The policy movement as a policy problem

The policy movement is unified by a common interest in the improvement of policy decisions through scientific inquiry. The movement is differentiated, however, because this common interest is highly ambiguous and subject to interpretation from different perspectives. This paper applies a policy sciences perspective to the movement's disappointments over the last few decades, and in particular, the failure to realize earlier aspirations for rational, objective analysis on the more important and controversial policy issues. The paper offers a definition and diagnosis of the underlying problem, and suggests what can be done about it as a matter of individual and collective choice.     

Designing policy for the long term: agency,policy feedback and policy change

Policy Sciences - Policy feedback research faces a potential pivot point owing to recent theoretical and substantive advances. Concerted attention now spans new scientific communities, such as...     

Problems,politics, and policy streams in policy implementation

We apply Kingdon's multiple streams framework (MSF) to policy implementation to reflect a nested process separate from but interdependent with policymaking. Then, we generate a hypothesis concerning the conditional nature of problems, policies, and politics stream impacts on policy implementation. We test our hypotheses with state‐level implementation of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, using a pooled data set of 10 years of toxic releases data. Findings suggest an important interaction occurs among problems, policies, and politics during the policy implementation process. More specifically, when any of the three is held at median levels, only marginal differences in outputs occur; however, when all three are increased to extreme levels, substantive differences emerge. Conclusions connect policy implementation to larger issues of MSF theoretical development and suggest implications for governance.     

Postmodern policy analysis: Discourse and identity in welfare policy

Postmodern inquiry into the discursive construction of identity has the potential to make a distinctive, democratizing contribution to public policy analysis. More so than conventional approaches, a postmodern policy analysis offers the opportunity to interrogate assumptions about identity embedded in the analysis and making of public policy, thereby enabling us to rethink and resist questionable distinctions that privilege some identities at the expense of others. Public policy analysis can benefit from postmodernism's emphasis on how discourse constructs identity. A review of postmodernism and postmodern approaches to interrogating identity is followed by an exercise in postmodern policy analysis. Social welfare policy in contemporary postindustrial America is shown to participate in the construction and maintenance of identity in ways that affect not just the allocation of public benefits, but also economic opportunities outside of the state. Mired in old, invidious distinctions (e.g., independent/dependent, contract/charity, family/promiscuity), welfare policy discourse today helps to recreate the problems of yesterday, particularly as a critical factor in reproducing women's poverty.     

Uber in Queensland: From policy fortress to policy change

Emerging technologies are challenging the regulatory systems and industry policy settings that were settled during the microeconomic reforms of the 1980s and 1990s. In 1994, in the absence of credible competition in the taxi industry, Queensland legislation constructed a protective ‘policy fortress’ that benefited taxi licence holders in return for specific service standards. This entrenched a policy–industry nexus upheld by all political parties for two decades. But in 2014–2016, using disruptive digital platforms, Uber and similar organisations directly challenged the policy regime by rapidly expanding their unlicensed operations for personalised passenger bookings. Queensland policy-makers were eventually shocked into establishing a major review, leading to the termination of the protective regime. Drawing on interviews and policy documents, we identify the contextual and ideational factors that facilitated the unlocking of policy change. As consumers became more ‘tech-savvy’, the policy ideas championed by powerful new agents of change came to highlight consumer convenience, flexibility, and the ‘sharing economy’. Such narratives reframed the economic disruptions flowing from new technologies as opportunities to lower service costs.     

Network-centric policy design

Two important challenges in policy design are better understanding of the design space and consideration of the temporal factors. Moreover, in recent years it has been demonstrated that understanding the complex interactions of policy measures can play an important role in policy design and analysis. In this paper, the advances made in conceptualization and application of networks to policy design in the past decade are highlighted. Specifically, the use of a network-centric policy design approach in better understanding the design space and temporal consequences of design choices are presented. Network-centric policy design approach has been used in classification, visualization, and analysis of the relations among policy measures as well as ranking of policy measures using their internal properties and interactions, and conducting sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulations. Furthermore, through use of a decision support system, network-centric approach facilitates ranking, visualization, and selection of policies using different sets of criteria, and exploring the potential for compromise in policy formulation. The advantage of the network-centric approach is providing the ability to go beyond visualizations and analysis of policies and piecemeal use of network concepts as a tool for different policy design tasks to moving to a more integrated bottom–up approach to design. Furthermore, the computational advantages of the network-centric policy design in considering temporal factors such as policy sequencing and addressing issues such as layering, drift, policy failure, and delay are presented. Finally, some of the current challenges of network-centric design are discussed, and some potential avenues of exploration in policy design through use of computational methodologies, as well as possible integration with approaches from other disciplines, are highlighted.     

Comparative policy analysis

Conclusion As editors, we would be remiss to submit that insufficient comparative policy analysis has been done without making explicit suggestions for further research. One critical problem is that the lack of comparable data remains a major hindrance to comparative work. This, in turn leads into the need for a larger inventory of careful cross-national case studies and primary data sources. Although significant advances have been made in data collection and analysis in recent years, these have occurred primarily in areas where quantification is relatively easy, such as economic and demographic statistics. Two related specific avenues for further research are suggested by reflections on the current limits of comparative analysis. First, more conceptual work based in solid methodology is needed if policy studies are to deal with complexities involved in comparative efforts. As part of this, theoretical constructs must be matched with carefully derived data and evidence, both quantitative and qualitative. As Lasswell has noted, the vitality of the comparative method will depend on whether the expansion of the stock of facts accepted as relevant is accompanied by methodological changes that render facts indispensable to the understanding and management of the policy process. Second, more work should be done to explain and expand upon cultural variables. As this task is addressed in more detail, we should be better able to appreciate the effects of cultural factors on the policy process.In conclusion, it seems especially appropriate to reassert the value of comparative analysis now, when the policy sciences appear to be at a critical juncture. From both domestic and international perspectives, the growing appreciation of crossnational policy research and policy impacts underlines the need for comparative analysis. It is clear that the interest in and importance of policy studies have grown in recent years, but the borders of the constituency remain vague. Efforts to delineate and refine the outlines of the field will almost surely increase. We think that this essay and the ones that follow argue strongly for the inclusion of the comparative dimension.We would like to express our appreciation to The Ford Foundation for its initial encouragement and later financial assistance towards producing this special issue, and particularly to the Foundation's Public Policy Committee and its Chairman, Harold Howe II. We would also like to thank The Rand Corporation for administering that grant. All the papers included here were written specially for this issue.

---

     

Validating policy indicators

Although validity of an indicator, that is, whether it means what it purports to, is critical to its legitimate use in policy, there are few systematic approaches to validation. The reason lies largely in the traditions of positivist social science which require the separation of fact and theory and allow no place for meaning and valuation. The paper proposes approaches to test the validity of both indicators and the conceptual frameworks on which they are based. The most powerful forms of validation require the application of a priori concepts and models. Validation is partly judgmental and never simply mechanical. The validity of a measure is dependent on the context of its use. Social and political processes are an important part of validation, particularly in determining the appropriateness of the assumptions. If an indicator is to be valid, it should be chosen or designed iteratively with the policies it will help to shape.The author wishes to thank Sir Geoffrey Vickers, Professor Martin Krieger and Dr. Norman Shulman for their thoughtful comments on an earlier version of this paper.     

Policy roles: an analysis of policy formulators and policy implementors

This paper presents an empirical analysis of individuals in policy formulating and policy implementing roles. Data for the comparison are from interviews with a random sample of 119 New Zealand middle-level public administrators from 27 government departments.The individuals in the policy formulating roles were slightly younger; however, those in the formulating and implementing roles varied little from each other in terms of social background, educational attainment and career patterns. Few differences were evident in regard to job satisfaction, decisional authority, and hierarchical relations. Significant differences between policy formulators and policy implementors were discovered in terms of work load, career aspirations, and awareness of political influences in governmental policymaking.From the evidence of this study, the New Zealand administrative system does not allocate policy formulating roles to individuals different from those who implement policies. Differences between formulators and implementors in the New Zealand system appear to stem from the nature of the work of the two policy roles.     

The first supranational policy in the European Union: Competition policy

Abstract. Competition policy has become a salient issue in the last decade. The purpose of this article is to widen discussion amongst political scientists of an issue that has been dominated by the disciplines of economics and law. The concept of a competition policy is the foundation stone of the entire European Union. It lies at the very heart of efforts to establish a common market and within the EU competition policy arena the decision making powers have laid firmly with the supranational institutions. This article provides an overview of the issue; it traces the constitutive foundations of policy and discusses the functions of the core EU competition policy actors. It is primarily concerned with the European Commission, in particular, DGIV. The paper accounts for DGIV's metamorphosis in the 1980s and the myriad of problems now confronting its procedures and efficiency in the 1990s. Whether these defects can be resolved will ultimately determine the fate of DGIV. Arguments for institutional reform are raging through the European institutions and DGIV provides no exception. The paper concludes with a discussion on the plausibility of the creation of an independent European Competition Office, modelled on the role of the German Federal Cartel Office.     

Variation in policy success: radical right populism and migration policy

How do radical right populist parties influence government policies in their core issue of immigration? This article provides a systematic analysis of the direct and indirect effects of radical right anti-immigration parties on migration policy reforms in 17 West European countries from 1990 to 2014. Insights from migration policy theory serve to explain variations in the migration policy success of the radical right. While previous studies mostly treat migration policy as uniform, it is argued that this approach neglects the distinct political logics of immigration and integration policy. This article reveals significant variations in policy success by policy area. While immigration policies have become more liberal despite the electoral success of the radical right, when the radical right is in government office it enacts more restrictions in integration policies. Accordingly, anti-immigrant mobilisation is more likely to influence immigrants’ rights than their actual numbers.     

政策网络:公共政策创新的视角

引入政策网络分析的方法可以真实地认识到公共政策创新过程中的现实图景.我国某些公共政策创新失败的原因正是其忽略了政策网络的存在,忽略了政府对政策网络中个人和组织的依赖属性.我们应当重视政策网络在政策创新过程中的作用,通过培育网络主体的公共理性.构建协商民主与政策网络的良性互动,加强政策网络的学习机制等,从而形成合理、优良的创新政策,保证公共政策创新对社会的持续作用.     

公共政策制定中影响政策认同的因素分析

政策认同是指一项政策在被政策主体制定出来之后获得目标群体接受的情况,在政策的制定和执行当中发挥了十分重要的作用,目标群体的政治社会化程度、目标群体的思想认识水平、对政策的合理性的看法、政策对目标群体利益的影响、政府权威性的情况以及社会环境的变化等,都可以对政策认同造成影响。