This post discusses two journal articles:

Hird, J.A. (2005). Policy analysis for what? The effectiveness of nonpartisan policy research organizations. The policy studies journal, 33 (1), pp. 83-105.

Shulock, N. (1999). The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it? Journal of policy analysis and management, 18 (2), pp. 226-244.

Both Shulock and Hird discuss the use of the knowledge generated by policy analysis in policymaking. Both scholars argue that policy analysis is primarily used in the policy process, and has a smaller effect on the policies themselves.

Shulock discusses two views of policymaking in her article. The first, she calls the traditional view. The traditional view comes out of a rationalist perspective of policymaking and argues that policy analysis should be and is used to solve problems. Policy analysis is, in this view, a tool to reduce uncertainty, maximize utility, and maximize the benefits relative to costs. Thus, policy analysis should have a direct impact on policy, and legislation should be based directly on policy analysis. In this view of policymaking, the public is both irrelevant, uneducated, and unimportant. In contrast, the interpretive perspective argues that the role of policy analysis is and should be to influence the debate around policy. This perspective sees policy analysis not so much as a tool but as another factor influencing democratic participation and discourse. This view sees the public as important and attentive. In this view, policy analysis is part of the complex policy process. Shulock is proposing that the interpretive view is the proper understanding of the role of policy analysis in the United States.

Drawing from my experience in Washington, DC and my academic training as a policy scholar I tend to agree with Shulock’s descriptive assessment. There are countless newspaper articles that discuss a major issue and also quote either a policy analyst’s perspective on an issue or directly quote analyses. This article, for example discusses some state’s inability to accept stimulus funds targeted at low-income individuals because they are unable to raise matching funds. At the end, Harry Holzer, an economist at the Urban Institute and a former professor of mine at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute, supplies a quote meant to encourage states to find the matching funds. Based on his work, he knows that cash and near cash assistance to low-income individuals will stimulate the economy more than assistance to others because none of that assistance will likely be saved, and all of it will be spent rather quickly. This quote is meant to influence the debate.

In contrast, based on my studies of the Clinton Health Care proposal in my Master’s program, where I was lucky enough to learn from some of the key individuals involved in crafting the proposal, I would argue that the Clinton proposal was based almost entirely on recommendations made by policy analysts. This bill was quickly killed off, vastly decreased President Clinton’s political capital, and severely damaged the Democratic party politically. Not only was the bill a complete political failure at the time, but it’s failure continues to influence health care reform debates. While the bill was crafted to solve a problem, and likely would have solved the problem well, the fact that policy analysis directly influenced the bill rather than indirectly cut many key players out of the process and was subject to calls of elitism and insider-ism. The Clinton health care proposal makes me wonder if the traditional view of policy analysis and democratic politics can ever be compatible?

I’m not entirely sure that Shulock’s proscriptive argument holds in all types of policymaking. There are plenty of issues that are of little interest to the general public, or that are so overly technical that the general public cannot adequately weigh in. I think there is room for both perspectives in the policymaking process, the problem becomes drawing the line where should one be used over the other in a democratic polity. If the public does have an interest in something that they do not have the training or education to understand, what role should the public will play in the policymaking process? What role should policy analysis play? This discussion seems particularly apropos in light of the current debate on healthcare reform.

Hird agrees with Shulock that policy analysis’ role in policymaking is indirect and process-based. Hird surveyed state legislators to determine their views of the influence of policy analysis on policymaking. Rather than looking only at published documents, Hird looks at policy analysis organizations as institutions and surveys policymakers not only on their use of documents but on their use of informal and formal contacts, as well. Hird finds that policy organizations are important sources of information for legislators, although they are perceived as having little direct influence on policymaking. He also finds that larger, more advanced, and older organizations are seen as more influentional than small, newer organizations focused solely on descriptive analysis.

I agree with Hird’s analysis and I appreciate his view of policy analysis as more than just a written document. Having worked in a non-profit that does some policy analysis, most of our influence with legislators was based on informal contacts or testimony, much less was based on published documents. I also found that there were some policymakers with whom we had a great amount of influence, to the extent of writing sections of bills for them, and others who would argue that we had very little influence. I found his discussion of individual legislator traits to be particularly interesting for that reason. I do wonder about the internal validity of his survey responses. I wonder if his participants were concerned about looking uneducated if they did not say they valued the information provided by policy organizations, thus biasing his data upward. I also wonder if he was clear enough in terms of which organizations would be considered non-partisan policy research organizations. After all, there are many organizations that claim to be non-partisan but really promote an ideology, this could cause some problems with the study’s construct validity. Overall, the study seems to reflect the role of policy organizations as I have observed them, and is consistent with the findings of similar studies.