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.     

Sequential lineup presentation: Patterns and policy

Sequential lineups were offered as an alternative to the traditional simultaneous lineup. Sequential lineups reduce incorrect lineup selections; however, the accompanying loss of correct identifications has resulted in controversy regarding adoption of the technique. We discuss the procedure and research relevant to (1) the pattern of results found using sequential versus simultaneous lineups; (2) reasons (theory) for differences in witness responses; (3) two methodological issues; and (4) implications for policy decisions regarding the adoption of sequential lineups.     

Mandate design and implementation: Enhancing implementation efforts and shaping regulatory styles

This research addresses the influence of mandate design upon implementation efforts and regulatory styles. Empirical analyses of these relationships are conducted for state-level land-use and development-management mandates enacted by California, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and Washington. Three key findings provide insights about the role of mandate design in facilitating policy implementation. First, implementation efforts are more easily influenced than regulatory styles. Second, it is more difficult to foster conciliatory regulatory styles than it is to foster more legalistic styles. Third, a high degree of statutory coherence is not a necessary condition for strong implementation efforts. More generally, the findings show that policy designers can enhance implementation efforts and shape regulatory styles by altering key mandate features.     

Direct investment in the less‐developed countries: British and American investments 1958–64

Most of the existing literature on share contracts is based explicitly or implicitly on agriculture, a sector in which share contracts are seldom dominant and apparently on the decline. Moreover, since agricultural activities have some rather special characteristics, the purpose of the present article is to analyse contractual choice and especially the choice of share contracts in a sector in which share contracts are dominant, namely fishing. In the process of explaining the dominance of share contracts in fishing, the article also explains (a) some heretofore neglected features of these share contracts, such as the way in which shares are calculated and the treatment of repair and maintenance expenditures, (b) the nature and extent of interlinked transactions, (c) the exceptional cases where share contracts are not used, and (d) the relevance of varying environmental conditions and especially those of poor developing countries to the nature of contracts in fishing, and to the differences therein between agriculture and fishing.     

Low Self-Control, Deviant Peer Associations, and Juvenile Cyberdeviance

Gottfredson and Hirschi??s (1990) general theory of crime and Akers?? (1998) social learning theory have received strong empirical support for explaining crime in both the physical and cyberworlds. Most of the studies examining cybercrime, however, have only used college samples. In addition, the evidence on the interaction between low self-control and deviant peer associations is mixed. Therefore, this study examined whether low self-control and deviant peer associations explained various forms of cyberdeviance in a youth sample. We also tested whether associating with deviant peers mediated the effect of low self-control on cyberdeviance as well as whether it conditioned the effect. Low self-control and deviant peer associations were found to be related to cyberdeviance in general, as well as piracy, harassment, online pornography, and hacking specifically. Deviant peer associations both mediated and exacerbated the effect of low self-control on general cyberdeviance, though these interactions were not found for the five cyberdeviant types examined.