy, engagement, and realism. Together, they ensure that students are not only producing visionary foreign policy ideas but also learning how to drive them through the levers of state.