Policy analysis: past,present, and future

This article reviews three themes in the past, present and future of policy analysis—policy analysis as a paradigm for policy advice, the fragility of public policy analysis organizations, and the emergence of ideologically based policy analysis organizations. The policy sciences have evolved from the rational model and the efficiency emphasis to an increased sensitivity to political factors in policy settings and to softer forms of analysis as legitimate ways of understanding policy issues. The article traces the growth of policy analysis staff in both the legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government. The article closes with a consideration of the implications for policy analysis education of the trends described above.

Commenting on the state of policy analysis is like trying to describe Southern California. Continuing claims and counter claims have been made about the area's demise. Yet, people from many backgrounds continue to flock to it and proclaim native status. Observers agree there is something important there but they warn that its future is potentially imperiled.

This is a selective roadmap to the past and present of policy analysis with some added perspectives on its future.⁽¹⁾ Three themes are developed in the discussion. One is the durability of policy analysis as a paradigm for policy advice. The second is that, despite this durability, government policy analysis organizations are fragile entities. The third is the challenge to policy analysis brought about by ideologically oriented policy movements. Rather than drawing a tight boundary around policy analysis, this discussion defines the field as those activities which are undertaken, ostensibly at least, in support of decision making about prospective actions for addressing public problems. The key distinguishing points are that the activities—whether labeled policy analysis, policy research, policy design, implementation analysis, program analysis, regulatory analysis, or something else—are: (1) decision oriented, (2) problem driven, and (3) forward 10oking.⁽²⁾ Specifically excluded from this categorization are both retrospective evaluations and traditional academic research. As the diverse set of labels listed above suggests, policy analysis presently comes in many forms and is produced in a variety of institutional settings.     

Anti-Doping Policy in Sport: The Politics of International Policy Co-ordination

The characteristics and functioning of international policy processes are examined through the analysis of a case which explores the development of policy towards doping by athletes. Changes are traced in the dominant perception of the issue of doping in sport from a series of relatively self-contained problems which could be addressed by individual sports federations or competition organizers to one that requires extensive co-operation between federations and governments, and which has brought the issue of harmonization of policy to the forefront. The interests of the policy actors are identified and the role of two key organizations, the Council of Europe and the International Olympic Committee, in facilitating closer co-ordination, is examined. It is argued that the process is best understood by using the concept of a policy network as both a metaphor and as an analytical tool. The value of the concept of an epistemic community is also considered and it is suggested that not only are doctors and scientists marginal in shaping anti-doping policy, but that there are also limited conditions under which epistemic communities can fulfil an effective role in the policy process.     

Policy analysis for local government

This paper considers the impact of quality approaches within the personal social services over the last decade. In particular it examines how applicable private sector approaches to quality, such as Total Quality Management, are in the public and personal social services. Both the hard and soft tools of Total Quality Management are critically considered in terms of their relevance and ability to modernise service provision. In the context of the managerial discourse presently dominating the public sector, it is argued that the hard tools of Total Quality Management, such as performance measurement and review, will only add to managerial control; whilst the soft tools of empowerment and cultural change will lose their critical effect. It is the contention of this paper that unless the current Labour government's Modernising Services Policy succeeds in democratising the process of developing quality then it will only add to the managerial agenda at the expense of improving service provision.     

The Atlantis of personnel: The lost world of public employee discipline in the state government

Though there are many procedural job protections afforded public employees, there is a surprising amount of disciplinary actions meted out. A survey of 50 State governments showed that the magnitude of employee discipline is relatively high; there is a positive relationship between states which have low disciplinary records, and their lack of control of the disciplinary process; and there is a “progressive disciplinary profilet” prototypes state that exhibits a high degree of discipline when corrective and minor disciplinary actions are multiples of major disciplinary actions.     

Policy implementation effectiveness in cross-national analysis

This study focuses upon the prablem of effectivess in the implementation of public policies. The problen is analyzed in terms of three sets of envirormental variables or dimensions which emerge from the literature on policy implementation. these di-mensions are (1) the systemic environment, (2) the bureaucratic environilent and (3) the operational environment. A critical reveiw of several models of implementation effectiveness is included.     

From a discipline without a subject to a subject without a discipline.

This article suggests an approach to the classical issues of the public administration theory, through the so-called new institutionalism. It argues that public policies could be taken by public administration theory as a new object of study, which this theory has gradually lost in the past. Nevertheless, whether the policy sciences can be useful1 or not to develop public administration as a discipline depends on the theoretical bridge offered by the new institutional approach. To propose how and why is the main objective of this article, based on the Mexican academic debate.     

Public administrators and policy legitimization: Policy analysis,politics and power

This article discusses the factors public administration faculty should incorporate into the curriculum in order to equip students to engage in the policy legitimization process. In order to produce leaders, public administration programs should emphasize the nature of the political system, an understanding of the legitimacy of subgovernments, the importance of coalition building and the psychological factors associated with policy choices.

Integration of policy analysis into the public administration curriculum requires that students be equipped with an in-depth understanding of both the political environment and the political process. This is true because public administrators are deeply involved in the stages of policy development, adoption, and implementation; activities which reach beyond the narrow confines of program management and into the realm of politics. Consequently, public administrators serve in a variety of capacities: as policy advocates, program champions, or as defenders of client interests. It is in these roles that public administrators move into the political arena. Policy analysis activities provide the discipline with the opportunity to move beyond an emphasis on a narrow concern with simply “managing” government and into the realm of policy choice, policy advocacy, political power and the exercise of leadership.

Public administration as a discipline, and teaching faculty in particular, face the challenge of increasing the relevance of the master's degree to policy leadership. Astrid Merget, past president of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration, expressed this need for increased emphasis on policy leadership training quite eloquently in 1991:

“Our vision of the holder of a master's degree in our field is that of a leader, not merely a manager or an analyst. But we have not been marketing that vision.”⁽¹⁾

Merget attributes partial responsibility for the low public esteem of government service to the attitudes, teaching, and research activities of public administration faculty who have failed to link the “lofty” activities of government (environmental protection, health care, the promotion of citizen equality) with public administration. Accordingly, the academic standard of “neutrality” governing teaching and research acts as an obstacle to teaching the fundamentals of the goals of public policy. This professional commitment to neutrality places an emphasis on administrative efficiency at the expense of policy advocacy. The need, according to Merget, is to reestablish the linkage between policy formulation and policy management. Such a teaching strategy will enhance the purposefulness of public administration as a career. Failure to do so will relegate public administration programs to the continued production of governmental managers, not administrative leaders.

The integration of policy analysis into the public administration curriculum affords the discipline with the opportunity to focus on policy leadership and escape the limitation associated with an emphasis on program management. Teaching policy analysis skills cannot, and should not, be divorced from the study of politics and the exercise of political power. This is true because politics involves the struggle over the allocation of resources, and public policy is a manifestation of the outcome of that political struggle. Public policy choices reflect, to some degree, the political power of the “winners” and the relative lack of power by “losers.” The study of public policy involves the study of conflict and the exercise of power.

Teaching public administration students about the exercise of power cannot be limited to a discussion of partisan political activities. Public administrators serve in an environment steeped in the exercise of partisan and bureaucratic power.⁽²⁾ It is practitioners of public administration who formulate, modify and implement public policy choices. Such bureaucratic activity is appropriate, provided that it is legitimated by the political system. Legitimacy can be provided to public administrators only by political institutions through the political process.

Teaching public administration students about policy analysis and policy advocacy necessitates an understanding of the complexities associated with the concepts of policy legitimacy and policy legitimization.     

Policy Network Creation: The Case of Energy Efficiency

What can broadly be described as a policy community has been established with the central purpose of co-ordinating policy implementation in the field of energy efficiency in domestic buildings. A complete understanding of the processes of policy network formation cannot be achieved in this case without a thorough analysis of the construction of cognitive structures which influence the behaviour of actors and underpin the policy network. Discourse analysis is an effective means of studying cognitive structures. An understanding of the creative and unpredictable role of agents such as ministers is also important, suggesting that the study of policy network formation can be enlightened by a historical institutionalist approach that involves a role for agency as well as structural influences. The formation of the energy efficiency policy network is studied in the context of a critique of an earlier 'economic' institutionalist case study of policy network formation.     

解读美国新政府对非政策

2009年4月以来,奥巴马政府对非洲采取了一连串引人注目的外交动作,为新政府的对非政策确定基调,积极造势。首先,新政府积极宣示对非政策。奥巴马在加纳议会发表了题为“民主、良政、发展与和平”的演讲,希拉里国务卿在第八届《非洲增长与机会法案》（AGOA）论坛年会上发表讲话,     

谈教师惩戒权的使用

“没有惩罚的教育是不完整的教育”,这点人们已经达成共识,但是如何把惩罚与体罚或变相体罚区别开来,则众说纷纭。本文认为宜用“惩戒”代替“惩罚”,教师在行使惩戒权时要注意避免踏入体罚和变相体罚的雷区,在行使惩戒权之前要比学生为自己的行为辩解,行使惩戒权的关键是让学生知道校规的严肃性,目的是让学生对自己的过错行为负责,教师要把惩戒当成一门艺术来研究其有效的方式。     

Rationality and Rhetoric: The Contribution To Social Care Policy

Between 1982 and 1992 Roy Griffiths, then Managing Director of the Sainsbury supermarket chain, wrote two reports which led to significant changes in the organization and management of health and social services in the UK. This article provides a detailed account of the policy process which led to the latter of these reports, which dealt with community care, in order to assesses Griffiths' personal contribution to policy making.