Discussion 6
Foundations for Policy Analysis
a. Debriefing
Your decision to read this book suggests that you have not already had a
course in policy analysis, so that you probably have not previously encountered a
report like the one you just read––it almost certainly differs in format and content
from undergraduate papers you wrote. is entire book provides you with the
conceptual foundations and cra skills to enable you to produce policy analyses
competently and qui ly. If you work as a policy analyst, then the advice you provide
will take many forms, ranging from brief discussions in the hallway to substantial
reports prepared by large teams using original data and working over an extended
period.
Nonetheless, mastering the canonical template displayed in this guide will
help you give good advice when using these other formats as well. This foundational
understanding is critical because the principles and structures underlying the
canonical template are often mirrored in various other formats. By thoroughly
grasping the nuances and intricacies of this primary template, you develop a versatile
skill set that can be adapted to different contexts and applications.
Consider the canonical template as a cornerstone of effective communication
and organization in your advice-giving endeavors. Whether you're drafting a business
proposal, crafting a research paper, or composing an email, the ability to adhere to a
clear, logical structure enhances the clarity and impact of your message. This template
teaches you how to organize your thoughts systematically, ensuring that your advice is
coherent, persuasive, and easy to follow.
Moreover, the skills you acquire from mastering this template extend beyond
mere format. You learn to identify and prioritize key points, present information
logically, and support your arguments with relevant evidence. These competencies are
universally applicable, allowing you to tailor your advice to fit the specific demands
and conventions of various formats. For instance, while the format of a business
report differs from that of an academic paper, both require a clear introduction, a well-
organized body, and a concise conclusion. By internalizing the canonical template,
you can seamlessly adapt to these different formats, maintaining the same high
standards of clarity and organization.
Additionally, this mastery provides a framework for critical thinking and
problem-solving. When advising on complex issues, having a structured approach
helps you break down problems into manageable components, analyze each part
systematically, and develop comprehensive solutions. This methodical approach not
only enhances the quality of your advice but also boosts your confidence in
addressing diverse challenges. As you become more adept at applying the canonical
template, you will find that your ability to generate insightful, well-reasoned advice in
various contexts improves significantly.
Furthermore, mastering the canonical template fosters consistency in your
advice-giving practices. Consistency is crucial for building trust and credibility with
your audience. When your advice follows a predictable and reliable structure, it
becomes easier for others to understand and act upon. This consistency also reinforces
your professional reputation, as clients and colleagues come to recognize and
appreciate your methodical and thorough approach.
In practice, the benefits of mastering the canonical template are manifold. For
instance, when providing strategic advice to a business client, you can use the
template to ensure your recommendations are grounded in a thorough analysis of the
company's situation, market conditions, and potential risks. Similarly, in academic
settings, employing the template helps you present your research findings in a logical,
persuasive manner, making it easier for peers and reviewers to grasp the significance
of your work.
Moreover, the skills honed through mastering this template are transferable to
verbal communication as well. When presenting your advice in meetings, workshops,
or consultations, the ability to structure your thoughts clearly and logically ensures
that your oral presentations are as compelling and effective as your written ones. This
versatility enhances your overall communication capabilities, making you a more
effective advisor in both written and spoken formats.
In summary, mastering the canonical template displayed in this guide is an
invaluable step towards giving good advice across various formats. This foundational
skill equips you with the tools needed to organize and present your thoughts
effectively, regardless of the context. It enhances your critical thinking, problem-
solving, and communication abilities, ensuring that your advice is always clear,
coherent, and persuasive. As you internalize the principles of this template, you will
find yourself better prepared to tackle diverse challenges, provide insightful
recommendations, and build a reputation for excellence in your advice-giving
endeavors. Whether you are addressing business issues, academic questions, or
personal matters, the structured approach imparted by the canonical template will
serve as a reliable guide, helping you to deliver high-quality advice consistently and
confidently.
Before we embark on a systematic treatment of the generic template in the that
follow, we briefly highlight some of its most important features, both to help you put
your journey through the into perspective and to provide you with some upfront help
in case your instructor wants you to perform a trial policy analysis along the way.
b. Write to Your Client
Policy analysis as a professional activity is done for a client. Whether as
employees or consultants, professional policy analysts earn their keep by giving
reasoned advice to their clients. Typically, the client is a person, like Senator-elect
Smith (herea er, just “Senator”), who makes or influences public policy decisions.
Many policy analysts have public administrators as their clients. Some have
nongovernmental clients, su as the leaders of organizations that seek to improve
public policy in specific substantive areas or promote particular policy approa es.
Clients can also be governing organizations, su as legislatures, regulatory bodies, or
international organizations, that seek advice about the decisions they must make.
Although as a policy analyst you should always seek to make society be er, as a
professional you do so through service to a specific client with authority or influence.
If you become an elected official or public administrator, then at times you may be
your own client.
Senator Smith presented you with a specific policy problem, the long waiting
list for kidney transplants, and asked you to consider a class of alternatives, policies
that would increase the availability of kidneys for transplantation from living donors.
She also gave you a deadline. In this case, the deadline was dictated by her
convenience. However, if she were seeking advice in advance of an upcoming Senate
commi ee or floor vote, then the deadline would be inflexible––your analysis would
be mu less valuable, perhaps worthless, and your tardiness possibly career ending,
if you delivered it a er the vote! In addition to the two fundamental responsibilities to
the client of answering the question posed and doing so on time, you also have to be
concerned about effectively communicating your advice. Your report should be
wri en so that your client, and those with whom she ooses to share your report, can
easily understand its content. You had to work hard to convey simply the quite
complicated substance of kidney transplantation and relevant economic concepts, su
as information asymmetry, so that Senator Smith, an educated lay person, could
follow your analysis without difficulty.
However, even a relatively short policy analysis may be too long for a busy
client to read in its entirety. Given the demanding schedules and the sheer volume of
information that policymakers and executives must sift through daily, it is often
impractical to expect them to dedicate time to reading detailed reports from start to
finish. This is why you include a brief executive summary, an essential component of
any policy report more than a few pages in length. The executive summary serves as a
concise encapsulation of the report's most critical points, ensuring that the reader can
quickly grasp the key findings, recommendations, and implications without delving
into the full document.
The executive summary should be crafted with care, striking a balance
between brevity and comprehensiveness. Its purpose is to provide a snapshot of the
report's content, highlighting the main objectives, methods, results, and conclusions in
a way that is accessible and engaging. For busy clients, this summary is often the first
—and sometimes the only—part of the report they will read. Therefore, it must be
clear, precise, and compelling, capturing the essence of the analysis while prompting
further interest in the detailed findings.
A well-written executive summary typically includes several key elements.
First, it should begin with a clear statement of the problem or issue being addressed.
This sets the context and underscores the importance of the analysis. Next, it should
briefly outline the methodology used to examine the issue, providing just enough
detail to establish the credibility of the analysis without overwhelming the reader with
technical specifics.
Following the methodology, the summary should present the main findings
and insights derived from the analysis. These should be articulated succinctly,
focusing on the most significant data points and trends that support the report’s
conclusions. This section is crucial as it provides the evidence base for the
recommendations that follow.
The recommendations themselves should be clearly stated and prioritized
based on their importance and feasibility. Each recommendation should be action-
oriented, providing specific steps that the client can take to address the issue at hand.
It is also helpful to briefly explain the rationale behind each recommendation, linking
it back to the findings of the analysis to reinforce its validity.
In addition to these core components, the executive summary should also
highlight the broader implications of the findings and recommendations. This might
include potential impacts on policy, economic outcomes, social benefits, or other
relevant areas. By framing the analysis within a broader context, the summary can
help the client appreciate the significance of the report beyond the immediate issue.
Finally, the executive summary should be written in a clear and
straightforward style, avoiding jargon and technical language as much as possible.
The goal is to make the content accessible to a broad audience, including those who
may not have a deep background in the specific field being analyzed. Visual aids such
as bullet points, charts, and graphs can be particularly effective in conveying complex
information quickly and clearly.
In practice, the executive summary acts as both a standalone document and a
gateway to the full report. For those with time constraints, it provides all the essential
information needed to understand the analysis and make informed decisions. For
those with more time, it serves as an introduction that encourages further reading of
the detailed sections of the report.
By including a well-crafted executive summary, you not only respect the time
constraints of busy clients but also enhance the overall impact and utility of your
policy analysis. It ensures that your key messages are communicated effectively,
increasing the likelihood that your recommendations will be considered and acted
upon. In essence, the executive summary transforms a lengthy and potentially
daunting report into a user-friendly and impactful tool, facilitating better decision-
making and fostering greater engagement with your analysis.
In conclusion, the executive summary is an indispensable part of any
substantial policy report. It condenses the report’s essential elements into a brief,
accessible format, ensuring that busy clients can quickly grasp the key points and
recommendations. By prioritizing clarity, brevity, and relevance, a well-crafted
executive summary enhances the effectiveness of your communication, making it
more likely that your insights and advice will be heard and acted upon.
Your executive summary has several important features in addition to brevity.
Its first paragraph sets out the issue and ends with your recommendation. e
subsequent paragraphs appropriately rehearse your complete analysis, including a
statement of the relevant policy goals and assessed alternatives, and the reason for the
recommendation. Many busy clients would know the basic approa of your analysis
just from reading the executive summary. Once you have a tra record for sound
analysis and judgment, some clients may read only the first paragraph to see the
recommendation. Write your executive summary as if that will be the case.
You divided the body of your report into clearly labeled sections. is aspect
of templating helps your client follow the logic of your analysis and makes it easy for
her to read selectively specific sections of interest. For example, Senator Smith may
be inclined to accept your recommendation based on the executive summary alone,
but she may want to read your description and follow your assessment of the
recommended alternative before making a final decision. Adding a table that
summarizes your assessment of alternatives in terms of the relevant policy goals also
makes it easier for your client to understand how you rea ed your recommendation.
c. Understand the Policy Problem
Policy analyses o en start with a client expressing concern about some
undesirable condition. Senator Smith wants to do something about the long waiting
list for kidney transplants. Sometimes you will be asked to assess a policy proposal
rather than an undesirable condition. In the policy proposal case, your task usually
involves stepping ba to identify the undesirable condition the proposal intends to
address, and then stepping forward with alternatives that might be even be er than the
proposed alternative that prompted the request for analysis. So, for example, imagine
that one of Senator Smith’s constituents had asked her to allow people to sell kidneys.
You would still want to identify the undesirable condition that kidney sales are
intended to address and what other policy alternatives deserve a ention, as you
actually do in responding to the senator.
Understanding the policy problem involves at least two tasks. e first task is
to diagnose the undesirable condition and, if possible, put it into quantitative
perspective. Your diagnosis usually requires you to learn qui ly about the subject. If
you have been working in a policy area for a long time, then doing so may be
relatively easy, even for newly emerging issues, because you know a lot about the
context and likely have a network of colleagues to consult. If instead of being new to
transplantation policy you had previously analyzed alternatives for increasing the
availability of deceased-donor kidneys, then you would likely already know a lot
about transplantation. Starting from scrat is daunting, but if you build your skill in
intelligently using electronic sources, you can o en get started qui ly. Once you
establish that a condition is worthy of concern––people forgo quality of life and o en
die waiting for kidney transplants––it is usually useful to quantify the condition and
put it into perspective. You were able to find data showing that the waiting list for
kidneys is long and that it is growing––there is an undesirable condition and it is
ge ing worse. It may be useful to put other conditions into perspective by making
comparisons across policy jurisdictions. For instance, if you were advising a state
legislature on policies to increase the availability of deceased-donor kidneys, then you
might compare donation rates for your state with those of other states. If your state is
lagging, then you might look at deceased-donor policies in the more successful states
to begin to get ideas about policy alternatives.
Such comparisons are important, because it is the possibility that your client
could influence policies offering improvement that turns an undesirable condition into
a policy problem. By meticulously examining and comparing different policy options,
you provide a comprehensive understanding of the potential impacts and benefits of
each approach. This detailed analysis transforms a generalized issue into a targeted
problem that can be addressed through strategic interventions.
When you highlight these comparisons, you are essentially mapping out the
landscape of potential policy actions, demonstrating where and how improvements
can be made. This process involves assessing the current state of affairs, identifying
gaps and inefficiencies, and projecting the outcomes of various policy scenarios. By
doing so, you help your client see beyond the surface of the issue, uncovering the
underlying dynamics that contribute to the undesirable condition.
For instance, in the context of healthcare policy, comparing the outcomes of
different organ donation strategies—such as increasing deceased donations versus
incentivizing live donations—allows your client to understand the practical and
ethical ramifications of each option. These comparisons not only clarify the potential
effectiveness of different policies but also highlight the trade-offs and considerations
that must be taken into account. This depth of analysis is crucial for turning a vague
concern into a concrete policy problem that can be systematically addressed.
Moreover, these comparisons equip your client with the knowledge needed to
advocate for specific policy changes. Armed with a detailed understanding of the
relative merits and drawbacks of different approaches, your client can engage more
effectively with stakeholders, policymakers, and the public. This informed advocacy
is essential for building consensus and mobilizing support for the chosen policy
direction.
Furthermore, making such comparisons helps in prioritizing policy actions. In
a world of limited resources, it is vital to allocate efforts and funds to the most
impactful and feasible solutions. By providing a clear comparative analysis, you
enable your client to make informed decisions about where to focus their advocacy
and resources. This strategic prioritization ensures that efforts are directed towards
policies that offer the greatest potential for positive change.
In addition to aiding in policy formulation and advocacy, these comparisons
also serve as a tool for ongoing evaluation and adjustment. As policies are
implemented, continuous monitoring and comparison of outcomes against initial
projections allow for iterative improvements. This adaptive approach ensures that
policies remain responsive to real-world developments and can be fine-tuned to
achieve the desired results.
Ultimately, the importance of these comparisons lies in their ability to
transform an abstract issue into a tangible policy problem with identifiable solutions.
By elucidating the potential impacts of different policy options, you provide a
roadmap for addressing the issue in a systematic and evidence-based manner. This
transformation is what empowers your client to move from recognizing an
undesirable condition to actively influencing policies that offer meaningful
improvement.
In conclusion, the process of making detailed comparisons is a foundational
aspect of effective policy analysis. It bridges the gap between identifying an
undesirable condition and formulating actionable policy solutions. By offering a
nuanced understanding of various policy options, these comparisons enable your
client to advocate for changes with confidence and clarity. They facilitate strategic
prioritization and provide a basis for ongoing evaluation, ensuring that policies remain
effective and adaptable over time. Through this meticulous approach, you help your
client turn a general concern into a well-defined policy problem that can be
systematically addressed, ultimately leading to improved outcomes and a more
responsive policy environment.
e second task involves framing the policy problem as a market or
government failure (or maybe both) or other circumstance in whi individual oices
lead to undesirable social outcomes. Conventionally defined, market failures are
situations in whi individual oices do not lead to an efficient allocation of
resources. In considering the possibility of an unregulated market for kidneys, you
identify several market failures. You argue that an unregulated market for living-
donor kidneys would lead to inefficient transactions because of information
asymmetry, one of the classic market failures. Government failures are the ways that
collective action leads to inefficient allocations of resources. Your report identifies
that current policy produces an inefficient allocation by not allowing a market in
kidneys. However, the market ban reasonably reflects other important values and does
not inherently result from a collective action problem, su as the disproportional
weight representative government tends to place on organized (relative to
unorganized) interests that o en results in restrictions on competition or other
questionable limits on individual oices.
Market failures produce inefficiency. However, even efficient markets can
produce socially undesirable allocations of resources. We usually want floors on
consumption, ensuring that people have the basic necessities of life. We also usually
want some minimum levels of participation in the political processes that oose
levels of goods like environmental quality. We o en want less unequal access to the
consumption of goods, either generally through a more equal distribution of wealth, or
more specifically through access to specific types of goods, su as s ooling and
medical care. You address concerns about exploitation of the poor and undo advantage
for wealthy patients in your assessment of kidney commodification.
A benefit of framing a policy problem as a particular market failure is that it
allows you to take advantage of the substantial theoretical and empirical knowledge
available across many policy areas about its consequences and ways of mitigating
these consequences. Framing as a market failure o en provides an initial model for
identifying and assessing policy alternatives. Your alternatives involving kidney
vendors respond to information asymmetry by imposing an intermediary—brokers in
one case and the KEX in the other. O en you will need other models as well. So, for
example, analyses of alternatives for increasing kidneys from deceased donors might
also usefully draw on models of altruistic behavior from psy ology or sociology.
Another aspect of understanding the problem involves deciding on the type of
alternatives that you will consider. ite regularly, opinion pieces appear in major
newspapers arguing that shortages of transplant organs could be substantially reduced
by replacing our opt-in system (in whi people explicitly commit to donating organs
upon their death) to an opt-out system (in whi it is assumed that people will donate
unless they specifically object while living). Su recommendations usually ignore
the possible magnitude of supply from deceased donors and their advocates o en fail
to take account of the importance of the effectiveness of the organizations that
identify potential deceased donors and facilitate the removal of donated organs for
a ieving high donation rates.
Even though you were asked to consider policies to increase the availability of
kidneys from living donors, you make clear in your analysis why policies to increase
deceased donation could not stop the kidney transplant waiting list from growing.
This is a critical point that needs to be thoroughly understood, especially in light of
the greater ethical concerns raised by the alternatives aimed at increasing live
donations.
In your comprehensive analysis, you delve into the multifaceted challenges
and limitations associated with relying solely on deceased donation to address the
organ shortage crisis. Despite significant efforts to enhance the rate of organ donation
from deceased individuals, the supply has remained insufficient to meet the ever-
growing demand. This shortfall is due to several intrinsic and extrinsic factors that
constrain the potential pool of deceased donors.
Firstly, the pool of eligible deceased donors is inherently limited by medical
criteria and circumstances of death. Not all deaths result in organs that are viable for
transplantation, and stringent medical assessments further narrow the pool. For
instance, organs from deceased donors must meet specific health standards, and only a
small percentage of hospital deaths involve conditions suitable for organ harvesting.
This naturally limits the number of kidneys available from deceased donors.
Secondly, even with aggressive public awareness campaigns and policies
designed to increase consent rates for organ donation, cultural, religious, and personal
beliefs continue to influence people's willingness to donate organs posthumously.
These deeply ingrained beliefs and attitudes vary widely across different
demographics and regions, creating an additional barrier to increasing the number of
deceased donors. While education and outreach can mitigate some of these concerns,
they cannot entirely overcome them.
Moreover, the logistics of organ recovery, preservation, and transportation
present further challenges. The time-sensitive nature of organ transplants means that
despite successful procurement, organs can be lost due to logistical delays or
mismatches between donor and recipient locations. This logistical complexity adds
another layer of difficulty to increasing the effective supply of kidneys from deceased
donors.
In contrast, policies aimed at increasing live kidney donations, while
presenting their own ethical and practical challenges, offer a more immediate and
potentially larger source of organs. Live donations typically come from healthy
individuals who can be thoroughly screened and matched with recipients ahead of the
procedure, significantly reducing the risk of organ rejection and other complications
associated with transplants from deceased donors.
However, the ethical implications of incentivizing live donations cannot be
understated. These policies must navigate the delicate balance between encouraging
donations and avoiding coercion or undue pressure on potential donors. The ethical
landscape is further complicated by concerns about exploitation, particularly in
vulnerable populations, and the need to ensure that donors are making informed,
voluntary decisions without financial inducement overshadowing their autonomy.
Your analysis emphasizes that while increasing deceased donations should
remain a key component of the overall strategy to address organ shortages, it cannot
be the sole solution. The persistent gap between supply and demand necessitates
exploring all viable avenues, including those involving living donors. However, these
avenues must be pursued with careful consideration of the ethical and societal
ramifications.
In conclusion, your comprehensive evaluation underscores the necessity of a
multifaceted approach to kidney donation policies. By clearly articulating the
limitations of relying solely on deceased donations, you highlight the importance of
simultaneously developing ethically sound policies to increase live donations. This
balanced perspective ensures that the kidney transplant waiting list does not continue
to grow unchecked, while also respecting the complex ethical considerations that are
intrinsic to the process of organ donation. Your analysis serves as a crucial guide for
policymakers, helping them to navigate the intricate terrain of organ donation policy
with both pragmatic and ethical rigor.
d. Policy Analysis in Perspective
Two questions help us classify policy knowledge for the purpose of pu ing
policy analysis into perspective. First, is the primary focus on the content of policy or
the process that produces it? Content is the “what” of policy; process is the “how.”
e former is about the knowledge that informs our understanding of the substance
and implications of adopted or potentially adopted policies; the la er is knowledge
that informs our understanding of the process through whi public policies are
adopted within any particular political system.1 Second, who is the primary audience
for the knowledge? We distinguish between clients, either individuals or organizations
that play a part in the policymaking process, and epistemic communities defined as
“network[s] of professionals with recognized expertise and competence in a particular
domain and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within that domain or
issue-area.
e upper right cell defines policy research as having its primary focus on the
“what” of policy and its primary audience is the community of resear ers and others,
su as policy analysts and advocates, interested in some substantive policy issue.
Policy resear o en employs the methods of the social science disciplines. While
academic resear in these disciplines looks for relationships among the broad range
of variables describing behavior, policy resear focuses on relationships between
variables that reflect social problems and other variables that can be manipulated by
public policy. e desired product of policy resear is a more-or-less verified
hypothesis of the form: if the government does X, then Y will result.
For example, academic resear into the causes of crime might identify moral
education within the family as an important factor. Because our political system
places mu of family life outside the sphere of legitimate public intervention,
however, there may be li le that the government can do to foster this kind of learning
within the home. e policy resear er, therefore, may take family values as a given
and focus instead on factors at least partially under government control, su as the
certainty, swi ness, and severity of punishment for those who commit crimes. e
policy resear er may then be willing to make a prediction (a hypothesis to be tested
by future events), say, that if the probability of arrest for a certain crime is increased
by 10 percent, then the frequency of that crime will go down by 5 percent.
A fine line o en separates policy resear and policy analysis. e strength of
client orientation distinguishes them in our s eme. Policy resear ers are less closely
tied to public decision makers. While decision makers may be interested in their work,
policy resear ers usually view themselves primarily as members of a network that
consists primarily of other resear ers. Sometimes their primary motivation for doing
policy resear is personal financial gain or the excitement of seeing their work
influence policy; perhaps more o en they do it to gain resources or a ention for their
broader resear programs. Because they place primary importance on having the
respect of others in their network, policy resear ers are o en as concerned with the
publication of their work in professional journals as they are with its use by decision
makers. us, the pace of their work is more o en dictated by the time needed to meet
academic standards than by the opportunity to influence particular policy decisions.
e well-defined disciplinary orientation of most academic policy resear
tends to limit its direct applicability. e translation of resear findings into
implementable policies requires a ention to practical considerations of li le general
interest to other disciplinary resear ers. Returning to our example, a prediction that
an increase in the probability of arrest will decrease the crime rate is only the first step
in developing and predicting the consequences of a policy option. How can the arrest
rate be increased? How mu will it cost? What other impacts will result? How can it
be determined if the predicted reduction in the crime rate has actually occurred? e
answers to su questions require information of a specific nature, o en of li le
general interest and even less disciplinary interest. Consequently, policy resear ers
o en leave these sorts of questions to policy analysts, who will actually cra policy
options for decision makers.
While policy resear draws most heavily from substantively oriented
professional fields like public health and environmental science, and from the
academic disciplines of economics and sociology, policy process resear draws most
heavily from political science. Its frameworks and theories explain why and how the
content of public policy anges or remains the same. It identifies generic processes
that operate across, or repeatedly within, particular policy areas. Two features of
policy process resear distinguish it from other fields within political science. First, it
emphasizes the relationship between the substance of policy and political processes.
Although the direction of interest is usually from politics to substance, it has a long
tradition of also considering how the substance of policy affects the nature of politics.
3 For example, lobbying and other forms of active political participation are more
likely when small numbers of individuals or organizations bear large shares of the
costs or receive large shares of the benefits from policy ange.
Second, policy process resear looks inclusively across political institutions.
Rather than focusing on political behavior within particular institutions, su as the
executive, legislative, or judicial bran es, it considers their collective effect on the
substance of public policy. So, for example, while s olars of the U.S. Congress
typically focus primarily on its processes and outputs, a policy process resear er is
interested in the final policy that results a er all other relevant political institutions
have exerted their authorities and influences. O en this interest extends beyond
adoption to the various processes through whi policies are implemented. When
a ention to implementation includes assessment of the outcomes of policies, policy
process resear on the “how” merges into policy resear concerned with the “what.”
Policy process resear can assist policy analysts in thinking about the bigger picture
of policy adoption. It may also provide more directly useful resources for stakeholder
analysis.
is is o en called political and organizational analysis because it usually
requires an understanding of the interests, beliefs, and resources of relevant social,
political, and organizational actors, or stakeholders, and the arenas in whi they
influence, or potentially could influence, the adoption and implementation of policy. 5
Various ways of systematically organizing and analyzing information about
stakeholders have been developed. 6 Although clients usually conduct their own
informal stakeholder analyses, they o en seek advice from those who either have
knowledge about particular arenas where policy decisions are made or understanding
of stakeholders relevant to the cra ing of strategies for ge ing things done.
Stakeholder analysis as a distinct activity is instrumental rather than normative. at
is, it is concerned with a ieving adoption or implementation of some policy rather
than with the social value outcomes the policy is intended to produce. As advice about
strategy, it is most o en provided confidentially to clients. However, rather than done
as a distinct activity, it can also be integrated into policy analysis through
consideration of instrumental goals like political feasibility or prospects for successful
implementation.
Within this narrow perspective of policy analysis, its focus is exclusively
normative: what policies promote socially valuable outcomes? It typically requires the
identification of relevant social values and the development of appropriate policy
goals for promoting them. It also typically requires the development of policy
alternatives, prediction of their impacts on policy goals, and consideration of trade-
offs across policy alternatives. However, in practice policy analysis usually considers
instrumental as well as substantive goals. Almost always, analysts must consider the
prospects for successful implementation; they usually also consider political
feasibility. In doing so, they incorporate stakeholder analysis in varying degrees,
resulting in the more broadly defined policy analysis that we consider in this book.
Policy analysis has similarities to familiar professions like medicine, law, and
journalism. Like medicine, it involves diagnosis of problems and prescription of
solutions for a specific client, leading some to classify it as a “clinical” profession. 7
Like both doctors and lawyers, policy analysts owe substantial responsibility to their
clients. As we discuss in the next apter, however, policy analysts also have duties to
adhere to analytical integrity and promote the good society. Unlike lawyers who need
only to argue their clients’ side of cases, policy analysts have a responsibility to
present all sides. If they argue only for their clients, then they become advocates
rather than analysts. Even as advocates, however, like good lawyers, their preparation
for arguing for their clients should include a balanced assessment if for no other
reason than anticipating counter-arguments.
e comparison of policy analysis with journalism may at first seem strange.
Journalists typically concern themselves with recent events; they are rarely called
upon to make predictions about the future. When they write about public policy, the
need to a ract a wide readership o en leads them to focus on the unusual and the
sensational rather than the routine and the mundane. Narratives with victims, heroes,
and villains cat readers’ interest more effectively than nuanced discussions of
competing social values. eir contribution to the political process, therefore, is more
o en introducing policy problems to the public agenda than providing systematic
comparisons of alternative solutions. Nevertheless, policy analysts and journalists
share several goals and constraints.
Tight deadlines drive mu of journalists’ work, especially in this electronic
age. Because news qui ly becomes stale, journalists o en face the prospect of not
being able to publish unless they make the next edition. Similarly, the advice of policy
analysts, no ma er how sophisticated and convincing, will be useless if it is delivered
to clients a er they have had to vote, issue regulations, or otherwise make decisions.
Rarely will it be the case of be er late than never. Tight deadlines lead both
journalists and policy analysts to develop similar strategies for gathering information.
Files of ba ground information and networks of knowledgeable people are o en
extremely valuable resources because they enable journalists to put events qui ly in
context. ese resources play a similar role for policy analysts, but may also provide
information useful for assessing the te nical, political, and administrative feasibility
of policy alternatives when time does not permit systematic investigation. Policy
analysts, like journalists, wisely cultivate their information sources.
Finally, communication is a primary concern. Journalists must be able to put
their stories into words that will cat and keep the interest of their readers. Policy
analysts must do the same for their clients. Effective communication requires clear
writing—analysts must be able to explain their te nical work in language that can be
understood by their clients. Also, because the a ention and time of clients are scarce
resources, writing must be concise and convincing to be effective.
e. Policy Analysis as a Profession
Until the 1980s, few of those actually doing policy analysis would have
identified themselves as members of su a profession; even fewer filled positions
labeled “policy analyst.” Many employees who do policy analysis held, and continue
to hold, positions as economists, planners, program evaluators, budget analysts,
operations resear ers, or statisticians. Over the past 30 years, however, policy
analysis has emerged as an established profession. 8 Positions called “policy analyst”
are now more common in government agencies, and are o en filled by people who
have been trained in s ools of policy analysis. Many practicing analysts trained in a
variety of disciplines are members of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and
Management. 9 However, its members represent only a fraction of those actually
practicing the cra of policy analysis.
Practicing policy analysts work in a variety of organizational se ings,
including federal, state, and local agencies and legislatures; consulting firms; resear
institutes and think tanks; trade associations and other organizations representing
interest groups; and business and nonprofit corporations. Policy analysts can now be
found in all the major industrialized countries, and s ools of public policy can now
be found in Europe and Asia as well as North America. 10 e way analysts practice
their cra is greatly influenced by the nature of their relationships with their clients
and by the roles played by the clients in the political process. Because these
relationships and roles vary greatly across organizations, we should expect to see a
wide range of analytical styles. Let us look at a few examples of organizational
se ings in whi policy analysts ply their cra .
First, consider the U.S. federal government. Where are the policy analysts?
Beginning with the executive bran , there are small but influential groups of analysts
in the National Security Council and Domestic Policy staffs within the White House.
As presidential appointees in politically sensitive positions, they generally share
closely the philosophy and goals of their administration. eir advice concerns the
political, as well as the economic and social, consequences of policy options. ey
o en coordinate the work of policy analysts in other parts of the executive bran .
e Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and, to a lesser extent, the Council of
Economic Advisers (CEA), also play coordinating roles within the federal
government. Analysts in OMB are responsible for predicting the costs to the federal
government of anges in policy and overseeing the issuing of major rules by federal
regulatory agencies. ey also participate in the evaluation of particular programs.
e major role that OMB plays in the preparation of the administration budget gives
its analysts great leverage in disputes with the federal agencies; it also o en leads the
analysts to emphasize budgetary costs over social costs and benefits. Analysts on the
CEA do not play as direct a role in the budgetary process and, therefore, retain greater
freedom to adopt the broad perspective of social costs and benefits. Without direct
leverage over the agencies, however, their influence derives largely from the
perception that their advice is based on the te nical expertise of the discipline of
economics.
Policy analysts work throughout all federal agencies. In addition to small
personal staffs, agency heads usually have analytical offices reporting directly to
them.12 ese offices have a variety of names that usually include some combination
of the words “policy,” “planning,” “administration,” “evaluation,” “economic,” and
“budget.” For example, at various times the central analytical office in the Department
of Energy has been called the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy and
Evaluation and the Policy, Planning, and Analysis Office. O en, the heads of agency
subunits have analytical staffs that provide advice and expertise relevant to their
substantive responsibilities. Later in this apter we briefly consider policy analysis in
the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to illustrate the sorts of
functions analysts perform in federal agencies.
Policy analysts are also common in the legislative bran . Both Congress as a
whole and its individual members serve as clients. Policy analysts work for Congress
in the Government Accountability Office (GAO), 13 the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO), and the Congressional Resear Service (CRS). e analytical agendas of
these offices are set primarily by the congressional leadership but sometimes also by
individual members of Congress. Of course, members have their own personal staffs,
including legislative analysts. Most of the analysis and formulation of legislation,
however, is done by commi ee staffs that report to commi ee airs and ranking
minority members. 14 Commi ee staffers, o en recruited from the campaign and
personal staffs of members, must be politically sensitive if they are to maintain their
positions and influence.
How influential is policy analysis in policy formation and oice in Congress?
Based on his detailed study of communication surrounding four policy issues in the
areas of health and transportation, David Whiteman concludes: “ e results …
indicate that policy analysis clearly does flow through congressional communication
networks. In three of the four issues examined, analytic information played a
significant role in congressional deliberations.” 15 Mu of the communication takes
place through discussions between congressional staffers and analysts in government
offices and think tanks rather than as formal wri en reports.
Turning to state governments, we find a similar pa ern. Governors and agency
heads usually have staffs of advisers who do policy analysis. 16 Most states have
budget offices that play roles similar to that of OMB at the federal level. Personal and
commi ee staffs provide analysis in the state legislatures; in some states, su as
California, the legislatures have offices mu like the CBO to analyze budgetary and
other impacts of proposed legislation. e Washington State Institute for Public
Policy (WSIPP) is exemplary in providing the Washington State legislature with
sophisticated analyses, o en in the form of cost–benefit analyses. 17 A number of
other states have adopted the WSIPP cost–benefit analysis tool with the assistance of
a program sponsored by private foundations.
At the county and municipal levels, legislative bodies rarely employ persons
who work exclusively as policy analysts. Executive agencies, including budget and
planning offices, usually do have some personnel whose major responsibility is policy
analysis. Except in the most populous jurisdictions, however, most analysis is
performed by employees with line or managerial duties. Consequently, they o en la
the time, expertise, and resources for conducting analyses of great te nical
sophistication. Nevertheless, because they o en have direct access to decision makers,
and because they can o en observe the consequences of their recommendations
firsthand, policy analysts at the local level can find their work professionally
gratifying despite the resource constraints they face.
e importance of the relationship between client and analyst is extremely
apparent to consultants. Usually, consultants are paid to produce specific products. If
they wish to be hired again, then they must produce analyses that the clients perceive
as useful. Consultants who pander to the prejudices of their clients at the expense of
analytical honesty are sometimes described as “hired guns” or “beltway bandits.”
Consultants best able to resist the temptation to pander are probably those who have a
large clientele, provide very specialized skills, or enjoy a reputation for providing
balanced analysis—they will not suffer greatly from the loss of any one client and
they will be able to find replacement business elsewhere if necessary. Resear ers in
academia, think tanks, and policy resear institutes also provide consulting services.
Although their work is usually not directly tied to specific policy decisions,
resear ers at places like the RAND Corporation, the Brookings Institution, the
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Resear , the Cato Institute, the Urban
Institute, Resources for the Future, the Institute for Defense Analyses, and the
Institute for Resear on Public Policy (Canada) sometimes do produce analyses of
narrow interest for specific clients. It is o en difficult in practice to determine
whether these resear ers be er fit the policy analysis or the policy resear
paradigms presented above. e last two decades have seen a substantial growth in
the number of think tanks––there are more than 1,800 think tanks in the United States
with almost 550 located in or near Washington. 19 Many of the newer think tanks
with strong ideological identifications, however, have predispositions toward
particular policies that o en interfere with the professional validity of the analyses
they provide.
Finally, large numbers of analysts neither work for, nor sell their services to,
governments. ey o en work in profit-seeking firms in industries heavily regulated
by government, in trade associations and national labor unions concerned with
particular areas of legislation, and in nonprofits that have public missions in their
arters. For example, consider a proposal to make health insurance premiums paid by
employers count as taxable income for employees. Private firms, trade associations,
and labor unions would seek analysis to help determine the impact of the proposed
ange on the pa ern and cost of employee benefits. e American Medical
Association would seek analysis of the impact on the demand for physician services.
Health insurance providers, su as Blue Cross and Blue Shield, commercial insurers,
and managed care organizations, would want predictions of the effect of the ange
on the demand for their plans and the cost of medical care. ese interests might also
ask their analysts how to develop strategies for supporting, fighting, or modifying the
proposal as it moves through the political process.
f. A Closer Look at Analytical Functions
We pointed out earlier that the nature of policy analysis varies widely. In
subsequent apters we set out a framework for doing comprehensive policy analysis
—how an individual analyst should go about producing a structured analysis that
assesses problems presented by clients and systematically compares alternatives for
solving them. We think this is the best way to learn how to do policy analysis because
it covers the range of functions that analysts commonly perform. By mastering it,
analysts not only prepare themselves for performing the inclusive functions but also
gain a useful framework for pu ing what they are doing into perspective. As an
example, we present a brief overview of some of the analytical functions identified by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). We single out DHHS
because it is a very large federal agency with responsibilities that demand the full
range of analytical functions, and because DHHS has codified what it sees to be the
important functions of its policy analysts.
DHHS is very large by any measure. It oversees many specialized agencies,
su as the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, to name just a few. In fiscal year 2016, it administered spending of over
$1 trillion, issued more grants than any other federal agency, and employed more than
80,000 full-time equivalents nationwide in its constituent units. As su , it is one of
the largest and most complex bureaus in the world. DHHS is of su size and scope
that the Office of the Secretary (OS), the central coordinating office for DHHS, itself
employs approximately 2,400 people. e purpose of the OS includes providing
independent advice and analysis concerning program issues, analyzing trade-offs
among programs, and developing common policies across agencies. While mu of
what the OS does involves administration and monitoring, there is no clear separation
of these tasks from policy analysis.
Although policy analysts can be found throughout DHHS, we focus on the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), because it has
the clearest and most direct mandate for doing policy analysis. 20 ( e Office of the
Assistant Secretary, Management and Budget has closely related policy analysis
responsibilities but with greater emphasis on budgetary and cost issues; the two
offices o en work together on policy analysis projects.) ASPE analysts perform a
variety of functions. An ASPE orientation document specifically alerts new analysts to
four major functions that they will be likely to perform.21 First, analysts play a “desk
officer” function that involves coordinating policy relevant to specific program areas
and serving as a contact for the line agencies within DHHS that have responsibilities
in these areas. For example, a desk officer might cover biomedical resear issues and
work closely with analysts and other personnel at the National Institutes of Health.
Desk officers serve as the eyes and ears of the department, “going out to the agency,
talking with the staff about issues and options before they rea decision points, and
knowing what issues are moving and what are not.” 22 Desk officers are also
expected to rea outside of DHHS to identify concerns and ideas from academics
and those who deal with the programs in the field. By staying on top of issues, desk
officers can provide qui assessments of proposed policy anges in their areas.
Second, analysts perform a policy development function. is is important to
DHHS because ASPE resources “constitute some of the few flexible analytic
resources in the Department.” 23 Policy development o en involves special initiatives
within DHHS but can also be done through task forces that include personnel from
other departments. ese initiatives o en result in policy option papers or specific
legislative proposals. ird, analysts perform a policy resear and oversight function.
“ASPE spends approximately $20 million a year in both policy resear and
evaluation funds” to carry out this core function. 24 It is important to emphasize that
DHHS, like many other government agencies, contracts out a considerable amount of
policy-relevant resear . erefore, analysts at ASPE are both consumers and
producers of policy resear and analysis. ASPE analysts also participate in reviews
of the resear plans of other agencies, help formulate and justify plans for allocating
evaluation funds, and serve on agency panels that award resear contracts and grants.
Fourth, analysts perform a “firefighting” function. Fires can be “anything from
a request from the White House to review the statement of administration
accomplishments on welfare reform … to preparing an instant briefing for
congressional staff because a key commi ee is preparing to mark up a bill, to helping
… [the] Office of the Secretary prepare for a meeting with a key outside group
tomorrow.” 25 e term firefighting conveys the urgency of the task—analysts drop
whatever else they are doing until the fire is put out! ese four categories of
functions illustrate the great variety of tasks that analysts are routinely called upon to
perform. Some of these tasks are ongoing, while others are more episodic; some have
short deadlines, others extend for long periods. Some are internal to the analysts’
organization, others require interaction with external analysts and decision makers.
Some involve topics of great familiarity, others present novel issues. What sorts of
basic skills help analysts prepare for this diversity of tasks?
g. Analytical Roles
Policy analysis, like life itself, forces us to confront conflicts among
competing values. O en conflicts arise inherently in the substantive question being
considered. For example, should a policy that would yield a great excess of benefits
over costs for society as a whole be selected even if it would inflict severe costs on a
small group of people? Our answers will depend on the relative weights we give to
the values of efficiency (ge ing the greatest aggregate good from available resources)
and equity (fairness in the way it is distributed). ese values, along with others su
as the protection of human life and dignity and the promotion of individual oice and
responsibility, provide criteria for evaluating specific policy proposals.
Rather than focus on values from the unique perspectives of particular policy
issues, here we consider values relevant to the general question of how analysts
should conduct themselves as professional givers of advice. ree values seem
paramount: analytical integrity, responsibility to client, and adherence to one’s
personal conception of the good society. Conflicts among these values raise important
ethical issues for analysts. To understand the nature of these values and the contexts in
whi they become important, we consider three conceptions of the appropriate role
of the analyst. 4 Ea role gives priority to one of the three values, relegating the
remaining two to secondary status. We can anticipate, therefore, that none of the three
roles provides an adequate ethical standard in its pure form in all circumstances. Our
task will be to sear for appropriate balance.
Objective technicians hold analytical integrity as their fundamental value.
ey see their analytical skills as the source of their legitimacy. e proper role for
the analyst, in their view, is to provide objective advice about the consequences of
proposed policies. Objective te nicians feel most comfortable applying skills within
recognized standards of good practice. erefore, they o en prefer to draw their tools
from the disciplines of economics, statistics, and operations resear , all of whi
employ wellestablished methods. ey realize that they must o en work under severe
time constraints and data limitations. Nevertheless, they want to believe that
resear ers in the disciplines would approve of their work as methodologically sound
under the circumstances.
Clients provide the resources that allow objective te nicians to work on
interesting questions. In return, clients deserve the most accurate predictions possible.
e political fortunes of clients should take second place behind analytical integrity in
the preparation, communication, and use of analyses. Analysts should try to protect
themselves from interference by not becoming too closely associated with the
personal interests of their clients. In general, they should select institutional clients,
because su clients are likely to provide greater opportunities for preparing and
disseminating objective analyses. For example, one is likely to face less interference
with analytical integrity working for the Congressional Budget Office, whi must be
responsive to Congress as a whole as well as anticipate anges in partisan control,
than working directly for a member of Congress who must run for reelection every
two years.
e objective te nician believes that values relevant to the oice of policies
should be identified. When no policy appears superior in terms of all the relevant
values, however, trade-offs among competing values should be le to the client rather
than being implicitly imposed by the analyst. e analyst contributes to the good
society, at least in the long run, by consistently providing unbiased advice, even when
it does not lead to the selection of personally favored policies. e client’s advocate
places primary emphasis on his or her responsibility to the client. He or she believes
that analysts derive their legitimacy as participants in the formation of public policy
from their clients, who hold elected or appointed office or who represent organized
political interests. In return for access, clients deserve professional behavior that
includes loyalty and confidentiality. Like physicians, analysts should “do no harm” to
their clients; like a orneys, they should vigorously promote their clients’ interests
To some extent the client’s advocate views analytical integrity in the same way
a orneys view their responsibility in an adversarial system. Analysts have a primary
responsibility never to mislead their clients through false statements or purposeful
omissions. Once clients have been fully informed, however, analysts may publicly
interpret their analyses in the best possible light for their clients. Because analysis
rarely produces definitive conclusions, analysts can emphasize the possible rather
than the most likely when doing so favors their clients. e client’s advocate believes
that analytical integrity prohibits lying, but it requires neither full disclosure of
information nor public correction of misstatements by clients.
Client advocates must relegate their policy preferences to a secondary position
once they make commitments to clients. erefore, their selection of clients ma ers
greatly. When analysts and clients share similar worldviews, less potential exists for
situations to arise that require analysts to help promote policies that are inconsistent
with their own conceptions of the good society. Upon discovering that their clients
hold very different worldviews, analysts may nevertheless continue su relationships
if they believe that they will be able to make their clients’ outlooks more like their
own over periods of extended service. Indeed, they may believe that they have a
responsibility to try to ange their client’s beliefs before swit ing to new clients.
Issue advocates believe that analysis should be an instrument for making
progress toward their conception of the good society. ey focus on values inherent in
policy outcomes rather than on values, like analytical integrity and responsibility to
the client, associated with the actual conduct of analysis. ey see themselves as
intrinsically legitimate players in the policy process. ey may also see themselves as
ampions for groups or interests, su as the environment, the poor, or the victims of
crime, that they believe suffer from underrepresentation in the political process.
Issue advocates select clients opportunistically. Clients unable or unwilling to
promote the advocate’s personal policy agendas should be abandoned for clients who
can and will. Analysts owe their clients only those duties spelled out in the contractual
arrangements defining the relationships; loyalty to one’s conception of the good
society should take priority over loyalty to any particular client. Like the client’s
advocate, the issue advocate believes in taking advantage of analytical uncertainty.
When analysis does not support one’s policy preferences, the issue advocate questions
the simplifying assumptions that must inevitably be employed in dealing with
complex issues, or allenges the oice of criteria used to assess alternatives. ( e
la er will almost always be a possible strategy when one does not agree with
conclusions.) ough issue advocates desire the respect of other analysts, especially
when it contributes to effectiveness, they may be willing to sacrifice respect to obtain
important policy outcomes.
h. Value Conflicts
One can imagine ea of these extreme roles being ethically acceptable in
specific circumstances. For example, analysts on the White House staff enjoy
privileged positions with respect to information and political access. An important
factor in their selection was, undoubtedly, their perceived loyalty to the president. In
accepting these positions, they were implicitly if not explicitly commi ing themselves
to a high degree of discretion in confidential ma ers. Except in the most extreme
cases where failure to act would lead with reasonable certainty to significant
violations of human rights or constitutional trust, honoring confidentiality and
otherwise behaving as a client advocate seem to be ethically defensible. In contrast, a
consultant hired by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to analyze the risks
associated with alternative policies for nuclear waste disposal might appropriately act
as an objective te nician, placing analytical integrity above the political interests of
the commission. One might even argue that the consultant has an ethical duty to speak
out publicly if the commission were to misrepresent the study to obtain a political
outcome radically different from that whi would otherwise have resulted.
In general, however, the analyst need not adopt any of the three roles in its
extreme form. Rather than select one of the three fundamental values as dominant and
sacrifice the other two as circumstances demand, the analyst should a empt to keep
all three under consideration. e ethical problem, then, involves deciding how mu
of ea value can be sacrificed when conflicts arise. In any situation, the range of
ethical behavior will be bounded by the minimal duties the analyst owes to ea of the
values. e development of professional ethics, either collectively or individually,
may be viewed as an a empt to discover these minimal duties. In the discussion that
follows, we consider some of the common situations in whi value conflicts arise
and minimal duties must be determined. We begin by considering the range of actions
the analyst has available for responding to severe conflicts in values.
e most serious ethical conflicts for policy analysts usually pit responsibility
to the client against other values. A variety of factors complicate ethical judgment:
continued access to the policy issue, the status of current and future employment, the
personal trust of the client, and the analyst’s reputation. Many of these factors involve
implications that go well beyond the particular ethical issue being considered. For
example, loss of employment directly affects the economic and psy ological well-
being of analysts and their families, as well as the sort of advice that will be heard on
the issue at hand. It may also affect the advice about similar issues that will be offered
in their organizations in the future. We must be careful, therefore, to look for
consequences beyond the particular issue at stake.
So far we have spoken of the analyst as if he or she were the direct employee
of the client. Some analysts, su as consultants reporting directly to project managers
or political appointees on the personal staffs of administrators and legislators, have
clearly defined persons as clients. Analysts usually have immediate supervisors who
can generally be thought of as clients. ese supervisors, however, o en operate in
organizational hierar ies and, therefore, o en have their own clients, who will also
be consumers of the analysts’ advice. Limiting the definition of the client to the
immediate supervisor would unreasonably absolve analysts from responsibility for the
ultimate use of their products. At the same time, we do not want to hold analysts
accountable for misuse totally beyond their control. For our purposes, we consider the
client to be the highest-ranking superior who receives predictions, evaluations, or
recommendations a ributable to the analyst. us, an analyst working in a bureau
may have different persons as clients at different times. Sometimes the client will be
the immediate supervisor; other times the client will be a higher-ranking official in the
bureau.
Note that we have purposely adopted a narrow, instrumental conception of the
client. ere is some temptation to look for an ultimate client: analysts themselves as
moral persons, the social contract as embodied in the constitution, or the public
interest as reflected in national laws. 5 To do so, however, would assume away the
essence of the professional role. Instead, we see personal morality, the constitution,
and laws as the sources of other values that o en conflict with responsibility to the
client. 6 What are the possible courses of action for analysts when demands by their
clients come in conflict with their sense of analytical integrity or their conception of
the good society? We can begin to answer this question by considering the concepts of
voice and exit developed by Albert O.
Hirs man. In his book Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, Albert Hirs man explores
how people can react when they are dissatisfied with the organizations in whi they
participate. 7 ey may exercise voice by working to ange the organization from
within, or they may simply exit, leaving the organization for another. For example,
parents dissatisfied with the quality of education provided by their local s ool district
might exercise voice by a ending s ool board meetings or by standing for election to
the board. Alternatively, they may put their ildren in private s ools or move to
another community with a be er s ool district. In Hirs man’s framework, loyalty
helps determine how mu voice is exercised before exit is osen. A a ment to the
community and commitment to public education, for example, will influence parents’
oice between voice and exit.
