Unit4DiscSCPP
VitalSource: Public Policy P = Price; Q = Quantity
b = Lower quantity of rooms available at a higher price
c = Higher quantity of rooms available at a lower price
As outlined previously, the model of free market economics guides many of the choices made in public policy and in the private sector. The model makes certain assumptions about the nature of goods and the usage of those goods. First, the model assumes that goods are rivalrous (Weimar and Vining 2004, 41) in their use. In other words, the owner of a particular property is the person who pays the asking price or who offers the highest bid. A good example of this might be a pair of glasses. When I purchase my glasses, they belong to me. Second, the model assumes that property is excludable (Weimar and Vining 2004, 41)—the owner of a property is the only person who has control over the use of the property. A good example of excludability is home ownership—the person or persons who own a home can exclude others from entering the home and enjoying the benefits that emerge from the property.
Some goods are nonrivalrous but excludable. In other words, it is possible that multiple parties could enjoy the good or service simultaneously, but under certain conditions it is possible to limit the use of a good or service. Canals can be viewed as a marketable public good. Frequently, canals are produced privately and then made available for public use. Once built, a canal could be seen as having some minimal costs for maintenance and repair; for that reason it might be sensible for the canal s̓ owner to charge a usage fee for the maintenance and continued operation of the canal. A canal owner might raise fees in response to congestion—the overuse of a canal. The higher price might dissuade use of the canal, but it might also
signal that demand is not being met and that additional canals are needed.
Not all property is held privately. For example, public goods or communal goods are commonly found in both tribal and modern societies. Some public goods are referred to as pure public goods, which are nonexcludable and nonrivalrous. Air is an example of a pure public good. We all breathe air and it is impossible to limit the use of air by other individuals. Additionally, air is also used by factories, automobiles, and airplanes as a convenient place in which to expel smoke and exhaust fumes. Because public goods have a low per person cost and a variable per person benefit, public goods are easily overused, resulting in depletion, damage, or destruction, so protection of quality and availability is important. Because public goods are nonexclusive, people might not contribute to the repair or replenishment of the public good. Known as free riders, these individuals selfishly benefit from the efforts of others. (See Figure 4.1.)
Figure 4.1 Rivalry and excludability
One form of public good—public lands—is often subject to multiple uses. Lands are often leased or sold by government to individuals who desire excludable usage of the good or are opened to public recreational use. Private benefits emerge in the form of wealth or, in the case of recreation, just having a fun time communing with nature. The use of public lands for grazing can be considered a marketable public good—the forage and water were sold or leased for use, but the land itself remains under government ownership. Public lands are also used for mineral and energy extraction. Recreational users pose their own challenges to public lands, impacting vegetation and causing soil erosion and leaving behind various forms of human waste. Environmental interest groups argue that public land management must balance the needs of the environment along with human needs. Elinor Ostrom s̓ IAD framework, discussed in an earlier chapter, was designed initially to deal with just this sort of dilemma—the governance of the use of public goods that have multiple uses and multiple stakeholders
interested in shaping the governance process and protecting continued availability of the resource.
A final category of goods is known as free goods. Free goods are nonexcludable, which means that all individuals have access to them. However, individuals seek the excludable use of the goods. If goods are not consumed by an individual, then other individuals will consume them. The rain forests in South America are an example of a free good. One of the inefficiencies that emerges in the case of free goods is the overconsumption and eventual exhaustion of the goods. Demand may not fluctuate on the basis of supply or price.
The potential economic circumstances discussed offer some role for government. Even if society were composed of solely private goods, it would be necessary for government to protect the welfare and private property of citizens, enforcing laws governing the contractual legal use or to prevent misuse by other individuals. Government would play a role in economic relationships to prevent large-scale economic inefficiencies, seeking to limit marginal social costs.
Marginal social costs are those costs to society created by the production of goods and services. Unlike private costs, borne by corporations involved in the production of goods and services and passed on to consumers through prices, marginal social costs are externalities borne by society as a whole. For example, a coal-fired power plant increases production of electricity leading to increased air pollution. Consumers of the electricity pay for the coal, electricity production, and transmission through their power bills, but they do not fully pay for the air pollution, which is a marginal social cost. Marginal social costs emerge from the production of private goods that impact public goods or individual rights.
Policy Analysis: The Art and Science of Choices and Decisions
Thus far we have talked a lot about big picture issues underlying public policy. In earlier chapters we have considered the role of political theory in shaping the scope of government, theories of how policy is made, and the role of public opinion in shaping policy priorities. In this chapter we approach probably the most crucial aspect of public policy—the science behind making a decision. As we will discover, it is not a perfect science— policy analysts seek to make satisfactory choices, the best choices given the information and time available. Within our lifetime, and with the use of advanced computing technology (see Lempert, Popper, and Bankes 2003), policy science will develop an ever-closer relationship with the physical sciences. For now, though, the goal is to help you think through the steps of policy analysis and the ways in which you could make good policy decisions should you choose to become a policy analyst in the public, private, or nonprofit setting.
Eugene Bardachʼs Method of Policy Analysis
I teach a class on policy analysis at the University of Utah, and I have found that students learn a great deal from my primary textbook in that class; it is a book called a Practical Guide for Policy Analysis by Eugene Bardach. If you have not read it or if your instructor does not assign it as a supplementary text, I would recommend picking up a copy of his book. I donʼt plan on giving away every detail of his account, but I would like to outline some of his major points. What is particularly nice about Bardach s̓ approach is that it emphasizes quantitative methods, but it also emphasizes the role of the narrative in making or promoting policy choices.
Bardach outlines in careful detail an “eightfold path” to policy analysis:
1. Define the Problem
2. Assemble Some Evidence
3. Construct the Alternatives
4. Select the Criteria
5. Project Outcomes
6. Confront the Trade-Offs
7. Decide!
8. Tell Your Story.
Problems are difficult to define in almost any circumstance. Let s̓ pretend that you worked in a privately owned factory that produced jars of pickles. Furthermore, you wanted to increase the rate of production of jars of pickles over a certain amount of time to meet a future demand. The problem involves a change in the rate of production.
dp/dt
In order to solve the problem you would have to speed up the production line and ensure that a steady supply of raw materials (cucumbers, brine, jars) are available.
In public policy analysis, problem definition is not quite as simple as the pickle example. With the pickles, you would know exactly what things are involved in solving the problem. There is a clear system with clear causal mechanisms and predicted and controlled rate of production. In policy analysis, causality is more complex, and in terms of solving the problem you arenʼt even anywhere near that step at the moment! You would need to know the nature of the problem as well as many of the factors that cause it to exist. If you donʼt know what causes a problem, it is very difficult to solve it. As Bardach points out, problem definition needs to avoid the introduction of policy solutions—we get to solutions after we understand and define the problem.
Earlier in this chapter, I discussed the nature of goods and pointed out that
public policy is often directed at maintaining efficient markets for the exchange of private goods and services, as well as protecting the supply of public goods. For Bardach, policy problems often fall into the category of market failures or the preservation of public goods. An example of a market failure might be pollution from a factory (an externality) that damages a city s̓ water supply (a public good). The act of production and marketing of goods and services creates social costs for society. For example, cellphones are very useful, but the use of cellphones while driving has led to accidents and fatalities.
In addition to problem definition, it is important to understand the scope of a problem. Is it a local or regional problem or nationwide in its scope? Does the problem have inordinate impact on women, children, or racial or ethnic minorities? How are problems changing over time? Are they growing in scope or remaining the same? Understanding both the problem and its real and potential impacts will shape policy responses.
In defining a problem, policy analysts should also study the stakeholders involved. If, for example, a policy analyst is studying methods of regulating Wall Street trading activity, it is helpful to understand the financial institutions that will be regulated. Understanding the relative power of those interested in problem solutions can be highly beneficial because problem definition needs to be legitimized through acceptance within the political process. Information of this type is also useful in determining if policy can solve a problem; the priority placed on the problem by political decision- makers. The nature of a problem, who is impacted, who is interested, and the priority placed on it will impact resource availability needed to solve it.
Gathering and assembling information about a problem is a second important step in Bardach s̓ approach to policy analysis. Data is quantitative or qualitative. While both forms are useful, quantitative data related to change over time is particularly useful. Think back to the pickle example. If we know that something is changing faster or slower over time, we are able
to say something meaningful about a problem. Defining the Zika virus problem in public health, we discuss changing rates of infection. Data are valuable, but assigning meaning to data is also very important in assembling evidence. Data are important not only in defining problems but also in measuring the benefit and costs of solutions to problems.
Policy theories are important to deciding the meaning and importance of data (see Embrett and Randall 2014). Policy analysts are concerned primarily with empirically grounded theory. Empirical means measureable. Without measurement, theories are not useful to policy analysts. Theories are reason-based models of the interrelationship of social, behavioral, and/or physical phenomena. Theories may appear to be complex, but they are simplified expressions of phenomena. Theories illustrate the relationship between concepts, the latter being measured through quantitative or qualitative indicators. With policy theory in hand, a policy analyst can determine which data are most relevant in studying particular policy problems. Theory guides data collection and increases the efficiency the process of information gathering.
Beyond theory, a policy analyst must consider what policies and data collection mechanisms are currently in place. Collecting data is expensive so the use of existing data and data collection mechanisms reduces time and costs, but many data are either proprietary or difficult to obtain (see Blume, Scott, and Pirog 2014). Policy analysis is often used to develop new policies or variants of existing policies. If policy is going to change it is probably because policymakers and clientele are not happy with existing policy; therefore, a policy analyst would be wise to look beyond theory for guidance in data collection. The simplicity of theory-guided data collection must be balanced with a need for inclusivity.
In a perfect world, we would be able to collect all relevant data needed to define problems as well as the benefits and costs associated with various solutions to solve problems. In reality, the information needed to define a
problem may be limited. Additionally, we rarely have complete information. Not all information can be quantified, which poses its own set of challenges. Additionally, it may not be legal or ethical to collect certain forms of information. In policy analysis, and in any form of research, there is a need to balance the needs of society with the dignity and rights of individuals. Data help us define a problem and develop policy alternatives or solutions.
Policy analysts use data to develop various workable policy solutions to a problem, but researching existing or innovative solutions is very useful. Academic and professional journals often detail solutions to problems and their relative effectiveness. Policy networks are also a great source of ideas about solutions. In some cases, it is useful to poll other policy analysts and get their perspective on solutions—an anonymous form of consultation and “polling” other policy analysts is known as the Delphi Technique. Building on the policy diffusion model discussed previously, another source of policy solutions may involve looking over the fence, so to speak: what are other jurisdictions or other agencies, domestically or internationally doing in response to similar policy problems and does it seem to be working? (See Rihoux and Grimm 2006).
Bardach (2015) suggests that policy analysts brainstorm possible policy solutions using aforementioned techniques, but ultimately they use experience, commonsense, and reason to reduce that list to three or four policy alternatives. For example, let s̓ say a university wishes to reduce sexual assaults on campus. Possible solutions might include: 1) double police presence, 2) increase campus lighting at night; 3) have an educational campaign that highlights the issue of sexual assault on campus; and 4) provide public transportation exclusively for female students at night. Each alternative must be considered in terms of costs and perceived benefit. Political and social acceptability is another key consideration. Budget implications and different core values of organizations represented by each solution above might make a singular approach to problem resolution unfeasible. Increasing the police budget may go against the
values of a student government organization which promotes a grassroots student-based education campaign against sexual assault. Providing public transportation solely for female students might be opposed by the male members of a disabled student association who also feel vulnerable to assault. A good policy analyst, therefore, will be cognizant of both costs and benefits as well the broader acceptability of possible alternatives.
Considering alternatives requires policy choices to be comparable. Policy analysts monetize policy alternatives in terms of their costs and relative benefits. Monetization means that costs and benefits are measured in terms of money value. For instance, if a policy is designed to reduce traffic fatalities, then the benefit of reduced fatalities must be monetized in terms of the value of a human life. Cost benefit analyses come in a variety of forms (see Weimer 2008). An ideal cost benefit analysis would tally up all costs and all benefits associated with a policy alternative. In practice, it is unlikely that all costs and benefits will be knowable and measureable using monetization.
Given these limitations, policy analysts often step back from full cost benefit analysis and focus instead on projected outcomes from particular policy choices. Examples of outcomes might be the number of individuals served by a policy. While benefits are often discussed in projected outcomes, costs are often discussed in relative efficiency—the reduced cost of choosing Plan A over an existing policy. Focusing on projected outcomes and projected cost reductions is a simpler method of comparing alternative solutions. Not everything will need to be monetized in this form of analysis, nor does a policy analyst need to attempt that. Comparing projected outcomes or cost reductions helps later on when measuring success rates of policy choices that are implemented.
Comparing policy alternatives means considering trade-offs. It is unlikely that any single policy will solve a complex problem, but it might significantly reduce the problem. It is important to remember than in the world of politics
and policy there are likely to be competing solutions to problems. While a policy solution may not be the most desirable, it might be one that is thought to be a lot more desirable than something proposed by others and might, in fact, find broad public support.
At times, analyzing the trade-offs appears to approach ethically “thin ice.” Is it okay to accept a solution that may have a lower chance of success simply because it is more economically, socially, and politically feasible? For example, it might be very efficient and equitable if water rights in the West were altered dramatically and all available water was subject to auction with prices determined by the market. Water costs would go up dramatically for agriculture, reducing acreage tilled and more water would be diverted to city dwellers, which would make more water accessible to people who need it, priced at a level which would discourage waste. Would such a policy be adopted on a large scale? It is very unlikely. The trade-off of adopting policy of water conservation education, or perhaps establishing a local water governance council where local stakeholders decided how to equitably use water resources in times of drought, is that the policy alternatives will not solve the problem of water mismanagement, but will produce greater benefits than a policy purely based on individual self-interest in water consumption.
Choosing a preferred policy alternative could be based on many factors. A policy alternative that maximizes monetary benefit in relation to costs might be a preferred alternative. However, that choice might result in many prospective clients of a policy not receiving full benefit. A cost-efficient alternative might be less effective in solving a policy problem. Therefore, a policy alternative that was slightly more expensive might be preferred. Also, the issues of equity and fairness must be considered in choosing a policy alternative—does a policy serve the varying needs of clientele or is it a “one size fits all “approach?
One method of overcoming some of these challenges is to establish criteria
for evaluation of policy alternatives and to break down evaluation along these criteria. Comprehensive cost benefit analysis attempts to identify and monetize all costs and benefits, but if we break down policy alternatives into various criteria for evaluation, it is likely that we will find some criteria more amenable to cost benefit analysis and other criteria that require different evaluative techniques. Commonsense and ethical considerations, for instance, might result in the rapid elimination of some alternatives. For instance, a cost benefit analysis might find that a particular policy alternative is highly efficient but it might not effectively reach a broad array of clientele in an effective manner. As a policy analyst, one would have to consider the costs of policy underserving certain clientele in ways that led to no positive impact on their quality of life.
One may have any number of policy alternatives to consider, but there is always at least one more: doing nothing. Not choosing a policy alternative means that resources could be used in another policy area or simply invested. There is an opportunity cost to choosing to spend resources on one policy rather than another and an opportunity cost to spending taxpayer money on any public policy rather than allowing the taxpayer to keep more of their wealth and spend it in their local economy.
At some point, a policy analyst must decide which policy alternative is the best given the need—first determined when a policy problem is defined. Policy analysts may only make recommendations on policy choice. The decision might be up to administrative superiors or elected officials. At other times, the decision is made by a collaborative policymaking body, a steering committee, or a group of government and private sector stakeholders. The latter approach is a good way to ensure that the community voice is heard and the acceptability of policy options is gauged.
The criteria for deciding a policy direction are shaped by many factors. Frequently, efficiency is a central factor in policy choice. Decision-makers will likely be concerned about the cost of a policy choice relative to the
amount of benefit generated. For this reason, cost benefit analysis is often critical in policy analysis. Productivity is another important consideration. The expected outcomes of adopting a particular policy are an important consideration, particularly if the policy problem relates to doing more with the same or more limited resources. Equity is a very important consideration in choosing a policy alternative. In public affairs, fairness in treatment of clientele is of critical importance, as is promoting equality in areas where inequality exists. Social justice is of critical importance in any policy choice: a policy should promote fairness. Policy decision-making should involve regular consultation with legal experts; so, by the time one reaches a decision point, the issue of legality should be established. Nevertheless, legal expertise should be engaged throughout the policy analysis process. Existing laws and administrative codes will prove to be of help and (at times) pose challenges in policy analysis and the policy recommendations that emerge.
In considering a policy choice, it is important to ask a few additional questions. Public policy of any type has some impact on personal freedom and choice. Policy analysts must balance the considerations discussed previously with the need to minimize constraints on personal freedom while maximizing personal or group benefit. Regulatory policies should not be over-burdensome in terms of reducing personal freedom and use of personal property. In general, a policy option should be politically and socially acceptable if it is to gain the support it needs to have lasting impact on society.
The last step in policy analysis is relating your research and conclusion to others. Your research is: problem definition, theories upon which your solution-focused research is grounded, a clear delineation of possible solutions to the problem, a framework for choosing a solution, and identification of an optimum solution. Realize that as a policy analyst you may be working for a government agency, an interest group, a think tank, a nonprofit organization, or even a private business with interests in shaping
public policy. The method of creating the policy analysis might be solely your work or the work of a collaborative body, a policy study group, or perhaps a local collaborative policymaking body. So, the manner in which you relate conclusions will be dependent on the aforementioned conditions. One thing that will likely emerge, however, is an official report to be shared with the contracting organization, its sponsors or champions. Policy analysis reports may be shared with a broader audience as well. In the Information Society, it is likely that reports will be widely available globally, in some instances shaping the ideas of policy analysts and citizens on a transnational scale. In all cases, the report must be understandable to a broad range of information consumers with varying levels of knowledge about a problem or policy.
Tools for Policy Analysis
There are two types of empirical analysis: qualitative studies and quantitative studies. Qualitative studies involve a variety of different tools, but only two major types will be discussed here: archival analysis and personal interviews. Quantitative studies discussed will include cost benefit analysis, demography, and survey research. Types of data and data analysis will be discussed briefly.
Archival analysis is particularly important in public policy analysis. Policy history—what was done in the past, why it was done, and how much it cost —helps policy analysts learn important lessons that can be applied to current or future problems and goals. History may illuminate hidden costs and pitfalls that might lead to policy failure. Identifying and addressing problems may improve policy success rates. Today, archival analysis extends beyond domestic borders and involves comparative case policy analysis (see Rihoux and Grimm 2006). It is important to understand policy as planned, adopted, and implemented as well as to identify outcomes (Ritter et al. 2015).
Personal interviews are also an important tool for improving current public
policy and informing future policy design. Interviews of former elected and appointed officials may reveal the decision process by which policy was adopted and which choices were avoided. Through personal interviews it is possible to document past experience for future use.
Interviews with clientele groups or individuals are also valuable. Clientele are often more than willing to talk about the positive and negative aspects of public policy, frequently offering an “insider s̓ view.” For instance, individuals who have lived in government-owned and -operated tenements in major urban areas understand the day-to-day challenges to quality of life as well, if not better, than government agents tasked with managing housing. Directly impacted by public policy, the clientele have a sense of how public policy benefits or injures them and how public policy could be recrafted to better serve their needs.
Quantitative studies involve the use of numbers to describe phenomena. The analysis of numbers can simplify the study of public policy because numbers have assigned values that may have a more universal meaning. In the strictest sense, monetary values are often understood by individuals. Other numerical values have meanings that are more ephemeral and often socially constructed.
Quantitative data are collected and processed in several different forms. Some data are aggregate level data or grouped data. For instance, data that describes a group—a city, a county, a state, a gender, an ethnic group, or particular race are aggregated to reflect that group as a whole. In aggregated form, data analysis allows policy analysts to describe social or economic conditions in very general terms, making it difficult to pinpoint policy problems and craft and direct policy more efficiently and effectively to those individuals or groups being served. Individual level data often describes a person. For example, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) collects individual-level data via tax documentation on an annual basis.
Cost Benefit Analysis
Cost benefit analysis compares the amount of expected or known benefits produced from a particular policy choice with the expected or known costs associated with that choice. Costs are usually measured in monetary terms. Known costs of labor and supplies are easily computed. While there are always hidden costs associated with any policy decision, such costs can be estimated given previous experiences in prior public policy endeavors. Opportunity costs—the costs associated with choosing a particular policy over an alternative policy—can also be estimated.
Benefit is difficult to calculate because aspects of public policy benefit are not easily measured in dollar terms. For example, it may be impossible to quantify the benefit one gains from climbing to the top of El Capitan in Yosemite National Park, but the benefit exists. Individual clientele and policymakers have a tremendous influence on the quality of a policy outcome or output; but the calculation of a “benefit” is often aggregated, overlooking nuances.
The determination of cost/benefit ratios is not a one-time event. Public policy is dynamic and requires that policymakers adjust policy to changing conditions and needs. When change of policy direction or emphasis occurs, it usually requires increased resource expenditures. For example, if a public school administrator determines that studentsʼ reading disabilities are impeding their progress in school, it might be necessary to increase resources devoted to reading programs. The goal would be to increase policy benefit as a result of increased expenditure. The increased benefit is called a marginal benefit, while the increased cost is a marginal cost. In cost benefit analysis, if benefit does not increase at a rate greater than cost increases, then a policy change is not efficient.
Demography and Policy Analysis
In policy analysis, the changing nature of society s̓ needs must be continually monitored. People move; social and economic conditions change; and, public policy must evolve to meet new challenges.
Demographers have special skills to monitor these changes. Compiling data collected from local and state officials and private entities, demographers track patterns of change and make general predictions about future trends. The analysis helps policymakers determine the feasibility, need, and likely success of a policy.
Demographic data helps policymakers determine if social and economic change is occurring in an equitable manner. For instance, there has been growing concern among political liberals that middle-class and affluent neighborhoods have become segregated due to the unaffordability of housing. Demographic data show these concerns to have some merit— wealthy suburbs are largely populated by white individuals while poorer inner city areas with more limited or lower-quality public services are largely populated by persons of color. These concerns and the demographic evidence offered in support offers one explanation for federal housing policies that have encouraged affordable housing in traditionally middle- class and affluent suburbs. (See Figure 4.2).
Figure 4.2 Correlation between test scores and economic disparity measure
Source: U.S. Department of Education
The Use of Public Opinion Surveys
Generally, public policy analysis is concerned with formulating public policy, choosing alternatives, and studying outcomes. Public opinion can shape policy alternatives. If the public is not supportive of a policy choice, a negative or noncommittal public response could effectively de-legitimize it. Policy analysts may then consider changing the policy approach or goals. The use of mass survey techniques, such as mail or telephone surveys, allows policy analysts to efficiently collect information on the opinions, beliefs, and values of individuals.
Decision Theory
In many respects, decision theory is an extension of statistical analysis and economic theory. Decision theory explores contingencies associated with a policy. The approach is especially useful after a particular policy has been adopted by government. Following policy adoption, the details of policy practice are often reviewed and policy goals and methods formally adjusted.
Government agencies in charge of meeting the new goals seek methods of standardizing the process of decision-making, linking process to predictable outcomes. Decision theory involves determining the probability that various events will occur and factoring that probability into decision analysis. It is important for policy analysts to consider the probability of particular events arising and the cost and outcomes associated with dealing with these events for reasons of policy efficiency and effectiveness. For efficiency reasons, the cheapest and most effective alternatives are usually adopted. For reasons of equality, uniform decisions protect clientele.
Experimentation
Experiments are often effective methods of determining a causal connection between the presence of a public policy and particular outcomes. True experimental design requires the random assignment of individuals to two groups: an experimental group and a control group. The experimental group is comprised of those individuals who receive a treatment, which is a proposed policy or policy variation that is believed will yield more effective or efficient policy outcomes. A control group, similar to the experimental group, is not given the treatment and then compared to the experimental group to see if the groups are different after the treatment is administered. In a true experiment, all external influences that shape outcomes are prevented, a concept known as experimental control. In reality, public policy experiments are frequently not truly randomly assigned and strict controls are not practical. Experimentation with new policies or
policy strategies are often conducted in particular states or localities that may not reflect the general population.
Cross-national meta-analytic studies of natural experiments are one way of overcoming the challenges faced by strict experimental design. Realizing that narrow definitions of control make generalizability of findings very difficult, it often proves more advantageous to study the outcomes of policy on a large scale in a multitude of settings. Correlates between policy and desired outcome in repeated analysis offers strong quasi-experimental evidence (see Nelson and McNall 2016).
Outcomes of Public Policy Analysis
The outcomes of public policy analysis are highly varied. Through policy analyses, policymakers develop a greater understanding of a policy problem and possible solutions. Policy analysis projects costs and possible benefits that will emerge from adoption of a particular policy alternative. Decision- makers are usually interested in efficient alternatives—greatest benefit for the least cost, as well as alternatives that lead to cost reduction or increased performance.
Nevertheless, policy analysis should not be thought of as the solution to government waste and mismanagement. At best, policy analysis offers us some guidance in our choices between alternatives: it does not guarantee that our choices will be morally or ethically wise, nor does it ensure that outcomes will occur as anticipated. Unanticipated events may reshape policy priorities and goals. Policy analysis cannot predict the future with absolute certainty.
Ethics and Policy Analysis
At its best, policy is about improving the condition of individualsʼ lives within the context of a generally accepted set of political, social, and economic values that serve as the foundation of a social contract. In a classical liberal
society, the primary role of government is reflected in public policy: namely, the establishment of legal protections to limit violations of an individual s̓ property rights, life, and personal freedom. In classical liberal society, military and criminal justice functions of government would be prominent.
Conversely, modern liberal societies have a more expansive role for government in protecting individual rights and promoting social, political, and economic equality. Government is proactive, actively involved in building a better future for all individuals under the social contract. In that sense, government is seen to have some role in the management of goods (private, marketable, free, and public). Externalities occur with all types of goods; through public policy, government tries to limit negative impacts through regulation. Government also uses incentives to encourage specific uses for goods. For instance, the federal government has entered the realm of marketable goods, charging low rates for public land grazing, encouraging ranchers on adjacent lands to expand their livestock operations. In the late nineteenth and for most of the twentieth century, public land grazing policy was designed to stimulate growth in agricultural production, particularly in the American West. In this way, government spurred economic growth with cheap marketable goods while simultaneously improving the lives of rural citizens. (See Box 4.2 Is Public Policy Spiraling out of Control? Nonmainstream Viewpoints.)
Box 4.2
Is Public Policy Spiraling Out of Control? Nonmainstream Viewpoints
As public policy has moved beyond the relatively limited government functions of a more classical liberal society, it has had to face a series of hard questions related to ethics and to the role of liberal democracy in public policy. It seems odd that such a question would be asked: what is the role of liberal democracy in public policymaking? Yet, it is a question that has arisen on a number of occasions, largely because public policy is moving so rapidly to solve complex and ever-expanding problems.
Increasingly, elected officials and citizens struggle to understand the general direction of public policy. Policy analysts are highly specialized and highly trained individuals often speaking in the very technical language of their particular policy area. Under such conditions, it becomes difficult for public policy to meet both standards of the general definition—that is, ought versus ought not, does versus does not. Elected officials and citizens find themselves unable to clearly see the normative criteria of policy being met and at times find it difficult to understand what it is that government is doing. As Max Weber said in “Structures of Power,” “The political master finds himself in the position of ‘diletanteʼ who stands opposite the ‘expert,̓ facing the trained official who stands within the management of administration” (Jenkins-Smith 1990, 45). In other words, there is the potential threat that democracy will be replaced by technocracy in the policymaking process.
The late Friedrich Hayek, an important figure in the so-called Austrian School of Economics, wrote about the concerns surrounding the rise of technocratic policymaking in his books, The Road to Serfdom and Constitution of Liberty. Hayek predicted the decline of representative policymaking. Hayek saw the rise of technocracy as potentially reducing individual power, centralizing it, and placing it in the hands of government policy analysts, who would become primary decision-makers.
Other critics of policy analysis see the outcomes of the growth of government policy as not producing the utopian visions that were intended. Dystopians often see the decline of personal privacy of individuals. In a complex policy environment, policy analysts require tremendous amounts of data to form their decisions and policy strategies. In many instances, these data are about individuals in society. Dystopians see the data collection process and use of the data collected as a limitation of the privacy rights of individuals. Additionally, the data aggregation process has the potential to treat a person as a “number,” thus dehumanizing individuals.
Policy analysis makes assumptions about the proper role of government in manipulating individual preferences. A classical liberal policy often manipulates the individual using disincentives—for example, crime is punished, often mercilessly. Modern liberal policy is more likely to manipulate the individual through incentives—for example, purchase an alternative energy vehicle and government offers a tax rebate. Either way, ethics (an individual s̓ core beliefs regarding right and wrong) begs us to consider the degree to which and manner in which government ought to manipulate our preferences. Determining what government ought or ought not to do can be traced to ethical belief systems and social contract theories.
Lessons Learned from Chapter 4
Specifics
Economic theory plays a substantial role in guiding policy analysis and policy choices. Economic theory helps policy analysts identify and reduce marginal social costs. There are eight major steps in practical policy analysis, according to Bardach. Qualitative and quantitative tools are used in policy science. These tools come from a variety of different fields, such as economics, anthropology, history, political science, psychology, and sociology. Policy science looks for public solutions to problems and ways to promote individualsʼ rights. Critics of policy science argue that it is ultimately grounded in normative values that favor public solutions to social or individual problems. While several of these critics are political conservatives who favor limited government, there are also political liberal critics who fear that public solutions have not produced the outcomes promised by policy analysts.
The Big Picture
Public policy analysis is a highly complex process. Policy analysis has been a part of government since the foundation of civilized society. For the most part it has been an effort on the part of government to manage the social, political, and economic relationships between individuals. In the earliest examples, public policy analysis centered around economic issues, standardizing the contract process and creating uniform methods of tax collection. Additionally, government policy analysts dealt with (and continue to deal with) the regulation and use of goods in society, particularly public and free goods. Over time, government has played a larger role in the use of private and marketable goods, too.
Public policy analysis is built on a foundation of values. Ideally, policy analysis is designed to help government meet goals that are firmly grounded in commonly shared values. Critics often see public policy analysis as highly technocratic, at times setting aside the issue of values and replacing them with a discussion of problem identification and methods to best achieve a particular policy goal. The role of democracy in policymaking has been the subject of much debate in both academic and practitioner circles, as well as in the political arena. Increasingly, the role of democracy in policy analysis and policymaking has been highlighted as critically important.
With that in mind, we have become more aware of the difficulty in identifying policy analysis as a “science.” In an applied sense, policy analysis is more often seen as a useful tool for achieving particular ends. Policy analysis will likely never be a “pure” science, one that holds completely disinterested objectivity up as a goal to be achieved, but it is bringing policy science closer to physical sciences in terms of rigor. The strength of democratic policymaking is that it tends to involve a very broad discussion or at least affirmation of that which everyday citizens, elected officials and policy analysts believe government ought or ought not to do.
Key Terms
aggregate level data
behavioral science
closed-ended questions
consumer surplus
control group
cost benefit analysis
decision theory
demography
experiment
experimental control
experimental group
externalities
free good
free market economics
hidden costs
individual-level data
marginal benefit
marginal cost
marketable public good
net profit
opportunity cost
policy analysis
public good
quantitative studies
start-up costs
treatment
Questions for Study
1. List and discuss Bardach eight stages in policy analysis.
2. List and discuss three tools used by policy “science”?
3. How can policy analysis promote fairness? Provide an example.
Bibliography
Bardach, E. 2015. A practical guide of policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving, 5th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Blum, S., and K. Schubert. 2013. Policy analysis in Germany. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
Blume, G., T. Scott, and M. Pirog. 2014. Empirical innovations in policy analysis. Policy Studies Journal 42(S1): S33–S50.
Bobrow, D., and J. Dryzek. 1987. Policy analysis by design. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Brewer, G., and P. DeLeon. 1983. The foundations of policy analysis. Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishers.
Embrett, M.. and G. Randall. 2014. Social determinants of health and health equity policy research: Exploring the use, misuse, and nonuse of policy analysis theory. Social Science & Medicine 108: 147–55.
Erasmus, E. 2014. The use of street-level bureaucracy theory in health policy analysis in low- and middle-income countries: a meta-ethnographic synthesis. Health Policy and Planning 29: 70–78.
Gatenio-Gabel, S. 2016. A rights-based approach to social policy analysis. New York: Springer International Publishing.
Goehlert, R., and F. Martin. 1985. Policy analysis and management: A bibliography. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio Information Services.
Haas, P., and J. F. Springer. 1998. Applied policy research: Concepts and cases. New York: Garland Publishing.
Hajer, M., and H. Wagenaar. 2003. Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hankivsky, O., D. Grace, G. Hunting, M. Giesbrecht, A. Fridkin, S. Rudrum, O. Ferlatte, and N. Clark. 2014. An intersectionality-based policy analysis framework: Critical reflections on a methodology for advancing equity. International Journal of Equity and Health 13: 119–34.
Haveman, R., and J. Margolis. 1983. Public expenditure and policy analysis. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Hawkesworth, M. 1988. Theoretical issues in policy analysis. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
von Hayek, F. 1944. Road to serfdom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
von Hayek, F.. 1960. The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
House, P., and R. Shull. 1991. The practice of policy analysis: Forty years of art and technology. Washington, DC: The Compass Press.
Jenkins-Smith, H. 1990. Democratic politics and policy analysis. New York: Thomson Learning.
Kane, J. Econometrics: An applied approach—data. www.oswego.edu/~kane/econometrics/schools.htm. (Accessed September 4, 2004).
Karstens, S. 2009. Bridging boundaries: Making scale choices in multi-actor policy analysis on water management. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press
Lasswell, H. 1950. Politics: Who gets what, when, and how. New York: Peter Smith Publishers.
Lempert, R., S. Popper, and S. Bankes. 2003. Shaping the next one hundred years: New methods for quantitiative, long-term policy analysis and bibliography. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Nagel, S. 1984. Contemporary public policy analysis. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Nagel, S.. 1999. Policy analysis methods. Commack, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Nagel, S., ed. 1994. Encyclopedia of policy studies, 2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Nagel, S., ed. 1999. The substance of public policy. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Nelson, J., and A. McNall. 2016. Alcohol prices, taxes, and alcohol-related
harms: A critical review of natural experiments in alcohol policy for nine countries. Health Policy 120: 264–72.
Patton, C., D. Sawicki, and J. Clark. 2012. Basic methods of policy analysis and planning, 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.
Quade, E. 1989. Analysis for public decisions, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Rihoux, B., and H. Grimm. 2006. Innovative comparative methods for policy analysis: Beyond the quantitative-qualitative divide. New York: Springer.
Ritter, A., M. Livingston, J. Chalmers, L. Berends, and P. Reuter. 2015. Comparative policy analysis for alcohol and drugs: Current state of the field. International Journal of Drug Policy 31: 39-50.
Scott, C., and K. Baehler. 2010. Adding value to policy analysis. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales Press.
Stone, D. 2011. Policy paradox: The art of political decision making, 3rd ed. New York: Norton.
Walker, W. 1994. The policy analysis approach to public decisionmaking. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Weimer, D. 2008. Cost-benefit analysis and public policy. New York: Wiley.
Weimer, D., and A. Vining. 2004. Policy analysis: Concepts and practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Yamatani, H., and M. Feit. 2013. Contemporary social policy analysis methods: An incorporation of ethical principals and implementation processes. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 23(7): 817–23.