Consulting critics: A new role for academic policy analysts

It is by now widely accepted that social science research has only an indirect and general impact on public policymaking. Academic social science research, it is often argued, is antithetical to policy research: the former is animated by traditional scientific canons while the latter is specific and problem-oriented. Moreover, modern bureaucracies are now understood as political environments within which pure research will be routinely ignored if it does not serve someone's interests. For these and other reasons, social scientists are being encouraged either to eschew policy research or not to expect much influence. This article provides an alternative model of social scientists in the policy process, as consulting critics reviewing, analyzing and commenting upon substantive policy research. This model holds benefits for both scholars and clients, turns the canons of scientific inquiry into assets instead of liabilities, and responds to some of the concerns recently raised in the literature concerning the role of social science in the policy process.     

A new typology for R&D laboratories: Implications for policy analysts

Science policy analysts have traditionally classified R&D laboratories as government, private, or university. The authors argue that this view is outmoded and provides little help in understanding the rapidly changing environment of R&D laboratories. They provide and test an alternative scheme designed to cope with “sector blurring” and the intermingling of market and political influences on R&D laboratories. The authors also discuss implications of their scheme for a variety of contemporary science policy issues.     

Institutional policy analysis: A critical review

Institutional policy analysts, who study government reform and its consequences, have made three strategic choices: first, they support or emphasize procedural values; second, they use a single method to examine a single reform of a single institution; and third, they focus on declining institutions, formal reforms, and coercive controls. The author challenges these choices and argues in favor of alternative approaches.     

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.     

Professional styles in government: Touchstones for the new policy scientist

New kinds of policy analysts and policy scientists are being trained in university graduate programs but the outlines of this new profession remain fuzzy. A comparative analysis of other professionals in government advisory roles may provide touchstones by which to develop the new profession. The article reports interviews with urban planners, lawyers, economists and political scientists about their experience in government. Propositions are developed about characteristic modes of thought and problem-solving styles of each profession and conclusions drawn about the relative effectiveness of each set of professional skills in a policymaking process. It is then suggested that the new policy scientist profession should develop some of the positive skills of the other fields in order to enhance effectiveness.     

U.S. Government solar policy: Appropriate roles for nonfinancial incentives

During 1975–1980, U.S. solar policy emphasized financial incentives to potential purchasers as the primary means of stimulating the introduction and spread of residential solar heating systems. This article examines the importance of nonfinancial factors in decisions to purchase residential solar heating systems during these early stages of market penetration and discusses the implications these factors have for policy design. Drawing upon research on the diffusion of innovations, on the effectiveness of income tax credits for solar heating systems, and on solar energy system purchasing decisions themselves, the argument is developed that nonfinancial factors such as system reliability, warranty protection, environmental concerns, adequate information about system costs and performance, and confidence in system suppliers and installers are at least as important as initial system cost to early purchasers. These considerations were not reflected in U.S. solar policy to the extent warranted. As a result, that policy failed to promote the balanced development of all elements essential to a viable residential solar heating industry and probably failed to alter the intentions of many prospective solar system purchasers. The reasons U.S. policymakers were relatively insensitive to nonfinancial factors are discussed and an alternative strategy for increasing the rate of market penetration of residential solar heating systems is offered.A previous paper addressing this subject was prepared for the International Conference on Energy Use Management, Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany, 26–30 October 1981. That paper served as the basis for the present article. The author wishes to thank several reviewers for their helpful and constructive criticisms of earlier versions of this article.     

Quality of care assessment: policy relevant issues

This paper reviews the quality assessment literature, presents a study which compares five different methods of assessing quality of care, and proposes policy recommendations. Results are: (1) Most quality assessment issues are a century old. (2) The results of assessment of quality of care are dependent on the method used; therefore, more methodologic research is needed. (3) The use of lists of criteria, concerning what a physician does, to assess quality of care could result in decreased efficiency in the health system by requiring the performance of ineffective procedures. (4) It is not certain that examination of the level of care rendered will increase the health level of the population; therefore, any national program which assesses quality of care must be prospectively evaluated. (5) A quality assessment system must be concerned with both the population who received services at the institution, and the population who did not but for whom the institution is responsible.From the Carnegie-Commonwealth Clinical Scholar Program of the Johns Hopkins University.Supported in part by grants 5R01HS00110 and 5T01HS00112 from the National Center for Health Services Research and Development and by the Carnegie Corporation and Commonwealth Fund. Dr. Brook was a Carnegie-Commonwealth Clinical Scholar and is now a Commissioned Officer in the U.S. Public Health Service stationed at the National Center for Health Services Research and Development. This paper does not represent the official position of this agency.     

Resilience and robustness in policy design: a critical appraisal

Resilience and robustness are exciting concepts for policy researchers. Their broad use in other disciplines has motivated social scientists and policy researchers to adopt them in analyses. In the present paper, we review definitions of these concepts and the primary theoretical and empirical challenges presented by resilience and robustness as lenses for improving the understanding of policy process and policy design. The results reveal that the two concepts differ in their potential value for public policy analysis. Despite its diffusion and ‘charme’, resilience does not appear to be useful and may be misleading, whereas robustness exhibits great potential with respect to both analysis and design.     

Technology assessment and policy analysis

Technology assessment involves questions that are in principle beyond the capacity of science to answer. Because available data and models are ambiguous, ability to evaluate the strength and fit of evidence and the adequacy of arguments assumes paramount importance. In this sense, analysis becomes a sort of generalized jurisprudence. Moreover, the impact of a technology depends on the institutional framework within which it is used. Hence, the analyst must also pay attention to institutional constraints and to peoples' attempts to manipulate them.     

A critical overview of the evolutionary approach to air pollution abatement policy

Emerging flaws in existing air quality policies and changing air quality objectives are being addressed with piecemeal modifications. The evolving policy combines a command and control (CaC) core with add-on opportunities to trade pollution control responsibilities based on economic incentives. While the add-ons have greatly improved air quality policies, retention of the CaC core means that we are still paying far too much for air quality that is still unacceptable. Specific reasons why a CaC core limits emissions trading and reduces economic efficiency are discussed. They include: (1) the arbitrary and irrelevant nature of CaC-based assignment of pollution control responsibility to firms; (2) trading limits for emissions offsets in ‘non-attainment areas’; (3) all-ornothing deadlines that have been extended three times; (4) sunk costs as a barrier to innovation; (5) the illusion that a CaC-based policy has lower inventory and monitoring costs. The conclusion is that there will be a big difference between the performance of the existing policy, even with some additional modifications, and the kind of market incentives-based policies advocated by economists. Economists' proposals are now before Congress in congressionally sponsored studies. Reauthorization of the Clean Air Act, in some form, is expected this congressional session.     

A fresh look at a policy sciences methodology: collaborative modeling for more effective policy

Collaborative modeling offers a novel methodology that integrates core ideals in the policy sciences. The principles behind collaborative modeling enable policy researchers and decision makers to address interdisciplinarity, complex systems, and public input in the policy process. This approach ideally utilizes system dynamics to enable a multidisciplinary group to explore the relationships in a complex system. We propose that there is a spectrum of possibilities for applying collaborative modeling in the policy arena, ranging from the purely academic through full collaboration among subject matter experts, the general public, and decision makers. Likewise, there is a spectrum of options for invoking collaboration within the policy process. Results from our experiences suggest that participants in a collaborative modeling project develop a deeper level of understanding about the complexity in the policy issue being addressed; increase their agreement about root problems; and gain an appreciation for the uncertainty inherent in data and methods in studying complex systems. We conclude that these attributes of collaborative modeling make it an attractive option for improving the decision-making process as well as on-the-ground decisions.     

Making policy for complex systems: A medical model for economics

In recent years, policy analysts have shown a growing interest in less rationalistic policymaking models. Medical knowledge may be useful to consider in this regard, since it combines practical knowledge with the findings of numerous analytic disciplines, and includes procedures for dealing with high uncertainty. In contrast, economic policymaking often applies analysis from a single discipline directly to a multifaceted problem. A broader “socioeconomic” approach emulating the medical model would incorporate variables such as political, social, cultural, psychic, and environmental factors.     

Reforming policy roles in the Jordanian policy‐making process

The aim of this diagnostic analysis is to identify the weaknesses in the process of reforming policy in Jordan. This study will first present a diagnostic analysis of the characteristics of administrative reform in Jordan. Following this, weaknesses will be identified with a focus on policy roles in the policy‐making process. Administrative reform has long been an area of interest and development in Jordan since the early 1980s. Conferences were held, political and technical committees formed, and expertise and resources invested. The outcomes of these programs have been below expectations, with inadequate impact. This investigation paid attention on how Jordan can best invest its resources to maximize efficiency in the public sector, specifically the process of reforming policy. This study concludes that the primary factor impacting efficiency, accountability, and responsiveness is the degree of authority at both national and organizational level. Recent efforts in Jordan to tackle these issues could create more conflicts that threaten the Jordanian government's stability. Other resources have been dedicated to reviewing the rules and values that govern the relationship between state and society.