Policy analysis

Policy analysis is a technique used in public administration to enable civil servants to examine and evaluate the available options to implement the goals of elected officials. It has been defined as the process of "determining which of various policies will achieve a given set of goals in light of the relations between the policies and the goals."[1]Policy analysis can be divided into two major fields:[2]

  1. Analysis of existing policy, which is analytical and descriptive—i.e., it attempts to explain policies and their development.
  2. Analysis for new policy, which is prescriptive—i.e., it is involved with formulating policies and proposals (for example: to improve social welfare).

The areas of interest and the purpose of analysis determines what types of analysis are conducted. A combination of two kinds of policy analyses together with program evaluation would be defined as policy studies.[3] Policy analysis is frequently deployed in the public sector, but is equally applicable to other kinds of organizations, such as nonprofit organizations and non-governmental organizations. Policy analysis has its roots in systems analysis, an approach used by United States Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara[4] in the 1960s.

Approaches

Various approaches to policy analysis exist. The analysis ‘for’ policy (and/or analysis ‘of’ policy) is the central approach in social science and educational policy studies. It is linked to two different traditions of policy analysis and research frameworks. The approach of analysis ‘for’ policy refers to research conducted for actual policy development, often commissioned by policymakers inside the bureaucracy (e.g., senior civil servants) within which the policy is developed. Analysis ‘of’ policy is more of an academic exercise, conducted by academic researchers, professors and think tank researchers, who are often seeking to understand why a particular policy was developed at a particular time and assess the effects, intended or otherwise, of that policy when it was implemented.[5]

There are three approaches that can be distinguished: the analysis-centric, the policy process, and the meta-policy approach.[2]

Analysis-centric

The analysis-centric (or "analycentric") approach focuses on individual problems and their solutions. Its scope is the micro-scale and its problem interpretation or problem resolution usually involves a technical solution. The primary aim is to identify the most effective and efficient solution in technical and economic terms (e.g. the most efficient allocation of resources).

Policy process

The policy process approach puts its focal point onto political processes and involved stakeholders; its scope is the broader meso-scale and it interprets problems using a political lens (i.e., the interests and goals of elected officials). It aims at determining what processes, means and policy instruments (e.g., regulation, legislation, subsidy, etc.) are used. As well, it tries to explain the role and influence of stakeholders within the policy process. In the 2010s, "stakeholders" is defined broadly to include citizens, community groups, non-governmental organizations, businesses and even opposing political parties. By changing the relative power and influence of certain groups (e.g., enhancing public participation and consultation), solutions to problems may be identified that have more "buy in" from a wider group. One way of doing this followed a heuristic model called the policy cycle. In its simplest form, the policy cycle, which is often depicted visually as a loop or circle, starts with the identification of the problem, proceeds to an examination of the different policy tools that could be used to respond to this problem, then goes on to the implementation stage, in which one or more policies are put into practice (e.g., a new regulation or subsidy is set in place), and then finally, once the policy has been implemented and run for a certain period, the policy is evaluated. A number of different lenses can be used during evaluation, including looking at a policy's effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, value for money, outcomes or outputs.

Meta-policy

The meta-policy approach is a systems and context approach; i.e., its scope is the macro-scale and its problem interpretation is usually of a structural nature. It aims at explaining the contextual factors of the policy process; i.e., what are the political, economic and socio-cultural factors influencing it. As problems may result because of structural factors (e.g., a certain economic system or political institution), solutions may entail changing the structure itself.

Methodology

Policy analysis uses both qualitative methods and quantitative methods. Qualitative research includes case studies, interviews with community members. Quantitative research includes survey research, statistical analysis (also called data analysis), model building. A common practice is to define the problem and evaluation criteria; identify and evaluate alternatives; and recommend a certain policy accordingly. Promotion of the best agendas are the product of careful "back-room" analysis of policies by a priori assessment and a posteriori evaluation.

Dimensions for analyzing policies

There are six dimensions to policy analysis categorized as the effects and implementation of the policy across a period of time. Also known as "Durability" of the policy, which means the capacity in content of the policy to produce visible effective compatible change or results over time with robustness.[6]

Effects

Effectiveness What effects does the policy have on the targeted problem?
Unintended effects[7] What are the unintended effects of this policy?
Equity[8] What are the effects of this policy on different population groups?

Implementation

Cost What is the financial cost of this policy (some analysts also include tax credits in this analysis)?
Feasibility Is the policy technically feasible?
Acceptability[9] Do the relevant policy stakeholders view the policy as acceptable?

The strategic effects dimensions can pose certain limitations due to data collection. But the analytical dimensions of effects directly influences Acceptability. The degree of acceptability is based upon the plausible definitions of actors involved in feasibility. If the feasibility dimension is compromised, it will put the implementation at risk, which will entail additional Cost. Finally Implementation dimensions collectively influence a policy's ability to produce results or impacts.

Five "E" approach

One approach to policy analysis is the "five E approach", which consists of examining a policy in terms of:

Evidence based Models

Many models exist to analyze the development and implementation of public policy. Analysts use these models to identify important aspects of policy, as well as explain and predict policy and its consequences. Each of these models are based upon the types of policies.

Types [10]

Some evidence supported models are:

Governments

Public policy is determined by a range of political institutions, which give policy legitimacy to policy measures. In general, the government applies policy to all citizens and monopolizes the use of force in applying or implementing policy (through government control of law enforcement, court systems, imprisonment and armed forces). The legislature, executive and judicial branches of government are examples of institutions that give policy legitimacy. Many countries also have independent, quasi-independent or arm's length bodies which, while funded by government, are independent from elected officials and political leaders. These organizations may include government commissions, tribunals, regulatory agencies and electoral commissions.

Process model

See also: policy cycle

Policy creation is a process that typically follows a sequence of steps or stages:

This model, however, has been criticized for being overly linear and simplistic.[11] In reality, stages of the policy process may overlap or never happen. For example, in some cases, a political Also, this model fails to take into account the multiple factors attempting to influence the process itself as well as each other, and the complexity this entails.

For public institutions

One of the most widely used model for Public Institutions are of Herbert A. Simon, the father of rational models. It is also used by private corporations. Though many criticise the model due to characteristics of the model being impractical and lying on unrealistic assumptions. For instance, it is a difficult model to apply in the public sector because social problems can be very complex, ill-defined and interdependent. The problem lies in the thinking procedure implied by the model which is linear and can face difficulties in extraordinary problems or social problems which have no sequences of happenings.

Rational model

See Rational planning model for a fuller discussion

The rational model of decision-making is a process for making sound decisions in policy-making in the public sector. Rationality is defined as “a style of behavior that is appropriate to the achievement of given goals, within the limits imposed by given conditions and constraints”.[12] It is important to note the model makes a series of assumptions, such as: 'The model must be applied in a system that is stable'; 'The government is a rational and unitary actor and that its actions are perceived as rational choices'; 'The policy problem is unambiguous'; 'There are no limitations of time or cost'.

Furthermore, in the context of the public sector policy models are intended to achieve maximum social gain. Simon identifies an outline of a step by step mode of analysis to achieve rational decisions. Ian Thomas describes Simon's steps as follows:

  1. Intelligence gathering — A comprehensive organization of data; potential problems and opportunities are identified, collected and analyzed.
  2. Identifying problems — Accounting for relevant factors.
  3. Assessing the consequences of all options — Listing possible consequences and alternatives that could resolve the problem and ranking the probability that each potential factor could materialize in order to give a correct priority to said factor in the analysis.
  4. Relating consequences to values — With all policies there will be a set of relevant dimensional values (for example, economic feasibility and environmental protection) and a set of criteria for appropriateness, against which performance (or consequences) of each option being responsive can be judged.
  5. Choosing the preferred option — The policy is brought through from fully understanding the problems, opportunities, all the consequences & the criteria of the tentative options and by selecting an optimal alternative with consensus of involved actors.[13]

The model of rational decision-making has also proven to be very useful to several decision making processes in industries outside the public sphere. Nonetheless, there are some who criticize the rational model due to the major problems which can be faced & which tend to arise in practice because social and environmental values can be difficult to quantify and forge consensus around.[14] Furthermore, the assumptions stated by Simon are never fully valid in a real world context.

Further criticism of the rational model include: leaving a gap between planning and implementation, ignoring of the role of people, entrepreneurs, leadership, etc., the insufficiency of technical competence (i.e. ignoring the human factor), reflecting too mechanical an approach (i.e. the organic nature of organizations), requiring of multidimensional and complex models, generation of predictions which are often wrong (i.e. simple solutions may be overlooked), & incurring of cost (i.e. costs of rational-comprehensive planning may outweigh the cost savings of the policy).

However, Thomas R. Dye, the president of the Lincoln Center for Public Service states the rational model provides a good perspective since in modern society rationality plays a central role and everything that is rational tends to be prized. Thus, it does not seem strange that “we ought to be trying for rational decision-making”.[15]

Incremental Policy

See Incrementalism for a fuller discussion

An incremental policy model relies on features of incremental decision-making such as: satisfying, organizational drift, bounded rationality, and limited cognition, among others. Such policies are often called "muddling through" & represent a conservative tendency: new policies are only slightly different from old policies. Policy-makers are too short on time, resources, and brains to make totally new policies; as such, past policies are accepted as having some legitimacy. When existing policies have sunk costs which discourage innovation, incrementalism is an easier approach than rationalism, and the policies are more politically expedient because they don't necessitate any radical redistribution of values. Such models necessarily struggle to improve the acceptability of public policy.

Criticisms of such a policy approach include: challenges to bargaining (i.e. not successful with limited resources), downplaying useful quantitative information, obscuring real relationships between political entities, an anti-intellectual approach to problems (i.e. the preclusion of imagination), and a bias towards conservatism (i.e. bias against far-reaching solutions).

For Workplace

There are many contemporary policies relevant to gender and workplace issues. Actors analyze contemporary gender-related employment issues ranging from parental leave and maternity programs, sexual harassment, and work/life balance to gender mainstreaming. It is by the juxtaposition of a variety of research methodologies focused on a common theme the richness of understanding is gained. This integrates what are usually separate bodies of evaluation on the role of gender in welfare state developments, employment transformations, workplace policies, and work experience.

Group model

This policy is formed as a result of forces and pressures from influential groups. Pressure groups are informally co-opted into the policy making process. Regulatory agencies are captured by those they are supposed to regulate. No one group is dominant all the time on all issues. The group is the bridge between the individual and the administration. The executive is thus pressured by interest groups.

The task of the system is to

Other major types of Policy Analysis:-

a) Empirical, Normative Policy Analysis. b) Retrospective/Prospective Analysis. c) Prescriptive and Descriptive Analysis

Techniques used in Policy Analysis

  1. Cost Benefit Analysis
  2. Management by Objectives (MBO)
  3. Operations Research
  4. Decision making based on Analytics
  5. Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) & Critical path Method (CPM)

Evaluation

The success of a policy can be measured by changes in the behavior of the target population and active support from various actors and institutions involved. A public policy is an authoritative communication prescribing an unambiguous course of action for specified individuals or groups in certain situations. There must be an authority or leader charged with the implementation and monitoring of the policy with a sound social theory underlying the program and the target group. Evaluations can explain causal chains and what effects will be produced by program objectives/alternatives.

To obtain compliance of the actors involved, the government can resort to positive sanctions, such as favorable publicity, price supports, tax credits, grants-in-aid, direct services or benefits; declarations; rewards; voluntary standards; mediation; education; demonstration programs; training, contracts; subsidies; loans; general expenditures; informal procedures, bargaining; franchises; sole-source provider awards...etc.[16]

NCCHPP's 10 Steps for conducting a policy evaluation

Policy evaluation is used to examine content, implementation or impact of the policy, which helps to understand the merit, worth and the utility of the policy.[17]

Planning

Implementation

Utilization

See also

References

  1. ↑ Compare: Geva-May, Iris; Pal, Leslie A. (1999). "Policy Evaluation and Policy Analysis: Exploring the Differences". In Nagel, Stuart S. Policy Analysis Methods. Nova Science Publishers. p. 6. ISBN 9781560726579. Retrieved 2016-04-13. [...] it determines which of the various alternative public or government policies will most achieve a given set of goals in light of the relations between the policies and the goals and in light of politically feasible courses of action, it generates information and evidence in order to help the policymaker choose the most advantageous action [...].
  2. 1 2 Bührs, Ton; Bartlett, Robert V. (1993). Environmental Policy in New Zealand. The Politics of Clean and Green. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-558284-5.
  3. ↑ Hambrick, Ralph Jr.; Bardach, Eugene; Chelimsky, Eleanor; Shadish, William R.; Deleon, Peter; Fischer, Frank; MacRae, Duncan; Whittington, Dale (November–December 1998). "Review: Building the Policy Studies Enterprise: A Work in Progress". Public Administration Review. 58 (6): 533–9. doi:10.2307/977580. JSTOR 977580.
  4. ↑ Radin, Beryl (2000). Beyond Machiavelli : Policy Analysis Comes of Age. Georgetown University Press. ISBN 0-87840-773-1.
  5. ↑ Khorsandi Taskoh, Ali. A Critical Policy Analysis of Internationalization in Postsecondary Education: An Ontario Case Study, The University of Western Ontario, October 24, 2014.
  6. ↑ Salamon, 2002
  7. ↑ Rychetnik et al., 2002
  8. ↑ Potvin et al., 2008
  9. ↑ Peters, 2002
  10. ↑ Kim Bergeron, Florence Morestin et al.
  11. ↑ Young, John and Enrique Mendizabal. Helping researchers become policy entrepreneurs, Overseas Development Institute, London, September 2009.
  12. ↑ Herbert, Simon (1976). Administrative Behavior (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press. ISBN 0-684-83582-7.
  13. ↑ Thomas, Ian, ed. (2007). Environmental Policy: Australian Practice in the Context of Theory. Sydney: Federation Press. ISBN 1-86287-603-7.
  14. ↑ Morgan M.G.; Kandlikar M.; Risbey J.; Dowlatabadi H. (19 March 1999). "Why Conventional Tools for Policy Analysis Are Often Inadequate for Problems of Global Change". Climatic Change. 41 (3-4): 271–281. doi:10.1023/A:1005469411776.
  15. ↑ Dye, Thomas R. (2007). Understanding Public Policy (12th ed.). Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-936948-1.
  16. ↑ Michelle A. Saint-Germain, California State University
  17. ↑ Morestin, F. & Castonguay, J., 2013

Further reading

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/2/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.