Presentation Plan Chapter 3. Approaches to Policy Analysis• Overall View• An excellent chapter detailing the various approaches to Policy Analysis, presented a very balanced perspective discussing both strong points and weak points of each approaches, and providing guidelines to becoming better policy students/analysts• The Chapter consists of 4 Parts:• 1. Cook and Vaupel’s Model of 3 Basic Research Styles• (a)policy analysis,(B)Policy research, and (C)applied social science research• 2. Highlights of 9 Specific Approaches => the strengths & weaknesses of each approaches are addressed• 1.process, (2)substantive,(3)positivist,(4)economic,(5)post- positivist,(6)participatory,(7)Normative,(8) Ideological, and (9) Historical.• 3. Dubnick and Bardes’ Model of 5 Types of Analysts• (1)scientist,(2)professional,(3)political,(4) administrative, and (5)personal• 4. On Becoming Better Analysts• 5. Personal Reflections/Lessons Learned
Cook and Vaupel’s Model of 3 Research Styles (2)Policy Research (3)Applied Social-S Res.(1)Policy Analysis • Focus on a broad problem Scholarly assessment of• Focus on narrowly • Monograph effects of policy intervention defined problem • Duration can take one year or on some narrowly defined longer• Staff Memorandum • Methods: system analysis set of outcomes• Basic data collection • Cost-benefits analysis University Researchers on• Compilation of readings, • Conducted by several behalf of a state agency => synthesis of Many ideas • Analysts at an agency or at interested to adopting a into a coherent whole research institutes particular policy• Duration can be days Quantitative=> multiple regression or case studies• or weeks
1.Process Approach(PA)• Primarily Objective: examine a part of the P-Process• Societal Problems => an Issue for Action• Polices are adopted• Implemented by agency official• Evaluated• Terminated or Changed Success or Lack of it• Note: Policy Cycle (Political Process) => Public Policy Pass
Advancements of Knowledge on Policy Cycles (30 Years Period)• Some Aspects have been more heavily studied• Example: Policy Formulation Issues have been heavily studied• Aspects less studied:• Example: Policy Change Issues have been just beginning to be further developed by researchers:• Aims to advance the concepts involved• Aims to test series of Hypothesis that focus on and explain a particular aspect of Policy Change
2.Substantive Approach• Primarily Objective: examine s substantive area• Policy Specialist in a particular area:• Examples: Environmental policy, social welfare policy, national security policy, economic policy (industry, trade, investments), science and technology etc)• Two perspectives on :• Substantive Specialist Vs. Generic Policy analyst
Substantive Specialist Vs. Generic Policy Analyst• Substantive Specialists • Generic Analysts• Highly desirable • Substantive knowledge is not• More Creditability necessary to be a good policy• Requires knowledge in both analyst technical and political • Substance is relatively aspects of a policy area unimportant• Combined policy analysis • Only requirement: skilled in skills with substantive the process and methods of expertise public policy
Authors’ Position• Substance is important• Give insight in to what questions to ask in conducting policy analysis• To better understand and interpret empirical findings• Unending debate: a matter of individual choice
3.The Logical Positivist Approach(LPA)• LPA Behavioral Approach Scientific Approach• Primarily objective: examine causes & Consequences using Scientific methods• Advocates: the use of deductively derived theories, models, hypothesis testing, hard data, the comparative method, and rigorous statistical analysis• Scientific Context means:• (a)Clarifying key concepts used in the analysis of policy• Example: policy implementation => Different aspects or stages• Previously “Policy Implementation” Yes or no Dichotomy• Under LPA Policy Implementation => stages=> drifting guidelines, appropriating funds, monitoring performance• Revising Statues
Logical Positivist Approach• (2) Working from an explicit policy behavior, and testing hypothesis from the theory• (3)Using hard data (numbers), developing good measures of various phenomena, and ideally examining various behaviors across time• Began right after 2nd world war (nearly over 50 years ago)• LP Has become the dominant epistemological approach in political science
Critics of LP/Scientific Approach• Argument:• LP/Scientific misunderstands the policy process by treating it as a rational project.• Policy Process is much more complex than this conveyor-like perspective (far more than simple inputs produce simple outputs)• LP/S, consequently, does not lend itself to highly sophisticated techniques of analysis or participatory approaches to public policy analysis• Next section presents “Post-positivitist (Phenomenological)Approach
4. Post-Positivist(Phenomenological) Approach• Primarily Objective: analyze events by an intuitive process• Due to the Growing Disenchantment with the utility of scientific methods(Logical Positivism and econometrics) in the study of public policy• PP-Proponents => argued => intuition is more important than positivist/scientific approaches• Proposed=> Phenomenological, naturalistic, or non-positivist approaches.• Some key emphases of PP:
Analysts need to adopt :• “ A disciplined employment of sound intuition, itself born of experience not reducible to models, hypotheses, quantifications, hard data, and the like.”• Methodologically, analysts :• Treat each piece of social “Phenomenon as a unique event, with ethnographic and other qualitative indices becoming paramount.
Post-Positivist Vs. Positivist• Post-Positivists concern: • Positivists concern:• Understanding • Prediction• Working Hypotheses • Rigorous Hypotheses testing• Mutual interaction between • Require Analyst’s Detached inquirer and the object of observation study • Sophisticated techniques of• Observing evidence=> analysis (hard data, continued use of case studies quantification, statistical• Intuition & Total immersion in techniques etc.) relevant information • Value free, reality single,• Multiple realities, cause and tangible, knower & known are effects cannot be dependent, real causes= clear distinguished as entities cause and effect mutual simultaneous shaping
Principal Critics of PP argue:• PPs lack of Vigor• Away from Scientific Approach advocated by” Behavioralists and economists.• Reversion (going backward) to 1940-50 = in which descriptive, non-scientific and intuitive studies characterized much of what passed for policy analysis.
5. The Economic Approach(EC)• Economic Approach Public Choice Approach Political Economic Approach• Primarily based on economic theories of politics => Primarily objective = Test Economic Theories• “Human Nature is ‘rational’ or motivated by purely personal gain”• EC assumes “people pursue their fixed, weighted preferences regardless of collective outcomes.”• Example : Principle Agent Theory (Terry et) => accounts for a range of policy behavior = stresses political control of bureaucrats, relationship between voters and elected officials, as agents have more ready access to information, thus principles must closely monitor and control the actions of the agent
The Economic Approach• Earned wide currency & respect in the Policy sciences• Some critics indicated that EC has a somewhat narrow approach to policy analysis• Not completely wrong, but, incomplete in its assumption of human behavior• Humans can be altruistic (not just rational & self-fish), can occasionally motivated to serve the public or collective interests.
6.Participatory Approach(PA)• Closely related to PP-Challenge• Primarily Objective: examine the role of multiple actors in the policymaking• Principal proponents include: Peter Delong & others• Involving a greater inclusion of the interests and values of various stakeholders in the policy Decision Making Process• Closer to Harold Laswell called “Policy Science or Democracy” in which an extended population of affected citizens be involved in the formulation and implementation of PP through a series of discursive dialogues.”
Operations of Participatory Approach• Objectives: Gather information so that policymakers can make better decision and recommendations• Extensive open hearings• Involves abroad range of concerned citizens• Prompt individuals, interests groups, agency to contribute to policy design or redesign• Encourage analysts to consider greater number of players and values provides a more complete catalog of perspectives that can affect the policy under consideratiom
Critics argue:• Operationally • Negative Impacts• Increased citizen involvement • Increased chances of group• PP => maybe more useful for disagreement• agenda setting, policy formulation • Harder to reach consensus over• Policy Implementation than in other program goals & procedures stages of the process • Lead to needless delays in policy• PP is more of a prescription of policy formulation(PF) & Implementation design or redesign than empirical (PI),too time consuming approach to understanding PF & PI • Increased costs in PF & PI • Disaffected citizens will seek to obstruct program litigation or recourse to congress • Where tried => increased confusions and conflicts
7. The Normative or Prescriptive Approach• Primarily Objective: prescribe policy to decision makers or others• Proponents suggest that:• The Policy analysts’ task is one of defining a “desirable end state” Desirable+ Attainable• Advocate:• “Use rhetoric in a skillful way to convince others the merits of their position.” (Examples of this type of policy analysts include: Henry Kissinger, J.Kirkpatrick, Daniel Moynihan or Paul Morfowitz)• Critics : These analysts often Disguise their ideology as science
8.The Ideological Approach• Primarily Objective: analyze from either Liberal or conservative point of view• Not explicitly, but analysts often embedded either a liberal or conservative perspective in their policy analysis• Thomas Sowell calls this “visions” and identifies two competing perspectives:• (1)Constrained Vision=> a picture of egocentric human beings with moral limitations:• Fundamental social & moral challenge, make the best of possibilities existing within that constraint, rather than dissipate energy in a vain attempt to change human behavour• Logic tend to rely more on incentive, rather than disposition to obtain the desired behavior
Ideological Approach• Conservative views will lead to more conservative policy• Reasons:• Because the primarily constraints come from within the individual rather externally imposed by the outside environment
Type(2)Unconstrained Vision• Provides a liberal view of human nature, no constraint on it• Suggesting that understanding & human dispositions are capable of intentionally creating social benefits• Under this perspective:• “Humans are capable to directly understanding other people’s need as more important than own and therefore are capable of consistently acting impartially, even when their interests or those of their family are involved.• Only constraints are imposed externally (from the outside environment)
9.Historical Approach• Primarily Objective: examine policy over time• Focus on the Evolution of Public Policy(PP) across time• Longer time perspectives enable analysts to see certain patterns in the contours of PP that were previously unrecognized due to short time frame (cross-section or a decade or less).• From Historical Approach <=>Two features can be identified:• (1)US-Policy tend to follow a “Cyclical or ZigZag” pattern in which more conservative tend to follow more liberal tendencies < this pattern is repeated over time• Revealed a “Reactive Pattern”= Repetitive= non-rational• (2)Evolutionary Explanation• US Policy reflects policy learning as American evolves toward more thoughtful (more rational) policymaking.
9.Dubick & Bardes’ Approaches to Policy AnalysisType of Analysts P-Problem Motivation Approach TrainingScientist Search for Truth S-Method, Objectivity Basic R-Method Theoretic Canons of S-Science Regularities,Professional Design Improve- Policy Utilization of Strategic, Cost-Benefits Knowledge, strategic Analysis, stimulation, & Policymaking decision AnalysisPolitical Value Max Advocacy of P-Position Rhetoric Gathering useful evidence, effective analysisAdministrative Application Effective & Strategic Same as Professional With stress on talents Efficient Managerial Useful for Implementation Mixed implementationPersonal Contention Concern for P- Impacts on Life Less sophisticated Use of many models & Techniques
On Becoming Better Policy Scientist ( Some Guidelines )• Gain Historical & Comparative Perspectives• Know Policy Making Realities• Study his/her society in depth• Take up grand policy issues & work on diverse issues• Move into Metapolicymaking (Macro Perspective)• Build an appropriate philosophy of Knowledge & Action• Broaden methodology and experience• Multiply one’s disciplinary base• Be careful about Professional Ethics
Lessons Learned/ Reflections• Totally agreed with the Authors:• 1. No one best approach, analysts often combine a few Approaches• 2.Knowledge of the various approaches, enable us to recognize different type of policy analysis for what it is when we see it• 3.Nevertheless, select one that is best appropriate for the nature of the analysis• 4.Each of the approaches highlighted is appropriate in certain contexts• 5. Trends < increasingly more scientific (positivist), remains a minority approach compared to more descriptive & Rhetorical• 6. PP=> more multidisciplinary, example: state and local issues in area concerning natural resources, and taxing/budgetary issues
On Reflections• Policy Analysis is highly Complex =>> involves the examination of multiple issues• One of the most difficult aspects is “Know our own style or approaches of analysis, as this undoubtedly has significant bearing on not only our approaches, but, the outcome of our analysis”.• To becoming a good student/analyst, it’s important that we aware of our styles/approaches and make them explicit at the outset of any analysis