Presentation PlanChapter 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

(1)Policy Analysis• Focus on narrowly defined

problem• Staff Memorandum• Basic data collection• Compilation of readings,

synthesis of Many ideas into a coherent whole

• Duration can be days• or weeks

(2)Policy Research• Focus on a broad problem• Monograph• Duration can take one year or

longer• Methods: system analysis• Cost-benefits analysis• Conducted by several• Analysts at an agency or at

research institutes

(3)Applied Social-S Res.Scholarly assessment of effects of policy intervention on some narrowly defined set of outcomesUniversity Researchers on behalf of a state agency => interested to adopting a particular policyQuantitative=> multiple regression or case studies

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• Highly desirable• More Creditability• Requires knowledge in both

technical and political aspects of a policy area

• Combined policy analysis skills with substantive expertise

• Generic Analysts

• Substantive knowledge is not necessary to be a good policy analyst

• Substance is relatively unimportant

• Only requirement: skilled in the process and methods of 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:• Understanding• Working Hypotheses• Mutual interaction between

inquirer and the object of study• Observing evidence=> continued

use of case studies• Intuition & Total immersion in

relevant information • Multiple realities, cause and

effects cannot be distinguished as entities mutual simultaneous shaping

• Positivists concern:• Prediction• Rigorous Hypotheses testing• Require Analyst’s Detached

observation• Sophisticated techniques of

analysis (hard data, quantification, statistical techniques etc.)

• Value free, reality single, tangible, knower & known are dependent, real causes= clear cause and effect

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• Increased citizen involvement• PP => maybe more useful for• agenda setting, policy formulation• Policy Implementation than in other

stages of the process• PP is more of a prescription of policy

design or redesign than empirical approach to understanding PF & PI

• Negative Impacts• Increased chances of group

disagreement• Harder to reach consensus over

program goals & procedures• Lead to needless delays in policy

formulation(PF) & Implementation (PI),too time consuming

• 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 Analysis

Type of Analysts

Scientist

Professional

Political

Administrative

Personal

P-Problem

Theoretic

Design

Value Max

Application

Contention

Motivation

Search for TruthRegularities, Improve- Policy& PolicymakingAdvocacy of P-Position

Effective &Efficient ImplementationConcern for P-Impacts on Life

Approach

S-Method, Objectivity

Utilization of Knowledge, strategic

Rhetoric

Strategic ManagerialMixed

Training

Basic R-MethodCanons of S-Science

Strategic, Cost-Benefits Analysis, stimulation, decision Analysis

Gathering useful evidence, effective analysisSame as ProfessionalWith stress on talentsUseful for implementation

Less sophisticatedUse 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