Introduction
By the early 1970s, some involved in the study of public policy consciously and deliberately distanced themselves from the discipline of public adminis- tration. Most public policy practitioners at the time saw it as concerned with the application of formal, mathematical methods to solving public sector prob- lems. Public policy is important in its own right and as an influence on public management, but again raises the question as to whether there is still something distinctive about public administration.
Public policy is yet another way of studying and characterizing the interac- tion between government and its clients, while policy research or policy analy- sis are other terms for much the same thing. Public policy could be seen as a reaction to and critique of the public administration tradition or as the long- overdue adoption of formal techniques by the public sector. In either case, it needs some discussion. Another usage of the term ‘public policy’ is that used by economists, by which they mean the application of economic methods and models to government. It is possible that the rise of a public management based on economics will see this usage of the term become predominant.
The argument here is that there are now two public policy approaches, each with its own concerns and emphases. The first is termed ‘policy analysis’; the sec- ond, ‘political public policy’. The policy analysis people are those who have con- tinued to develop the field in the way it started, that is, by the use of sometimes highly abstract statistics and mathematical models, with the focus on decision- making and policy formation. Political public policy theorists are more inter- ested in the results or outcomes of public policy, the political interactions determining a particular event, and in policy areas – health, education, welfare, the environment, for example – rather than in the use of statistical methods.
Together, these point to some dissatisfaction or impatience with the traditional model of administration, where a concern either for numbers or for outcomes was subsumed by the overwhelming concern with process. As a comprehensive
113
survey on the discipline of public policy argues, in the period roughly from the 1950s to the 1970s, ‘public policy really began to take off, and public admin- istration began to move into a state of decline which was to accelerate in the 1980s’ (Parsons, 1995, p. 7). Public policy could now be considered either as a separate paradigm, competing with public administration and public manage- ment or as a set of analytical methods applicable to both. It is argued here that the public policy movement is closely related to the traditional model of pub- lic administration, with its implicit acceptance of the bureaucratic model and its ‘one best way’ thinking. The extent of its critique of the traditional model was to argue for more usage of empirical methodology to assist or even sup- plant decision-making, rather than more fundamental questioning. The man- agerialist model may derive its interest in empirical methods from public policy, but its theories are overwhelmingly those of economics – again often empirical – rather than of public policy. To add to the terminological confusion the use of economic analysis in political matters is also called public policy, but economic public policy people are very different from those with a public administration background.
The public policy movement is important to the study of the public sector even though it may have lost some impetus recently. Its methods have been criticized for being too narrow and its conclusions are seen as of dubious rele- vance to the task of governing. The policy analysis school in particular has certainly passed its peak while political public policy seems indistinguishable from public management. However, public policy and policy analysis remain useful in bringing attention to whatgovernments do, as opposed to the public administration concern with howthey operate, and in using empirical methods toanalysepolicy.
Public policy, administration and management
It is not possible to define public policy in any precise way. Students of government have long struggled over what is meant by ‘policy’ and ‘policy- making’. Definitions of public policy found in the literature range from
‘declarations of intent, a programme of goals, and general rules covering future behaviour to important government decisions, a selected line or course of action, the consequences of action or inaction, and even all government action’
(Lynn, 1987, p. 28). The word ‘policy’ could refer to: the intentions declared by parties in an election; a rather more precise programme than an intention;
general rules such as ‘foreign policy’; government decisions in a policy docu- ment; and to even larger things such as everything the government does. One work finds ten separate meanings (Hogwood and Gunn, 1984).
There are differences in definition between the policy analysis and political public policy schools. From a policy analysis perspective, Putt and Springer argue: ‘The function of policy research is to facilitate public policy processes through providing accurate and useful decision-related information. The skills 114 Public Management and Administration
required to produce information that is technically sound and useful lie at the heart of the policy research process, regardless of the specific methodology employed’ (1989, p. 10). This definition emphasizes methods, as does Quade (1982, p. 5) who defines the area as:
A form of applied research carried out to acquire a deeper understanding of socio-technical issues and to bring about better solutions. Attempting to bring modern science and tech- nology to bear on society’s problems, policy analysis searches for feasible courses of action, generating information and marshalling evidence of the benefits and other conse- quences that would follow their adoption and implementation, in order to help the policy- maker choose the most advantageous action.
These points set out what the more formal, policy analysis, approach aims to do. Quade draws upon a rich tradition of the application of science and statis- tics to government (deLeon, 1988). The focus is on methods and science, in using such procedures to find or even make decisions.
The approach taken by Lynn is quite different and emphasizes the political interaction from which policy derives. In his definition:
Public policy can be characterized as the output of a diffuse process made up of individ- uals who interact with each other in small groups in a framework dominated by formal organizations. Those organizations function in a system of political institutions, rules and practices, all subject to societal and cultural influences. (1987, p. 239)
Key features of this definition are first, that public policy is the outputof gov- ernment. This neatly avoids some of the problems with attempts at more pre- cise meanings or needing to specify the exact kind of output for particular circumstances. While governments provide goods and services, they do so according to express policies announced at some time. Even a term as vague as foreign policy has some meaning as the output of views, statements or actions affecting relations outside the nation. Secondly, the process is described as being diffuse; the formulation of public policy is an elusive process. This is far more realistic than regarding policy-making as either to be carried out by politicians under the traditional model of administration, or through some other idealized process, which can be modelled. No one really knows where policies are derived from, other than through the internal political processes of governments, in which the bureaucracy is as much a political actor as are outside interest groups or politicians. Neither is there any reason to assume that the process will be the same for all policies. Thirdly, Lynn expresses this idea of constraints more pre- cisely. Public policy-making does not occur in a vacuum, there are constraints of organization, institutions, interest groups and even ‘societal and cultural influences’. It is easy to find more complex definitions, but public policy is to be regarded here as the outputof government and policy analysis as the more formal, empirical approach to deriving and explaining policy.
There are problems in delineating a public policy approach from public administration, politics or new public management. All are concerned with the Public Policy and Policy Analysis 115
operations of government and the public sector. There are some rather obvious differences with public administration, particularly with the traditional model as used here, which had little interest in policy work. From its beginnings, pub- lic policy analysts were a rather different set of people, more concerned with analytical methods and numbers as opposed to what they regarded as the gen- eralist approaches of public administration. Public administration was consid- ered the domain of the gifted amateur, where governing wisely and well had little to do with any kind of method or statistic. Public policy is expressly more
‘political’ than is public administration and has also emphasized more techni- cal, even mathematical approaches to decision-making. It is more realistic than public administration in that it does allow the bureaucracy to have decision- making and political roles.
It is rather more difficult to separate public policy from political science and sometimes it would be hard to decide whether a particular study is one of pub- lic policy or politics. Political science during the behavioural era was little interested in matters of policy (John, 1998, p. 3) as it focussed on political behaviour. Public policy is different from the traditional model of public administration in that it recognizes that there are political processes within the administration leading to policy. It is, therefore, more ‘political’ than pub- lic administration. It is an attempt to apply the methods of political science to policy areas but has concerns with processes inside the bureaucracy, so is more related to public administration. As Henry argues, ‘public policy has been an effort to apply political science to public affairs; its inherent sympathies with the practical field of public administration are real, and many scholars who identify with the public policy sub-field find themselves in a twilight zone between political science and public administration, pirouetting in the shadows of both disciplines’ (Henry, 1990, p. 6).
The relationship with public management is also difficult to pin down. It is argued here that public management is superseding traditional public adminis- tration and is a more realistic description of what actually happens in the pub- lic sector. However, the relationship between managerialism and public policy is not as simple as one superseding the other. Public management uses empir- ical models, but these are usually those of economics. The policy analysis approach may use economics as only one of the many possible methodologies, most of which are inductive, whereas economics is deductive. Both would probably claim their own perspective as a strength, although governments have shown their preference for using economic methodology.
Policy analysis
Public policy began with the systematic analysis of data for governmental purposes. The word ‘statistics’ derives from ‘state’, but policy was not greatly informed by numbers though there were some experiments in the use of statis- tics from the 1930s through to the 1960s. More occurred after 1960 with the 116 Public Management and Administration
implementation of large-scale government programmes by the Kennedy and Johnson administrations (deLeon, 1988). The size and complexity of the 1960s social programmes led to a demand for better analysis. Mathematical tech- niques deriving from Rand or the United States Defense Department under Robert McNamara could conceivably be applied to the public sector. It was an age of science. It was an age in which any problem was seen as having a pos- sible solution which could be discovered through the proper application of the scientific method. Related to the belief in solutions was the availability of large-scale computers and suitable software for processing statistical data to levels of great sophistication.
The early period of policy analysis is generally regarded as a failure by being oversold, that is, by assuming that numbers alone or techniques alone can solve public policy problems. It is only from 1980 that Putt and Springer see what they term a ‘third stage’ in which policy analysis is perceived as ‘facilitating policy decisions, not displacing them’ (1989, p. 16). As they explain:
Third-stage analysts decreasingly serve as producers of solutions guiding decision mak- ers to the one best way of resolving complex policy concerns. Policy research in the third stage is not expected to produce solutions, but to provide information and analysis at mul- tiple points in a complex web of interconnected decisions which shape public policy.
Policy research does not operate separated and aloof from decision makers; it permeates the policy process itself.
Instead of providing an answer by themselves, empirical methods were to be used to aid decision-making. While few of the early policy analysts saw them- selves as decision-makers (though it was a charge levelled against them) that was the extent of the analyses used. Third-stage policy analysis is supposed to be a supplement to the political process and not a replacement of it. Analysis assists in the mounting of arguments and is used by the different sides in a par- ticular debate. All participants in the policy process use statistics as ammuni- tion to reinforce their arguments. The collection of data has greatly improved and the ways of processing numbers are better than before. However, whether or not third-stage policy analysis is so different from early policy analysis will be considered later.
Empirical methods
Much has been said in passing of the empirical methods and skills needed by policy analysis and policy analysts. In one view, two sets of skills are needed.
First, ‘scientific skills’ which have three categories: information-structuring skills which ‘sharpen the analyst’s ability to clarify policy-related ideas and to examine their correspondence to real world events’; information-collection skills which ‘provide the analyst with approaches and tools for making accurate observations of persons, objects, or events’; and information-analysis skills which ‘guide the analyst in drawing conclusions from empirical evidence’
Public Policy and Policy Analysis 117
(Putt and Springer, 1989, p. 24). These scientific skills are not independent but rather interrelated; they are also related to what they call ‘facilitative skills’
(1989, p. 25) such as policy, planning and managerial skills.
So, while empirical skills are needed, there are other less tangible ones needed as well. Both sets of skills point to the emphasis on training found in policy analysis. If analysts inside the bureaucracy can be trained in scientific skills and facilitative skills, the making of policy and its outcomes should be improved.
Some of the empirical methods used in policy analysis include: (i) benefit–cost analysis (optimum choice among discrete alternatives without probabilities);
(ii) decision theory (optimum choice with contingent probabilities); (iii) optimum- level analysis (finding an optimum policy where doing too much or too little is undesirable); (iv) allocation theory (optimum-mix analysis) and (v) time- optimization models (decision-making systems designed to minimize time con- sumption) (Nagel, 1990). In their section on options analysis – which they regard as the heart of policy models – Hogwood and Gunn point to various operations research and decision analysis techniques including: linear programming;
dynamic programming; pay-off matrix; decision trees; risk analysis; queuing the- ory and inventory models. How to carry these out can be found in a good policy analysis book. They are mentioned here for two reasons: first, to point out that there are a variety of techniques and second, that they share an empirical approach to policy.
As probably the key person involved in developing mathematical approaches to policy issues, Nagel is naturally enthusiastic about their benefits, arguing that policy evaluation based on management science methods ‘seems capable of improving decision-making processes’ (Nagel, 1990, p. 433):
Decisions are then more likely to be arrived at that will maximize or at least increase soci- etal benefits minus costs. Those decision-making methods may be even more important than worker motivation or technological innovation in productivity improvement. Hard work means little if the wrong products are being produced in terms of societal benefits and costs. Similarly, the right policies are needed to maximize technological innovation, which is not likely to occur without an appropriate public policy environment.
One can admire the idea that societal improvement can result from empirical decision-making methods. There are undoubtedly some areas in which these techniques can be very useful, and, even in matters of complex policy, infor- mation may be able to be acquired which it could not by normal means. For example, monitoring or controlling road traffic is a governmental function everywhere. Traffic studies have always been done at the relatively low level of counting cars. When this is extended through decision analysis, by taking num- bers to a higher level, or building scenarios into computer-based models, it is possible to predict traffic patterns in future, to decide where to place traffic signals, or to use cost–benefit analysis to decide between two sites for a traffic interchange. In this kind of example, empirical methods undoubtedly would 118 Public Management and Administration
improve the making of policy. However, there are relatively few such mundane problems. Public policy is usually complex and has no easy answers.
Policy process models
There are almost as many models of the policy process as there are public pol- icy theorists, all deriving to some extent from Lasswell (1971). Anderson’s model of the policy process has five stages: problem identification and agenda formation, formulation, adoption, implementation, and evaluation (1984, p. 19).
Quade (1982) also sees five elements: problem formulation, searching for alter- natives, forecasting the future environment, modelling the impacts of alterna- tives, and evaluating the alternatives. Stokey and Zeckhauser (1978) also set out a five-step process in which the analyst is to: determine the underlying problem and objectives to be pursued, set out possible alternatives, predict the consequences of each, determine the criteria for measuring the achievement of alternatives, and indicate the preferred choice of action. There are problems in using any model, not the least of which would be the temptation to simply fol- low a menu, rather than to really analysewhat is happening. In order to look at this more closely, the next section considers in more detail one of the policy process models – reasonably representative of its ilk – to look at the advantages and shortcomings of models in general.
Patton and Sawicki (1986) put forward a six-step model, and although, as they say, there is no single agreed-upon way of carrying out policy analysis, theirs remains one of the more helpful frameworks for looking at a particular policy problem. The basic aim of their approach is to assist someone who is required to analyse a given situation and to derive a policy to deal with it. They derive a list of headings under which particular parts of the policy process can be formulated.
Step 1: Verify, define and detail the problem
Before starting to look at any policy problem, the first step is, of course, to specify what the problem actually is. This is not necessarily a straightforward point as public policies are often interrelated. It is often hard to define the prob- lem in the public sector, where policy objectives may not be clear or aim to do several things at once. Public agencies often have several missions at once, and need to respond to differing interest groups.
It is particularly difficult to define problems in large areas of policy such as health or welfare. But without being able to define the problem it becomes impossible to design a policy. At this point of the policy process, the analyst should be able to set out the policy problem in a way that separates this partic- ular problem into something discrete which can be tackled. After this the ana- lyst should know ‘whether a problem exists which can be solved by the client, should be able to provide the first detailed statement of the problem, and should Public Policy and Policy Analysis 119