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.     

Do populist values or civic values drive support for referendums in Europe?

Representative democracy gives voters the right to influence who governs but its influence on policy making is only indirect. Free and fair referendums give voters the right to decide a policy directly. Elected representatives usually oppose referendums as redundant at best and as undermining their authority at worst. Democratic theorists tend to take electing representatives as normal and as normatively superior. The nominal association of popular decision making and populism has strengthened this negative view. Public opinion surveys show substantial support for holding referendums on important issues. Two major theories offer contrasting explanations for popular support for referendums; they reflect populist values or a commitment to the civic value of participation. This innovative paper tests an integrated model of both theories by the empirical analysis of a 17-country European survey. There is substantial support for all three civic hypotheses: referendum endorsement is positively influenced by attitudes towards participation, democratic ideals and whether elected representatives are perceived as responsive. By contrast, there is no support for populist hypotheses that the socioeconomically weak and excluded favour referendums and minimal support for the effect of extreme ideologies. The conclusion shows that most criticisms of referendums also apply to policy making by elected representatives. While referendums have limits on their use, there is a democratic argument for holding such ballots on major issues to see whether or not a majority of voters endorse the choice of their nominal representatives.     

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.