"Part 2" of assignment #2 (Week 3 Articles)

1. Shulock Article:

a) In this article, the author introduces two different types of policy analysis: the traditional and interpretive views of policy analysis. Based on the economic and rational choice theory, traditional policy analysis presumes that (1) experts trained in proper analytical techniques can apply them systematically to the political marketplace, (2) experts can discover and measure the impact of policy on citizen interests, (3) they can project policy consequences with some accuracy, and (4) they can affect the decisions of identifiable clients, who will use the analysis to solve policy problems (p. 228). However, interpretive analysis based on uncertainty in decision-making assumes that (1) policy-makers try to interact and sometimes struggle with various social actors to shape issue interpretations and preferences about the public interest, (2) under inherently inconclusive information, the policy-making process consists of a constant battle over agenda, competition over jurisdiction and issue interpretations, and dynamic changes, and (3) policy analysis orients toward a democratic process (p. 228). According to the author, while traditional view of policy analysis is more focus on the outcomes and using policy analysis to come up with some final decisions, interpretive view of policy analysis is considered as part of engaging the public and the decision-making process, and focusing on more participation.

b) Before answering this question, I think we cannot conclude which perspective regarding policy analysis is more accurate than the other because this is not a problem of fact (dealing with rightness or wrongness of certain topics or issues) but a problem of value (dealing with good/bad or validity/invalidity of certain topics or issues). Rather, I think we can decide which one is the more valid or relevant viewpoint than the other, in terms of today’s complex policy context and environment. With this in mind, I argue that the interpretive perspective of policy analysis, mentioned by the author, can be a more relevant and valid perspective under current policy reality. Traditional understanding and study of policy analysis, as a comprehensive, problem-solving, scientific enterprise, is based on “an overreliance on a positive framework and an antidemocratic tendency” (p. 239), and it gives rise to misunderstanding of policy analysis. Moreover, efficiency-preoccupied policy analysis and understanding makes policy scientists downplay or neglect the effect of public policy on the citizenry.
I basically agree with the author’s argument that policy analysis already involves discourse, introduces ideas into politics, and affects policy outcomes (p. 240). Public policy should involve improving the democratic or political capacities of people, and not simply the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of services. Lasswell believed that the purpose of policy-making was the formation of values which could shape the full development of individuals and society as a whole, as his mention of the “policy sciences of democracy.” There are models emerging that are more concerned with public policy as public learning and which stress values such as participation, co-production, communication, decentralization, and community.
Overemphasizing the value of efficiency frequently conflicts with other values and isolates the individuals participating in the policy process as customers preoccupied with their self-interests. Several scholars, such as Dryzek, Stone, and deLeon, criticize these problems and suggest a new approach for a more democratic policy-making process, like deLeon’s “participative policy analysis.” I think this has a similar context to the author’s interpretive viewpoint of policy analysis.

c) Web link: http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/the-white-house-revisits-government-web-privacy-policies/?scp=1&sq=participatory%20policy%20analysis&st=cse

This article shows us the example of the federal government’s effort to reform current government Web-privacy policy. Regarding the use of “cookies” in Websites, meaning “unique numeric IDs that many Web sites deposit in their browser,” the existing cookie policy is out of date and there has been conflict between those arguing about privacy concerns by tracking cookies of citizens accessing public information. What is interesting regarding cookie policy under the Obama administration is that the federal government is attempting to change cookie policy and reflect citizens’ various voices in the governance process. According to this article, the White House outlined a proposed new cookie policy and asked citizens to provide feedback by August 10 in a “comments section” on the Website of the Office of Management and Budget. The citizens can comment there or by sending an e-mail to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov and all comments will be published publicly.
I think the federal government’s effort to reflect citizens’ voices and thoughts regarding Web privacy policy through opening a comments section in public institutions can be an example toward participative policy-making. Moreover, this trial is also connected with the interpretive perspective regarding policy analysis, which considers policy analysis as “collective social struggle to shape issue interpretations and preferences about the public interest” (Shulock, p. 229) and relates to dynamic policy change and competition over jurisdiction and issue interpretations among policy actors. I think the federal government’s use of several Web technologies, such as Websites, blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and wikis, could create new ways for people to communicate with their government and participate in policy-making.

2. Hird Article:

a) To measure the impact of “use of policy analysis” in decision-making, the author operationalizes it as “the impact of the nonpartisan policy research organizations” (hereafter “NPROs,” p. 87) serving each state legislature. Under this research design, Hird measures the utilization of policy analysis in terms of the size and types of NPROs and their impact on the policy process. By using empirical research like standard mail survey method and statistical analysis (using “ordered probit model”), the author concludes that NPROs don’t have substantial policymaking influence according to legislators, yet larger and more analytical NPROs have significantly more influence over policymaking than smaller/descriptive NPROs (p. 100). That is, although state NPROs are not viewed as influential in the policymaking process in absolute terms, larger/analytical operations do enhance NPRO policymaking influence. Moreover, several contextual and additional variables, such as political culture, state political ideology, and legislative professionalism, interact to determine the extent to which NPROs are used or regarded as useful.

b) Hird’s argument on the use of policy analysis in terms of the influence of NPROs in the state is valuable in that it provides scholars with a new understanding of NPROs and the policy environments in which they thrive. However, I am not sure Hird’s argument, in which some structural factors of the NPROs (types and sizes) can be influential factors of the extent of use of policy analysis, can be applicable to other political environments, beyond the state legislature. This research result is based on knowledge utilization of state legislatures, especially focusing on the NPROs, but I think policy analysis is an inherently “political” process and several dynamic interactions among policy actors might influence the use of policy analysis. That is, Hird made a conclusion through the congressional policy-making process in terms of the NPROs-related data per state, but we cannot be sure whether or not a single sector, rather than multiple sectors, would produce more generalizable findings. It might be connected with a methodological problem.
Moreover, if we add some potential factors regarding the NPROs, such as their types of functions or the extent of public spending on the NPROs by state legislatures, the relationship between NPROs and PROs (“partisan research organizations”) per state, and gubernatorial power and preference on the NPROs, I wonder if we could get a similar result, compared with this research.