Policy Analysis as Problem Solving

A Flexible and Evidence-Based Framework

Rachel Meltzer, Alex Schwartz

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351807357
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

Drawing extensively from real-life cases, Policy Analysis as Problem Solving helps students develop the analytic skills necessary to advise government officials and nonprofit executives on a wide range of policy issues. Unlike other texts, Policy Analysis as Problem Solving employs a pragmatic, heterodox approach to the field. Whereas most texts on policy analysis are anchored in microeconomics, emphasizing economic efficiency, this book takes a broader view, using realistic examples to illustrate the full scope of policy analysis. The book provides succinct but thorough discussions of the key elements of the policy-analytic process, including problem definition, objectives and criteria, development of alternative policy options, and analysis of these alternatives. The text's practical approach and extensive downloadable resources—which include interviews, case studies, and further readings—will be of enormous benefit to both students and instructors of policy analysis.

1
What Is Policy Analysis?

Mainstream and Alternative Perspectives

What Is Policy Analysis?

We define policy analysis as evidence-based advice giving, as the process by which one arrives at a policy recommendation to address a problem of public concern. Policy analysis almost always involves advice for a client—whether an elected official, the head of a governmental agency or department, or the executive director of a nonprofit organization.

Policy analysts may work under the direct purview of the client or as a consultant.¹ In either case, the policy analyst advises the client on how to address a particular issue or problem. The policy analyst is seldom the decision maker, but rather the purveyor of the information that bolsters certain choices over others. The client may be in a direct position to address the problem; he or she may have the authority to implement the recommendation with little or no approval from others. For example, a parks commissioner may be able to adopt the recommendation of a staff policy analyst to expand recreational programming in parks located in low-income neighborhoods without consulting with other government officials. On the other hand, other clients may have little or no authority to implement a policy recommendation. A city council member, a state representative, a member of Congress, or an advocacy organization may draw on policy analysis to decide on what legislation to support with regard to a particular issue. In some cases, the client for policy analysis is less obvious or tangible. Advocacy organizations and think tanks, for example, often employ policy analysts—and publish policy analysis—to draw attention to particular issues and to lend support to particular solutions. In this context, the client may be construed as the public at large or particular governmental bodies or officials. Policy analysis here is less about advising a government agency or nonprofit organization on a particular course of action to address a problem, and more about influencing public debate over the issue.

In the first section of this chapter, we begin by positioning policy analysis within the overarching domain of policy studies and policy making. In the second section, we present the “rational model” of policy analysis. We introduce the traditional versions of this approach and explain their similarities and differences with the framework we adopt in this book. Like the traditional model, we believe that policy analysis requires the systematic comparison of alternative policy options in light of various evaluative criteria. However, our approach differs from the more orthodox versions in that it is open to multiple ideological and disciplinary perspectives. The third section briefly discusses major critiques of the rational model, and the fourth section summarizes alternative models for policy analysis based on the concepts of “design thinking” and incrementalism. The final section summarizes our approach to policy analysis in this book.

Policy Analysis as Part of the Larger Policy Process

Policy analysis is part of a much broader field of policy studies. In addition to policy analysis, which concerns the determination of policies to recommend, policy studies encompass program or policy evaluation, studies of policy or program implementation, and more broadly, studies of the policy-making process (Howlett et al. 2009).

Policy analysis is different from program evaluation. The latter assesses how well a program or policy (which may have been recommended by a policy analyst) has met its objectives. Sometimes, program evaluations lead to changes in the design or implementation of the program, or to its elimination altogether²—and policy analysis often relies on program evaluations to help compare policy options. Evaluations can provide information on the effects of a program, how it operates in the field, and its underlying logic, all of which contribute to policy decision making (Greenberg et al. 2000).

Policy analysis is also distinct from the study of program implementation—which may be part of program evaluation. Implementation concerns the ability of an organization and its partners to carry out the steps proscribed by the policy. For example, Pressman and Wildavsky (1984), in their classic study of the implementation of an economic development and job training program in Oakland, California, emphasize the need to consider “clearance points”—the steps in the implementation process for which agreement is required by other entities, such as other government agencies or private businesses. The more clearance points there are, and the greater the number of participants whose approval is required, the more likely implementation will be delayed or fail altogether. Pressman and Wildavsky also stress the position of the participants in the clearance points with regard to the policy at hand: specifically, whether they are likely to support or oppose it, the intensity of their support or opposition, and the resources that they can bring to bear in support or opposition.

Implementation studies may be included in program evaluation, especially in formative evaluations that seek to find ways of improving the performance of a given program. They are not part of policy analysis since they come after the policy has been decided (the outcome of policy analysis). However, policy analysts are wise to keep the lessons of implementation studies in mind when comparing alternative policy options. These studies can shed light on the administrative feasibility of these alternatives. We discuss implementation in more detail in Chapters 4 and 6.

Policy Analysis and Policy Making

Policy analysis concerns the process of making policy recommendations. It is part of a larger, more encompassing, process of policy making. By policy making, we refer to the ways by which policy proposals gain traction and are eventually embraced by elected officials and legislatures. It also refers to the legislative process, the deal making that often enables proposed laws to attract a sufficient number of supporters. Many policy ideas may linger for years if not decades before they are recognized as viable options, and many ideas remain forever on the fringes of political acceptability. Similarly, even if a policy idea has significant political support, it may take years to be passed into law—and it may never succeed in doing so. In other words, that a policy analyst recommends a particular course of action to address a problem does not mean that the recommendation will ever be approved or implemented. This is especially true when the recommendation requires legislation. John Kingdon, for example, in his classic text, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies tells the story of a senator who, on receiving a draft bill from a legislative aide, tells him that while he will introduce the legislation “tomorrow” he sees no reason to read it now since “it will take twenty to twenty five years for it be brought into being.” (Kingdon 2003: 116).

There is an extensive literature in political science and related fields on this broader context of policy making. Several theories have been put forth to explain why policy ideas that once languished in the political wilderness can suddenly gain currency and become credible policy options. Others attempt to explain how legislators can forge alliances to win passage of laws authorizing new policies. We discuss a few of the most prominent frameworks here, touching only the surface of a wide-ranging field.

One of the most influential frameworks of how governments come to recognize certain issues as problems to be addressed and adopt particular policy solutions to address them is John Kingdon’s “multiple streams.” He discusses how openings to policy changes—“policy windows”—occur at particular moments and usually last for brief periods. Some policy windows open at regular intervals, such as the beginning of a new presidential administration. Others may appear during times of crisis. He describes a policy-making process as an “organized anarchy” where processes are somewhat structured but not linear or predictable. Kingdon discusses how “policy entrepreneurs” capitalize on these policy windows and elevate particular issues and/or policy solutions to the fore. He also discuss how problems, policies, and politics constitute separate but also interrelated “streams” that are shaped by their own rules and dynamics. Policy entrepreneurs, when appropriate policy windows open up, “couple” these streams—connecting particular problems and solutions, and increasing the likelihood that legislators and other policy makers will adopt the desired policy.

Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones’s Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) is another theoretical conception of the policy-making process. Baumgartner and Jones attempt to explain why public policies occasionally shift from incremental adjustments to radical changes in approach. Whereas public policies are usually quite stable—seeing minor, mostly incremental, changes over time—they are sometimes altered in fundamental ways, or replaced altogether. Stasis, they argue, is maintained by “policy monopolies” that resist change, and change is induced by a breaking down of those monopolies. In other words, extended periods of stability or stasis are occasionally punctuated by moments of far-reaching change.

Another conceptual approach to understanding policy adoption is the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) developed by Paul Sabatier and Hank Jenkins Smith. The ACF, as the name implies, examines advocacy coalitions within specific policy “subsystems” defined by particular topics (e.g., transportation, criminal justice), territorial jurisdictions, and the actors who influence the subsystem dynamics. Under this framework, emphasis is placed on the aggregation of individuals and organizations within a policy subsystem into discrete coalitions. These coalitions are “defined by actors sharing policy core beliefs who coordinate their actions in a nontrivial manner to influence a policy subsystem” (Jenkins-Smith et al. 2014: 195). Major policy changes, according to the framework, typically flow from changes in the composition and stability of the advocacy coalitions, external shocks, such as crisis or regime changes, and from negotiated agreements between “previously warring coalitions” (p. 203).

In addition to various theoretical conceptions of policy change, journalists and historians have offered important insights into the legislative process and the cultivation and use of political power. Robert Caro (2003, 2012), for example, in his multi-volume biography of Lyndon Johnson, examines in detail how he cobbled together legislative majorities to support landmark civil rights bills. Caro highlights how as Majority Leader of the US Senate and as President, Johnson managed to convince lawmakers to vote for the legislation despite their sometimes stark ideological and political differences. More recently, journalist Jane Mayer (2016), in Dark Money, describes how certain very wealthy individuals influence public discourse and electoral politics on a number of social and economic issues through their donations of large sums to right-wing think tanks and through their contributions to political action committees. We mention these examples to emphasize the point that policy analysis is by no means the only, or the most influential, shaper of public policy.

While the literature on the broader political and institutional context in which policy ideas are adopted and implemented is certainly germane to policy analysis, and in some cases needs to be considered in the analysis of certain policy options, in this book we focus more narrowly on the methodology of policy analysis itself. That is, we examine the steps involved in framing a policy issue, identifying possible solutions, and evaluating them. The recommendations produced through policy analysis may or may not be adopted, and, if they are adopted, it may take years for that to happen. The more fundamental point is that most policy proposals, whether or not they move onto the legislative agenda, or are given serious consideration for executive action, are subject to some form of policy analysis. Policy analysis provides the empirical and conceptual support for the recommendation, and explains why the recommendation is superior to other possible courses of action. In addition, policy debates draw heavily on policy analysis. Among other things, participants in the debates argue about the nature of the problem being addressed, and about the positive and negative consequences of the proposed solutions—and policy analysis can be used as input into decision-making processes within government, large nonprofit organizations, and community-based groups.

The “Rational Model” of Policy Analysis

Policy analysis, as discussed earlier, involves the systematic comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of alternative ways of addressing a given problem. Although scholars have presented several different formats of the rational model of policy analysis, these are essentially distinctions without a difference.

In this book we adopt a five-step framework:

1. Define the problem.
2. Identify potential policy options (alternatives) to address the problem.
3. Specify the objectives to be attained in addressing the problem and the criteria to evaluate the attainment of these objectives as well as the satisfaction of other key considerations (e.g., equity, cost, equity, feasibility).
4. Assess the outcomes of the policy options in light of the criteria and weigh trade-offs between the advantages and disadvantages of the options.
5. Arrive at a recommendation.

Other policy analysis texts present similar frameworks. As shown in Table 1.1, they may differ in terms of the sequencing of some of the steps in the analytic process, and they may combine some steps into a single step, or split one step into multiple components. For example, Bardach and Patashnik’s model omits explicit consideration of objectives, melding them with criteria, and breaks analysis into two steps (“project outcomes” and “confront trade-offs”). It also distinguishes between the recommendation stage (“stop, etc.”) and the exposition of the recommendation (“tell your story”).

Notwithstanding minor differences in terminology, and in the number and composition of the steps in the analytic process, these models of policy analysis are quite similar. Each requires alternative policy options to be compared in terms of various criteria—criteria that gauge the effectiveness of the options in addressing a given problem while taking into account other key concerns. Their fundamental objective is to arrive at a well-reasoned solution to a well-defined problem. All expect ...