Literature Reviews

Methodological Foundations for Public Policy Analysis:A Review Essay

Frank Fisher, Ratgers

Garry D. Brewer and Peter deLeon, The Foundations of Policy Analysis(Homewood, Ul: Dorsey Press, 1983).

Stuart S. Nagel, Policy Evaluation: Making Optimum Decisions (New York:Fraeger Publishers, 1982). " ~ ^ ~

David C. Paris and James F. Reynolds, The Logic of Policy Inquiry (NewL(Migman, 1983).

N. Dunn, Public Policy Analysis: An lntro<iuction (EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1981).

Melvif) J. Dubnick and Barbara A. Bardes, Thinking Alwut Public Policy; AProblem-Solving Approach (New York: John Wiley, 1983)^

Over the past two decades the analysis of public policy has beeorue aactivity in the social sciences. In fact, in many programs the policy

orientation is now a major organizing concept in the curriculum. Moreover,beyond the walls of academe, policy analysis has developed into a smallindustry. One result of this dramatic development hjis been a major out-pouring of new books and journals devoted to the field.

It is customary for a new field of inquiry to exhibit a fair amount ofmethodological self-consciousness. Once firmly implanted, however, thesubsttntive issues of the field are usually sufficient to justify theresearcher's intellectual activities; methodologists are eventually left tobring up the rear. But the policy analysis movement has been something ofan cKception. Having now firmly implanted itself in the social sciences,methodological exploration continues in many corners of the discipline to

a dominant concern. The reasons for this are anchored to the uniqueaeter of its intellectua] mission.

Unlike the social sciences generally, the policy^ sciences are anlied" endeavor. Where the economist or political scientist can retreathe "ivory tower" in the face of irrelevance, policy science's veryxse and existence depends upon its ability to offer practical guidance

social and political decisions, in the words of Undblom and Cohen(1979), the policy sciences are on a quest for "usable knowledge/' And that,needtnss to say, is no snnal! assignment.

Since Lasswett and Lerner published The Policy Sciences in 1951, thepolicy analysis movement has held out the promise of knowledge for action.But ft was not until the mid to lato 1960s that the issue began to take onpractical implications. In response to the call for action sent forth byGreat Society warriors, the policy analysis movement was ready-made tofill the void between ivory tower academics and the pressing demands for

and political action. Having slowly developed in the wings of

e for more tnan a deeade, the progranss oi ihe Great bocietiiey sciences cmto the center stage of the political world feec

if

plamajor eeonomie and social problems

:h for solution'^ to the problei

KJ of governmeotal programs, gave the policy analysis movennia! t>ase to advance its cause. Byt. at the same th'ne, ;t w

jrure thai wouid yn

real

By the close of the; experieiHir. the most apparent aisd generaiiyesson for the poliey science movomcnt was that usable kiiowled

y. In faet, hy the early 1970s one of the impo;inate poliey analysis diseiissions was the ISHOO of "s•' example, James Schlesinger, then Secretary of i)ef'

tell a eongressional suboornmittee that everyone in principle ftanalysis but few are hopeful that its conclusions will be iitiliz'

the Council of Econom ic Advi^ ean do hest analvtiealK- we fiivi hB'*6e'.

experience has Deen a itourisn ol itanrmn-tivities. In search of relevance, these purauits have brought for

of methodological issues: the nature of an "applied" mcthodoplace of social yalues m an orr

e in the Dolitica]

oy'

ttendini'imps: the challengers critical of mainstream approaches in poiiey anaiysi

jf this methodological DroDlstill very much in evidence in most of the new books on the siibjeet,Ihe more strident tone of the earlier debate has subsided conssdcral

sophisticated books tend to couch their methodological approad

Hie

better," as Brewer aniprocedures was not -en

Bil for their candorts but prefer not i

:anv ot us

nolu

: nahv"sts on major governmental projects, they hav(? i-ought to construct amore relevant framework for teacbing policy analysis to professional prac-titioners. For ciassrom purposes, they seek to locate evaluation methodolo-gies vfithin the richer frames of reference that can be called from praclk'.alexperience.

Brewer and deLeori maintain that the sear;.'h for a broader frame ofreference must begin with a return to ''basics." For them, the basics are tobe found in the earlier work of their mentor, Harold Lasswell. Followingijasswell, emphasis must be placf S on the special character of the policysciences. Not to be confused with another way f taldng about the socialscienc^es, the policy sciences must be understood as a unique approacfieoncerned with "knowledge of the decision or policy process and knowledgein that process." The goal must be to "join and integrate theory (knowledgeof) and practice (knowledge in) to hnprovc them both for human benefit."

Essentially, the task is to find the appropriate ways to connect theoryand practice. To provide the fundamental justification for a sciencedevoted to this task, new ways of thinking are required. Toward this end.Brewer and deLeon suggest two ways to proceed; "One way . . . is to localeproblems with respect to their status or maturity scmewhere within ihepolicy process;" another is "to learn how to organize, compare, and accu-mulate knowledge about the policy process itself-*' In short, these are thepremises which establish the orientatioa of the book as a whole. Placingcmptiasis on policy context, they organize the discussion o.roun.d SIK phasesof thE! process: initiation, estimation^ selection, implementation, evalua-tion, and termination. Each chapter is designed to cover particular theor-ies, practices, methods, procedures, and approaches relevant to a distinc-tive piase of the policy process.

4imed primarily at the graduate student, the book imfoMs a wealth ofinformation. Throughoot its 476 pages there is a great deal that cmi belearned about the policy process. In this respect, their approach is trulycomprehensive. Moreover, whatever cannot be found from the book directlycan SL.rely be traced through its extensive references. Sometimes, in fact,the authors' attention to bibliography te carried too far. In several places,textusi discussions read moeh like a iiterature review.

Perhaps the most unique chapter concerns the discussion of policytermination, a topic largely unattended ;n the literature. After an informa-tive d'scussion of why the problem has been overlooked, the authors presentan interesting analysis of the barriers — institutional, political, economic,psychological, ethical, ideological, and legal —• which stand in the path ofpolicy termination. The discussion is nicely supplemented with illustrations.

Filustrations and case exaniples, in fact, are in general among thestrong points of the book. Also, along with cases, eacn section is followedby both an elaborate set of discussion questions: and an extensive list ofsupplementary readings.

From these comments, it should be obvious that the book deservesbigh marks. But to say this does not necessarily -.mply that the largerof relevance in which the book has been cast have been resolved.the book purports to set out the foundations of policy analysis, it

tends to stress the discussion of policy analysis procesi^es at tbe expense ofan examination of different types of Dolicy knowlecige. For many, theearlier failures to focus on the poliey processes represents only half of the

lave cogently argued that the problem i-in the nature of the policy knowledge itsclt. In short, the dilemma

can be traced deeper into the epistemologicai structure of theitivistic policy science methodologies. For such writers the problem of

w. issue of policy context. Here it iscontext of the policy process will itself

I.e., diJ

raise the issue in its:> a narrower attempt

• various types of poiicysurelv gerinane to each

in the LasswellLasswell himself failed to see the connection between different decision

imd. alternative modes of inquiry. While calling for a new policyddressed the broadest issues confronting the human conditiois,

e was at the same time a central participant in the behavioral movement

tical and policy inquiry, he was ironically ruling out many of the norma-tive questions upon which the human condition turns, Tfms, while Brewer

indeed carried forward their roentor's project, they havehis epis

;y processes, Brewer and deLeon

ides a highly rigorous methodological explicationof policy analysis.

NageFs purposes arc straightforward. In his own words, he haspolicy studies to emphasize 'thc nuts

O ! • ' " " " '

n ol optunumst analysis. By policy optimizing he specifics an

ities. By "models" he means a system of normative and empiricals that lead deductively to a conelusion. The basic policy optimizing

Literature Reviews

is represented by deductive logic: (1) Y is good; (2) X cause(3) therefore adopt X.

The book is organized in five parts. The first part presents thegeneral principles of poiicy optimization. Drawing on operations research,management science and other disciplines related tc public policy prob-lems, emphasis is placed on the problems of choice, level, and mix thatarise in considering alternative policy decisions. The remaining foursections hone in on the specific dimensions of these p:'oblems under condi-tions of scarce resources. Each section assumes a fairly rigorous under-standing of math and statistics. Those with weak quantitative skills mayhave difficulty with some of the topics — especially the presentations ofqueueing techniques, sequencing, critical path methods, Markovic chainanalysis, differential equations, and time series analysis. On the whole,however, the level of rigor is quite appropriate for the book's intendedaudience. In fact, for students with weak skills, the math is probably not asintimidating as it may seem at first. All things considered, the book treatsthese topics with more clarity than many others. This, indeed, is one of thestrengths.

Among the books other strengths is its constant success at interspers-ing general principles with concrete examples. Especially important is itsreliance on the issues of criminal justice policy. Throughout theNagel draws on examples from criminal behavior, jury size and selarrest patterns, attorney time per case, imprisonment, and so on.regard, the book would be particularly useful for policy analysis courses incriminal justice programs.

The primary weakness of the book is its failure to deal with theanalysis of policy goals, even though it offers an interesting perspectivethat o 3ens the possibility of a more elaborate discussion, Nagel works underthe premise that many policy analysis problems involve taking policy goalsas given and determining which policies will maximize them. But ]point out that many of these goals may only be intermediary valuesed toward achieving more general values. It is here, 1 think, that wbegin to encounter the problem of normative relevance. Since \values are almost always somewhat ambiguous in their materialtionsj this space between intermediate goals and general values opensdoor to normative discourse. In fact, if we have learned anything fromearlier experiences, it is that the practical relevance of policy aiialysis rat times depend upon its ability to address this normative issue.appears to be aware of this but has chosen not to explore its implisPolicy analysts, he says, should "be vaJuc free in the sense of not allowingtheir values to influence how they present their information." Normativeanalysis is thus ruled out and v^je are left with a poiicy analysis that is moreuseful in some situations than others.

For those believing that normative issues must be granted fin the policy sciences, the works of Paris and Reynolds will cofne

addition to the literature. In 7'he Logic of Policy Inquiry.is to grapple head-on with the normative and interpretive

IS of poliey analysis. From an epistemological perspective, they seek toa logic of analysis that sharply distinquishes policy methodologies

employed in the social sciences generally.

i Vesis and Reynoids explain, is sfiapco Dy irices of the mainstream social scienceis,

?s of the socia''deals of th

demanding or illegitimate, as many social seientist' have commonlyh judgments, according to Paris and Reynolds, are the unibr-

)riatc application of scientific standards to

Five of the book's eight (chapters arc devoted to a discussion of theuses and limits of mainstream methodologies in policy analysis. Specifi-cally, three

Kic_

lilv" valid

the reader with a model of the behavioral idcah By contrast, those•oach will find Nai cFs optniial decisioni 00 the principles of utilitarianiSii"! and

economic approach (oeuses on the rnUomil . ictorto maximize his or her expected preference satisfactions. Propo-

nents of the "rational choice'' model, employing cost-benefit analysis astheir principal policy methodology, argue that its vahie transcend? Uii-studv of economic behavior. It provides an appropriate metliodoLogicei

The third approach, interpretation, is far leas prevalent in ihc poiicysciences, et least as a formal mode. Advocates of this approach generally

dives,Uy normative character of social and political

tion thp mtpi-nrpTive ennroHch has often take Ihe form of a crtticiuc* ot

postulate of rational economic behavior. Insleadj research most takespecial account of the ' sooiaJ meanings' trial actions have for their '>wn

•is and Reynolds are right to include the interpretive approach \n fidiscussion of the logic of policy inqiuryj but their discussion suffers from anoutdated reliance on phenomenologist and enthnomethodologists suci- as

and ('ic

hei-s. ta a book designed for the epistcroiogieai debate in t,he policysciences, the failure to present interpretive [>olicy research wiH mihweaken the impact of their argument,

lination of the appiicabilitv of eacn of the ilicviinquirv, F-'nris r-ind Keviiolds (u ndud*-- t'-ai p 'uie.

must be set off a.s a special amalgam of all three. While tfover the relative merits of each approach will continue m t)

social sciences generally, they contend that no such dia:entertained in the policy sciences. Instead of determiningology is "best," in the policy sciences it is a question of how the threemethodologies relate to eaeh other. Policy analysis methodology must be a"specific, unique niethodological mix" of the behavioral, economic andinterpretive methodologies. The final two chapters of the book are devotedlo the development of a framework for sueh a methodology.

The key to their alternative approach rests upon a turn from policyscience to policy arguments, "A more appropriate logic of inquiry,"according to Paris «jid Reynolds, "must . . . je concerned with substantiat-ing the premises of policy arguments as distinct from providing criteria ofsocial science knowledge.'' Because testing the soundness and acceptabilityof a policy argument involves both empiric^al and normative judgments^they begin by reves'sing the standard approach to facts and values. Ratherthan establishing the empirical model as the basic framework for analysisand. where necessary, attempting to fit values into the schemequantification, Paris and Reynolds begin with a normativeseek to fit the empirical data to its requirements. Towards this end, theydevelop the concept of a "rational ideology."

After a detaiL;d and useful discussion that distinguishes rational fromirrational idologies. Parts and Reynolds correctly assert ttuxt — even in theabsence of empirical truth or normative agreement ™- il is possible todistinguish sound f-om unsound premises in the ideologically groundedprocess of {Xjlicy ar^rvmientation. The task requires E turn away from causalanalysis to the logic of "good reasons.*^

R.ationa.1 idcoloffics, in tHis vicv . are Xhs niosl we c in hop© fof ;!ipoliey inquiry. In reelity, it is impossible in most policy contexts toestablish that any eiaims — empirical or normative — cananything that resembles universal truth or validity. But this doesthat policy itrguments are an epistemoiogically inferior typor that they must be scrapped on ttie junkpDc of value relativism. Byadopting the epistenoiogical criteria of a rational ideological perspective,we can introduce methodological standards more appropriate to the natureof the policy process. Sueh a perspective begins with ttie premise that ineach policy context there can be more than one sound argument for aspecific issue. Through a rational dialogue between empirical and norma-tive viewpoints, Paris mid Reynolds suggest a inethodoiog-ical frameworktfmt holds out the pcssibility of judging between such claims.

Not only does this book provide a cogent challenge to the view thatpolicy issues can be resolved through standarci empirical-analytic approacr,-es; it also undercuts the belief that policy arguments are hopelesslyirrational. There arc, however, some limitations hsre. While the case is

credib!;/, their approach is not altogether new and innovative,^aris an j Reynolds appea- to be unaware of a wealth of litera-

ture that has already framed policy ana[vsis along sim.Uar lines. Here Iinwc in mmd the works of >1itroff, Mason, Churchman, Schainblatt,Uambriek, Fisrber, and I)ynn. Not only \mve these writers recognized th,evalue of a debate between empirical and normative oerspectives, they haveiioved the approach beyond the ^evol of cpistemoloj^y to tbe considcraLion

luethodologieal procedures. In fact, several unporta

illustrated by tummg to Wijllam Dunn's book, Pubiientation as a

analytical technique. (t is

book is divided into two sections: one on methodology and one on niettsods.-n the lOSic of poiicy innnirv HPfP Dunn rnisf*:? H

IS. uKe them, m.The objective of such a methodology, lie

explains, is not only concerned wltli procedures foranswers," but aiso methods for posing the "right questions.

particular kinds of

type* of information. Toward this end, Dunn presents a sophisticated diseus-sion of five types of knowledge and bow to gather each one: how to struc-ture a policy problem^ the techniques for forecasting poJiey jjlternaUvos,models for recommendng policy actions, ways to monitor outeomes, and ttie

rmance. The explication of each type of knowledge isind quite detailed. In this regard, the book is inappro-Beyond its opening chapter, there is very little about

!torv.'* This text is

ariy its enipliasis oii

a detatledirical and normative -~ or a

framework from Toulmin^s<iiafframiiaticaUv illustrates

the model is applied to five types of policy arguments^ authoritatwe,this

irises in the

policy analysis, but the discussion of ethics and values often seem imder-"at least compared to the neope of the empirical dimensions it

of the normative arguments could have been somewhat more ideological incharacter. But given the limitations of our understanding of normativeissues, these are small complaints. Indeed, in this context, Dunn has to becredited with a useful, evocative beginning.

In the face of these methodological polemics, some might justifiablyask: How are we to know what to teach? How can we present students andpractitioners of policy analysis with a practical framework for approachingpolicy issues without at the same time, closing the door on these largerquestions? One recommendation might be to use the text by Dubnick andBardes, Thinking About Pubiic Policy: A Problem-Solving Approach.

Dubnick and Bardes have written a small, readable introduction topolicy analysis that smoothly works the [iiiddle ground between these com-peting perspectives. For those looking for a basic undergraduate textbookthat presents a lively discussion of the full range of policy analysis issues,Dubnick and Bardes have performed a service. Similarly, for graduate levelinstructors seeking a compact volume that provides an initial survey aspreface to a more rigorous examination of methodological issueS; Thinkin_g_About Public Polic;^ Ls well-tailored for the assignment. In the graduatecourse, the book can be quite useful to those who prefer to Dypass the bigtext and shape their own approach around a number of smaller books.

One of the boC'k's principal strengths is its openness to the complexityof poliey inquiry. Most typically, authors :n the field tend to posit thepolicy sciences as an applied field and proceed to immerse tbeir readers inthe methodological intricacies of cost-benefit analysis and other sophisti-cated techniques. Dubnick and Bardes, on the other hand, recognize thatan applied social science is anything but exempt from the normative andepistemological concerns facing tbe social sciences generally. In theirbook, discussions of policy explanation and evaluation are eouched in thecontext of the epostemological subtitles that underlie them. For example^to capture the normative, subjective dimensions of modeling, they opentheir discussion with an explication of the role of language and metaphorsin model-building. Or, consider their presentation of what constitutes anexplanation.. In addition, to the customary emphasis on rational and func-tiomd models of explanation, they have included a brief d^cussion ofgenetic or historicist explanations, coupled with substantive illustrations ofthe historical dimersion in subsequent chapters. While their discussion isonly introductory in character, it provides an opening for the instructor toaugment these issues, if so inclined.

The principal locus of the book is on the analytics of poliey problem-solving, but throughout the discussion respect is paid to the importance ofpolicy processes. Students are introduced to a variety of policy models,including the systems model, the power structure model, a party/electoralmodel, an institutional model, and incrementalism. To heighten awarenessof the need to situate policy-making in a political context, they suggest theusefulness of a political economy perspective, lleai-world policy-making,as they put it, is coaducted within the frainework of a political economy,•'composed of the social means and mechanisms through which groups seeklo solve the problems of production and distribution."' It is quite possible toargue, at least from my view, that it was the absence of justperspective that led to the problems of relevance in Ltie earlier period.

ive illustratioas arc another strong feature of tlie r>ook. Keymethodological chapters are followed by substantive chapters designed soillustrate the methodological issues. For instance, the chapter on polieydescription is followed by one that focuses on the description of economicpolicies; the discussion of poliey explanations is supplementaj by B chapterwith foreign policy examples; and finally, the presentation of cvahiationresearch is illustrated through social welfare orograms. hi each set of

e, under the discussion of policy descriptions, Dubnick andBardes delineate the role of typologies in model construction; while in the

listribution issues that can arise. For classroom purposes, the integration

from here? Dubniek end Bardes frame the discussion within the context oi

IS develo|"irrerevance" leveled at the social sciences in the 1960s and 1970s,

lese led to a renewed interest in the real impacts of government policies.lost of scientific, professional, political,have given shape to the emerging disci-

of policy analysis raises problematic issuesAt this point, the

0 It in hev close with sojoe bib

It IS clear from the variety of methodological perspectives presentedin these five books that the field of poliey analysis still brandishes the

the demand for marketable skills can frequenily crowd oui

CS, I t S

ill remain high on the agenda. Over the past decade, the pieces of a

1 or aLasswell (1963) wrote that "everywhere the unit sooner or h tex searches tocomprehend its role by discovering a map of the whole." In the years jinead,attention will continue to shift from the parts to the whole. Having elearlybegun to take up the chaUenge, we can expect the see the policy a

"tion hi tiie social science;

"'or policy analysis, the future continues to k>ok qisi'ie promising. In fact, it's to hold out some very interesting possibilities.

REFERENCESAaron, Henry J. l!)78. Politics and the Professors: The Great Soeiely in

Perspective (Was^hingtonj D.C: Brookings Institution!Carini, Patricia F. 1975. Observation and Description: An Alternative

Methodology for the Investigation of Human Phenomena "Wrand Forte?University of North Dakota PressT

Churchman, West, and A, H. Schainbiatt. 1969. "PPB: How Can It OeImplemented?'^ Public Administration Review No. 29 (March-April).

Dunn, William N. 1982. "Reforms as Arguments" in Ernest House, ct al(ed), Evaluation Studies: Review Annual Vol. 7, pp.83-166 (BeverlyHills, CA: Sage): 83~T86: ^ "

Fischer, Frank. 19S0. Politics, Values, and Public Policy: The Problem ofMethodology (Boalder, CO: Westview PressT

Forester, John. 198'L ''i\ Critical Empirical framework tor the Analysis ofPublic Policy," New Political Science 9/10 (Summer-FaH): 33-61.

G. David. 1S80. "From Policy Science to Poliey AnalysisCentury of Progress,"' Poliey Studies Journal 9:4 (special issues i535-544.

[ambrick, Ralph S., Jr.. 1974. ' A Guide for the Analysis of Policy iments," Policy Sciences 5 (Decei

ouse, Ernest. 1980. Evaluating with Validity (Beverly HiUs, ^]] Harold. 1963. The Future of Political Science

,,erner, Daniel, and Harold D, Lasswell (eds.). 1951. The Poiiey Sciences(Stanford University Press),

indblom, Charles E , find David K. Cohen, 1979. Usable Knowledge; SocialScience and Soci&l Problem Solving (New York: Yale University PressX"

-•litroff, Jan J., and Richard O. Mason. 1980. "Policy Analysis as \rgu-'^^^^'" Policy studies Journal 9:4 (special issue no.2): 579-585.

'atton, Michael Qulun. 1975. Alternative Evaluation Research P,}rand Forks: University of North Dakota

Charles L. 1968. The Politics and Economics(Washington, DC: Brookingslnstitutlon)7

David. 1982. Policy Analysis, Education, and Everyday Lifeexington, MA: D.C. Heath),"

Robert A., and Arnold Rose, 1979. Whv Sociology Does NotIt .. - . . ™ _ . ^ . . _ . .-.rV...*i — — — _ , _ PJ^ ' ' —II -..III--. , F—