POLICY ANALYSIS – SUMMARY
1 . DEVELOP MENT OF P UBLI C P OLI CY ANALYSI S AN D THE P OLI CY SCIENCES
1. 1 INT ROD UCT ION
• Everywhere: eg. schools, hospitals, taxes…
• Much easier to experience than to define
• Politics ≠ policy; polity
o Polity: equivalent to political system
o Politics: refers mainly to the input nut also inside GOV-decision-making
• This course: output, whole process
Studying public policy
• Why are certain decisions taken at certain times & not others??
• Do decisions lead to recognizable patterns, or do we see only (quasi)random clusters of various past decisions?
• What actors are involved in public policies, what do this policy actors do, why and what difference do they make?
• How do policy decisions add up into policy regimes or mixes? Are those decisions in contrast incompatible or
contradictory?
1. 2 PU BLIC PO LICY ANALY SIS
1. 2.1 TW O BIG D IFFERENC ES
Analysis of policy: look at a policy & try to understand it, or look at a failure of policy and try to explain what’s wrong
• What & why questions
• Descriptive
• Theoretical
• Policy sciences
• Academic policy analysis: this is what we do
Analysis for policy: wants to advise policy makers by studying policy problems & solutions, so you compare solutions for
problems
• Applied
• Prescriptive
• Applied policy analysis
These types cannot live without each other: pure academic public analyst can say that he’s only interested in
understanding policy & wants to develop frameworks, but an applied public analyst can’t make good proposals when they
don’t know how policy works. So academic policy can exist on itself but that’s not the case for applied public policy.
Exam question: an applied public analysist does not have to be concerned about public policy?
Public policy = academic discipline
• Multi-disciplinary: psychology, economy, sociology…
• Multi-method
• Problem-oriented: we worry about certain problems & challenges
• Mapping of contexts, alternatives & effects
1
,1. 3 D EF INIT IONS OF POLIC Y
1. 3.1 19 72: THO MA S DYE
“Public policy is anything a government chooses to do or not to do”
• Very general
• GOV as essential actor
• Important that the GOV is identified
Negative points
• Catchy & short definitions
• Too simple when we apply equally to every GOV-action (eg. you can’t compare policy about nuclear energy to paper-
clip-policy)
Merits
• Specifies GOV as primary agent of policy making
o Monopoly over policy domains: only actor who can tax you
o Only GOV has the authority to impose rules on a population
• Non-decision making is also decision-making
o Non-decision = decision to do nothing & maintain status-quo ~ negative decision
o eg. not adding extra beds in prison is a choice
• Public policy is a conscious choice by GOV & holds (unintended) consequences
1. 3.2 19 78: W ILLIAM JENKINS
“Public policy as a set of interrelated decisions taken by a political actor or group of actors concerning the selections of
goals and the means of achieving them within a specified situation where those decisions should in principle be within
the power of those actors to achieve”
• Political (group of) actors including GOV
• PM as dynamic process
• Shows that GOV rarely addresses problems with single decision
o PP often involves series of decisions that cumulatively contribute to an output
o eg. health policy: series of decisions on building health facilities, certifying personnel & treatment…
Comparison to Dye
• J: decisions often made by different people & agencies which make policy way more complex than D suggests
• D: focuses on decision-making stage but before you get to this stage there are a lot of different actors
• J: focuses more on these actors but it’s not his focus
• J: has lot to offer if you want to analyze policy: study the goals, power of actors → looks at way more components
• J: specifies policy making components: “set of interrelated decisions”
• D: single choice opportunity
2
,1. 3.3 19 75: JAM ES AND ERSON
“A purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern for the
population”
• Recognizes GOV-capacity to formulate & implement decisions & this has significant influence on population
• Limitations on decision GOV can make (eg. when there’s a lack of personnel of money)
• Introduces idea that policymaking can be goal-oriented: GOVs make decisions to certain goals → 2 dimensions
o Political dimension: there’s rarely agreement on what the best decision is, so compromises are always needed
o Technical dimension: seeks to identify an optimal relationship between goals & tools (because some tools are
better to reach certain goals), also describes the policy design
• Makes distinction between problem >< matter of concern
o Problem: something that is manifestly present in population, has a ring of objectiveness, so you cannot ignore it
(eg. grade of infections: (political) actors must define it as problem)
o Matter of concern: doesn’t have that much coverage, not pushing itself on the agenda, can become a problem
when political actors define it as one
1. 3.4 M AIN F EAT URES OF T HESE D EF INIT IO NS
• All their own merits, no correct answer
• Give us general sense & outline of what public policy is
• We need directions from the different definitions for public policy analysis
Methodological concerns when studying PP
• Cannot only be studied by analyzing laws, acts & regulations
o These are important, but not everything
o Often look at state & societal actors
• Policy-analysis: tries to analyze policy impacts & outcomes usually quantitatively (eg. cost-benefit-analysis)
o Focus: mainly on effects of policy outputs
o Says very little about processes that created those outputs
• >< policy studies: broader in scope: examines not just individual programs & effects but also causes &
presuppositions and process that led to their adoption
• Different approaches
o Focus on policy determinants = tries to identify causal variables in PP-making
o Focus on policy content = builds from idea that nature of policy problem & solutions often determine how policy
will be processed by a political system
2 broad approaches in PA
Objective analysis Subjective analysis
Positivist view Post-positivist view
This analysis of policy goals & - More critique to GOV-aims, intentions & actions & try to ‘guide’ GOVs this way
outcomes possible & these - Allows more contingent findings about difficulties / impossibility of neutrality in
subjects can be explored with policymaking
standard social science - Empirical analysis should be combined with normative of interpretative analysis
methodologies - Argues that only empirical analysis (positivism) is misguided because policy
makers are also guided by values, interests and other circumstances
Those 2 under pressure by ongoing violation of evidence & expertise in several countries
Threat for: democracies, accurate decision making & PA
Exam questions
• What is the distinction that Anderson makes & why is that important for the study of PP
• Is Dye not blind to certain features of PP and what are these?
• How does Anderson’s theory fit very well with the constructivist view on agenda-setting & defining?
3
, 1. 4 A CTORS & INST ITUT IONS
• Policy actors (executive) politicians
• Organizations of the state local GOV, agencies…
• Organization of international system EU, WHO, NATO…
• Organization of society Unions (eg. trade unions), employers organizations…
Cooperate with GOV but can also put pressure on it eg. volunteer organizations, experts..
organisation of
the state
organisation
organisation
of the
of society Policy Actors: policy
international
system subsystem
1. 4.1 A CTORS
• Elected politicians
• Administrative officials
• Political parties and their study centers
• Interest groups, NGO’s
• Research organizations
• Academic institutes
• Think tanks
• Mass media…
Power to make policy Role as policy adviser / analyst / worker
- Political parties and their study centers - As stakeholder
- Interest groups, NGOs - As target group
- Research organizations, academic institutes, TT - Capable / not to influence pm
- Mass media
- (voters / citizens / individuals)
Some actors have power to make policy while others are capable to influence policy or work as advisor
4
1 . DEVELOP MENT OF P UBLI C P OLI CY ANALYSI S AN D THE P OLI CY SCIENCES
1. 1 INT ROD UCT ION
• Everywhere: eg. schools, hospitals, taxes…
• Much easier to experience than to define
• Politics ≠ policy; polity
o Polity: equivalent to political system
o Politics: refers mainly to the input nut also inside GOV-decision-making
• This course: output, whole process
Studying public policy
• Why are certain decisions taken at certain times & not others??
• Do decisions lead to recognizable patterns, or do we see only (quasi)random clusters of various past decisions?
• What actors are involved in public policies, what do this policy actors do, why and what difference do they make?
• How do policy decisions add up into policy regimes or mixes? Are those decisions in contrast incompatible or
contradictory?
1. 2 PU BLIC PO LICY ANALY SIS
1. 2.1 TW O BIG D IFFERENC ES
Analysis of policy: look at a policy & try to understand it, or look at a failure of policy and try to explain what’s wrong
• What & why questions
• Descriptive
• Theoretical
• Policy sciences
• Academic policy analysis: this is what we do
Analysis for policy: wants to advise policy makers by studying policy problems & solutions, so you compare solutions for
problems
• Applied
• Prescriptive
• Applied policy analysis
These types cannot live without each other: pure academic public analyst can say that he’s only interested in
understanding policy & wants to develop frameworks, but an applied public analyst can’t make good proposals when they
don’t know how policy works. So academic policy can exist on itself but that’s not the case for applied public policy.
Exam question: an applied public analysist does not have to be concerned about public policy?
Public policy = academic discipline
• Multi-disciplinary: psychology, economy, sociology…
• Multi-method
• Problem-oriented: we worry about certain problems & challenges
• Mapping of contexts, alternatives & effects
1
,1. 3 D EF INIT IONS OF POLIC Y
1. 3.1 19 72: THO MA S DYE
“Public policy is anything a government chooses to do or not to do”
• Very general
• GOV as essential actor
• Important that the GOV is identified
Negative points
• Catchy & short definitions
• Too simple when we apply equally to every GOV-action (eg. you can’t compare policy about nuclear energy to paper-
clip-policy)
Merits
• Specifies GOV as primary agent of policy making
o Monopoly over policy domains: only actor who can tax you
o Only GOV has the authority to impose rules on a population
• Non-decision making is also decision-making
o Non-decision = decision to do nothing & maintain status-quo ~ negative decision
o eg. not adding extra beds in prison is a choice
• Public policy is a conscious choice by GOV & holds (unintended) consequences
1. 3.2 19 78: W ILLIAM JENKINS
“Public policy as a set of interrelated decisions taken by a political actor or group of actors concerning the selections of
goals and the means of achieving them within a specified situation where those decisions should in principle be within
the power of those actors to achieve”
• Political (group of) actors including GOV
• PM as dynamic process
• Shows that GOV rarely addresses problems with single decision
o PP often involves series of decisions that cumulatively contribute to an output
o eg. health policy: series of decisions on building health facilities, certifying personnel & treatment…
Comparison to Dye
• J: decisions often made by different people & agencies which make policy way more complex than D suggests
• D: focuses on decision-making stage but before you get to this stage there are a lot of different actors
• J: focuses more on these actors but it’s not his focus
• J: has lot to offer if you want to analyze policy: study the goals, power of actors → looks at way more components
• J: specifies policy making components: “set of interrelated decisions”
• D: single choice opportunity
2
,1. 3.3 19 75: JAM ES AND ERSON
“A purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern for the
population”
• Recognizes GOV-capacity to formulate & implement decisions & this has significant influence on population
• Limitations on decision GOV can make (eg. when there’s a lack of personnel of money)
• Introduces idea that policymaking can be goal-oriented: GOVs make decisions to certain goals → 2 dimensions
o Political dimension: there’s rarely agreement on what the best decision is, so compromises are always needed
o Technical dimension: seeks to identify an optimal relationship between goals & tools (because some tools are
better to reach certain goals), also describes the policy design
• Makes distinction between problem >< matter of concern
o Problem: something that is manifestly present in population, has a ring of objectiveness, so you cannot ignore it
(eg. grade of infections: (political) actors must define it as problem)
o Matter of concern: doesn’t have that much coverage, not pushing itself on the agenda, can become a problem
when political actors define it as one
1. 3.4 M AIN F EAT URES OF T HESE D EF INIT IO NS
• All their own merits, no correct answer
• Give us general sense & outline of what public policy is
• We need directions from the different definitions for public policy analysis
Methodological concerns when studying PP
• Cannot only be studied by analyzing laws, acts & regulations
o These are important, but not everything
o Often look at state & societal actors
• Policy-analysis: tries to analyze policy impacts & outcomes usually quantitatively (eg. cost-benefit-analysis)
o Focus: mainly on effects of policy outputs
o Says very little about processes that created those outputs
• >< policy studies: broader in scope: examines not just individual programs & effects but also causes &
presuppositions and process that led to their adoption
• Different approaches
o Focus on policy determinants = tries to identify causal variables in PP-making
o Focus on policy content = builds from idea that nature of policy problem & solutions often determine how policy
will be processed by a political system
2 broad approaches in PA
Objective analysis Subjective analysis
Positivist view Post-positivist view
This analysis of policy goals & - More critique to GOV-aims, intentions & actions & try to ‘guide’ GOVs this way
outcomes possible & these - Allows more contingent findings about difficulties / impossibility of neutrality in
subjects can be explored with policymaking
standard social science - Empirical analysis should be combined with normative of interpretative analysis
methodologies - Argues that only empirical analysis (positivism) is misguided because policy
makers are also guided by values, interests and other circumstances
Those 2 under pressure by ongoing violation of evidence & expertise in several countries
Threat for: democracies, accurate decision making & PA
Exam questions
• What is the distinction that Anderson makes & why is that important for the study of PP
• Is Dye not blind to certain features of PP and what are these?
• How does Anderson’s theory fit very well with the constructivist view on agenda-setting & defining?
3
, 1. 4 A CTORS & INST ITUT IONS
• Policy actors (executive) politicians
• Organizations of the state local GOV, agencies…
• Organization of international system EU, WHO, NATO…
• Organization of society Unions (eg. trade unions), employers organizations…
Cooperate with GOV but can also put pressure on it eg. volunteer organizations, experts..
organisation of
the state
organisation
organisation
of the
of society Policy Actors: policy
international
system subsystem
1. 4.1 A CTORS
• Elected politicians
• Administrative officials
• Political parties and their study centers
• Interest groups, NGO’s
• Research organizations
• Academic institutes
• Think tanks
• Mass media…
Power to make policy Role as policy adviser / analyst / worker
- Political parties and their study centers - As stakeholder
- Interest groups, NGOs - As target group
- Research organizations, academic institutes, TT - Capable / not to influence pm
- Mass media
- (voters / citizens / individuals)
Some actors have power to make policy while others are capable to influence policy or work as advisor
4
