Upload
igor-demic
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/29/2019 The Place of Policy Analysis in Political Science
1/19
The Workshop
The Place of Policy Analysis
in Political Science: Five Perspectives
EDITOR'S NOTE: In view of the increasing professional interest in policy
analysis, I asked the five authors whose essays follow to address the
question: "What is policy analysis, and how does the analysis of policy
contribute to theories of politics?" Their responses to this question
comprise a short symposium on the subject.
Beyond Markets and Lawyers: Davis B. Bobrow, University of Maryland
There seems Little point in constructing a quintessential definition of
policy analysis. Few benefit from establishing a new orthodoxy, guild, disci-
pline, or field within political science. Now that we are emerging from the
fallacy that "theory" and "behavior" make sense in separate compartments,
we have nothing to gain from a new straight jacket which puts "policy" in a
separate compartment from the rest of political science. This does not mean
that we have to put ourselves in the trivial position of treating policy analysis
as any political science work with the word "policy" in the title or any
activity by people who dub themselves "policy analysts."
Any distinctive contribution the analysis of policy can make to the study
of politics, either as a science or as an applied skill (engineering),1 is based on
its emphasis on several elements of professional social scientific postures and
styles of works. One can reasonably note these elements and their implica-
tions for technical advance in political science, and still recognize that
analyses of public policy problems will almost inherently fall short of some of
the canons of scientific endeavor.2
First, the principle criterion for the allocation of professional energy is to
increase the probability of desirable collective outcomes and lessen that of
undesirable ones. Knowledge for knowledge's sake is not the cardinal value,
1 For a clarification of what I mean by engineering, see my "The Relevance Potentialof Different Products," in Raymond Tanter and Richard H. Ullman (eds.) Theory and
Policy in International Relations, Princeton University Press, 1972, pp. 204-228.2 Marries F. Reynolds, "Policy Science: A Conceptual and Methodological Analysis,"Policy Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 1 (March 1975), pp. 1-18.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, XXI, 2, May 1977 4 1 5
7/29/2019 The Place of Policy Analysis in Political Science
2/19
416 The Workshop
nor are topics for research and analysis of any special merit because they are
fashionable within a social science discipline. The professional may conceive
of the collective outcomes involved rather narrowly, e.g., along the line of
efficiency in a cost-effective ness sense, or more broadly in such terms as
peace, social justice, and human welfare. In any event, there is a consciouslinkage between preferred collective consequences and the choice of projects.
Second, the professional does not believe that the world can usefully be
thought of as simple, neatly compartmentalized, or static. Instead, there are
strong convictions about the need to handle complex systems of relation-
ships, to deal with externalities as an inherent part of any analysiSj and to
consider problems of changing contexts and adaptation over time. The
relationship between analysis and policy problems resembles preventive medi-
cine in that it is a continuing activity, and resembles architecture in that itinvolves a strong sense of context. In contrast to many lawyers, there is little
acceptance of the notion that policy problems come in neat case "boxes" to
be handled conclusively through the exercise of professional judgment and
decision by some legitimate authority largely in accord with publicly known
rules. And in contrast with many economists and operations researchers, the
professional rejects mechanical extrapolation from simplifying models whose
conditions are obviously not met in reality. In the early consideration of a
problem, stimulation from simple formal conceptions surely is acceptable (asis stimulation from humanistic fiction as well), but prescriptions based on
rigid application of these formalisms are seen to be at best useless and at
worst irresponsible. For example, the professional has little tolerance for
prescriptions which assume that the never-found conditions for market per-
fection will be met in practice, or with prescriptions deduced from game
theoretic analyses which assume that political participants have information
about their utilities which surpasses that possessed by anyone of our ac-
quaintance. The professional will be particularly skeptical of diagnoses and
designs which treat the participants in public policy as if they were all playing
the same game or evaluating consequences only in terms of a common utility
schedule. Analytic distinctions unrelated to concrete distinctions should not
play a crucial role in the results of public policy research and analysis.3
Third, the professional pursues with great vigor techniques useful for
prediction, causal comprehension, and manipulability estimates. Predictions
are the basis for the perception of collective needs, but they can do little
more than trigger a search procedure in the absence of a rich understanding of
3On the analytic versus concrete distinction, see Marion J. Levy, Jr. The Structure of
Society, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952.
7/29/2019 The Place of Policy Analysis in Political Science
3/19
The Place of Policy Analysis 417
the processes which produce particular collective outcomes. And prescrip-
tions call for the technical capacity to estimate how different interventions
will alter predictions as they work through the causal process. If one views
these technical capabilities as impossible in principle, then research and
analysis on policy problems is at best a form of citizenship and at worst aform of play for intellectuals. However, the professional is a relativist in these
matters. While constantly seeking better tools, collective problems can use-
fully be subjected to research and analysis even in a state of great technical
weakness. The tests for proceeding involve, first, the possibility of better
predictions, causal explanations, and manipulability estimates, and second,
the feasibility of presenting clear statements of uncertainties and confidence
limits. Policy problems do not wait for technical perfectionbut they do
demand technical candor.Fourth, the professional's concern with context manifests itself in the
treatment of time and the identification of primary and secondary partici-
pants in the policy problem. He deals with time in quite specific terms
because of the relationship of any policy problem to certain "political
calendars"be they fixed election dates, programmed international treaty
negotiations, a budget cycle, or the life expectancy of an aging head of state.
Timing is important in politics, and the temporal aspects of causal processes
and intervention impacts need to be treated in a coherent and explicitmanner. The analytic techniques used must accommodate to the time
features given by context, or the analysis must include some rationale for
relaxing these constraints. There is little reason to assume that the time
features are relatively uniform across issue areas or even across past, present,
and future within an issue area. Similar needs to adapt to the situation of the
particular problem apply to identifying the pertinent parties, and at an early
stage in policy research and analysis the professional must find out who they
are as given by the social situation or at least as possible within the time
horizon of the analysis. With changes in political and social organization, the
set of parties changes, and the professional does not have the luxury of
deciding which parties to deal with on the basis of the technical tractability
of their observable behavior, e.g., they engage in public record voting.
Participant rosters and time frameworks focus analysis initially, and the
choice of technique depends on these attributes of policy context.
Fifth, the professional assumes that a pervasive and crucial part of the
research and analysis task is to clarify distributional consequenceswho wins
and who loses. Any particular policy alternative, including organizational
alternatives, is linked with differing probabilities to distributions of money,
or power, or deference, or stress. The emphasis on distributional conse-
7/29/2019 The Place of Policy Analysis in Political Science
4/19
418 The Workshop
quences clearly adds richness to collective outcomes and aids explanatory
work on the processes and sensitivity to treatments of the political activity
from which they flow.
Sixthj the professional assumes that most policy problems involve conflicts
about what are high stakes at least for some of the participants. Accordingly,
he or she performs research and analysis fully expecting: (a) tough scrutiny to
discredit the conclusions reached; (b) adaptive actions by those adversely
affected to foil the policy options which emerge by blocking their choice or
their impact; and (c) attempts to exploit the analysis beyond its intellectual
merits as a tactical instrument in political conflict. By anticipating such a
harsh fate, the professional develops and presents research and analysis in
ways which protect the continuing validity of the conclusions and hinder
unwarranted use of them.
The professional posture and workstyle can be summarized in one phrase:
explicating hard choices. Political life abounds with devices and tacit agree-
ments to slide over hard choices between valued outcomes, between resources
for one program and another, between ideals about how the policy process
ought to be conducted and about the results it ought to produce. Even when
such choices are made, their implications are usually masked. And even when
their expected implications are displayed, their actual consequences as im-
plemented may well be obscure. To a disconcertingly similar extent, life inresearch and analysis communities abounds with a plentitude of masks which
obscure hard choices between different technical principles, the implications
of those chosen, and the extent to which their conclusions and approaches
look disappointing in retrospect. For both cultures, there is a premium on the
reduction of anxiety and the downplaying of limits to information and
wisdom. And there is a curious tendency in both policy and analysis cultures
to give little explicit attention to the intense internal politics of each. These
habits and tendencies are common to all of us. Hopefully the professionalorientations discussed above can in limited ways help to lessen their costs for
public policy and the study of politics.
Thought of in these terms, it is not surprising to see that much in the
orientation stressed above is not new. In times of collective dissatisfaction it
is perhaps normal for American political scientists to turn more towards
policy. The "newness" of the orientation above is not a very interesting issue.
What is important to note is the positive role it can play with regard to the
development of political science theory and methodology and the importantrole it gives to the student of politics in the analysis of policy.
With respect to theory and methodology, it helps us formulate what we
want "theories of. . ." by focusing on collective outcomes and their attain-
7/29/2019 The Place of Policy Analysis in Political Science
5/19
The Place of Policy Analysis 419
merit. We have then ground for a theory-building agenda other than that of a
problem's tractability to an available deductive apparatus. The orientation
encourages focused theoretical attack on particular limiting assumptions in
contrast with precise refinements within the boundaries of existing assump-
tions. Further, the concern with process and dynamics over time encouragestheoretical efforts which go beyond comparative statics and black-box treat-
ments of political phenomena which eliminate from their purview purposeful
human action. With regard to methodology, the orientation demands tech-
niques which improve our ability to recognize uncertainty, to work with
scant data from biased sources, and to clarify the variance of possible
outcomes. This demand may provide a useful balance to frequently heard
calls for methods which relegate uncertainty to a back burner, exploit rich
data from objective sources, and produce point estimates of central tenden-cies.
Under this orientation, the study of politics may not take command of
policy analysis. But it surely plays a much larger role than the recently
familiar ones of designing implementation procedures and staffs or providing
canned data bases and data manipulation software to public agencies. By
placing policies in the context of ongoing and changing political calendars,
rosters of participants, distributions of valued monetary and nonmonetary
goods, and political conflicts about fundamental values and mundane per-quisites, we call for students of politics to shape policy analysis strategies and
applications.
From these perspectives, policy analysis and political science badly need
each other.
The Interventionist Synthesis: Heinz Eulau, Stanford University
The new public policy is the old public administration in a refurbishedwardrobe. "It may be," a friendly critic of the field points out(Schick, 1975,
p. 167), "that the principal differences between public administration and
public policy relate to style and freshness.... The policy approach shares
public administration's positive thinking about government.... It retains the
old promise that research and science can produce governmental rationality.
It comes with none of the encumbrances of public administration." Does it
really?
As in the old public administration, it seems to me, there is in the new
public policy the same simplistic quest for the technological fix, the same
whimsical choice of topical issues, the same self-deception about possible
influence on governmental decision making, the same emphasis on an in-
7/29/2019 The Place of Policy Analysis in Political Science
6/19
420 The Workshop
nocuous reformist theory, the same untrustworthy trust in the "case" as a
source of insight and, above all, the same anti-intellectual attitude toward
basic or theoretical research. At the hard end of things, one writer is merely
more candid than others when he writes that "policy research which is not
oriented toward human purposes is inadequate. The internal standards of adiscipline are inadequate guidelines for making research choices and en-
courage perpetuation of fraudulent academic claims on scarce re-
sources. . .. Policy research which has no policy implications is simply a drain
on public resources which the academic community can ill afford" (Johnson,
1975, pp. 177-8). What is worthwhile to investigate is not a function of
theoretical considerations that make for the long-term building of a re-
spectable and respected political science; it is dictated by ideological and
financial considerations congenial to the political interests.At the soft end, there is a good deal of plain fakery about the new public
policy: almost anything goes by prefixing the noun "policy" (as if it were a
concrete property of the thing identified). If once one spoke of "political
decision," one now speaks of "policy decision;" if once one analyzed "issue
voting," one now analyzes "policy voting;" if once one thought of "social
problems," one now thinks of "policy problems;" if once one studied
"budget outlays," one now studies, "policy outputs;" and so on ad nauseam,
After a decade of writing about "public policy" nobody seems to know whatthe new dispensation is all about. This symposium is symptomatic.
Alas, the easy substitution of "policy" for "political" is a clue. What is
attempted as a differentiation in reality is only a differentiation in language.
There is no such differentiation in French where politique (politics) is
politique (policy), or in German where Politik (politics) is Politik (policy).
The use of a single term in these languages suggests that there is no politics
apart from policy and no policy apart from politics. The differentiation that
can be made is analytic and does not refer to something concrete. It does notfollow, however, as some would argue, that there is a different kind of
political process with every kind of policy. This fragmentalist view is un-
tenable because it ignores the various levels of abstraction on which scientific
investigations may be conducted. There are generic processes of politics or
policy-making that are discoverable quite independently of particular sub-
stantive issues.
If there is a difference between the new public policy and the old public
administration, it is that the former is more hysterical than the latter.Doomsday is written over much that goes as the new policy analysis. But the
prophetic impulse is no substitute for intellectual clarity. While the old public
7/29/2019 The Place of Policy Analysis in Political Science
7/19
The Place of Policy Analysis 421
administration was an intellectual wasteland suffering from undue constric-
tion of scope, theory, and method, the new public policy is an intellectual
jungle swallowing up with unbounded voracity almost anything, but which it
cannot give disciplinedby which I mean theoretically enlightenedatten-
tion.It was partly against the specious scientism and naive reformism of the old
public administration (and political science generally) that the pragmatic,
interventionist political science of the behavioral persuasionwhat Harold D.
Lasswell calls "policy science"had been directed. "The basic emphasis of
the policy approach," Lasswell (1951, p. 8) wrote in an early formulation "is
upon the fundamental problems of man in society, rather than on the topical
issues of the moment." His was a long-range program of intervention in the
political process. With a few exceptions (Easton, 1950; Eulau, 1958; Horwitz,1962; Barton, 1969; Merelman, 1976), this aspect of behavioral political
science has eluded critical attention.1
Although scientific interventionism was
implicit in the political science of Charles E. Merriam (see Karl, 1974), it was
explicitly articulated by Lasswell as early as 1930: "The problem of politics is
less to solve conflicts than to prevent them; less to serve as a safety valve for
social protest than to apply social energy to the abolition of recurrent sources
of strain in society." This redefinition of politics, Lasswell continued, "may
be called the idea of preventive politics." Once so defined, the role of the
political scientist is eminently clear: "Our problem is to be ruled by the truth
about the conditions of harmonious human relations, and the discovery of
the truth is an object of specialized research; it is no monopoly of people as
people, or of the ruler as ruler." Just as the medical practitioner intervenes in
the interest of the individual person, so the political scientistthe term
"policy scientist" is of later vintageintervenes in the interest of the human
collectivity. This intervention leads the political scientist into the "field,"
into contact with the people not just to find out what they want but what
they need, for "people are poor judges of their own interest" (Lasswell, 1930,p. 197).
Space limitations do not permit me to present the interventionist argu-
ment in detail. Suffice it to say that by 1950 Lasswell had pretty much
developed the general view of what he sometimes calls "policy science,"
sometimes "policy approach." The choice of the term "policy science" has
1For other aspects of Lasswell's multifaceted view of the enterprise, see Lipsky,
1955; Eulau, 1968; Greenstein, 1968; Rogow, 1969. Lasswell's own writings arenumerous. For those most germane to the argument concerning intervention, seeespecially Lasswell, 1963; Rubenstein and Lasswell, 1966.
7/29/2019 The Place of Policy Analysis in Political Science
8/19
422 The Workshop
always struck me as unfortunate because it conceals the breadth and depth of
the intellectual synthesis proposed by Lasswell. Given its indebtedness to the
experimental pragmatism of James, Dewey, and Mead, one might better call it
"policy pragmatics." Scientific intervention proper-the discovery of condi-
tions, causes, and consequences-is only one among several intellectual taskswhich also include the clarification of goals, the identification of trends, the
creation of constructs of the future, and the making of decisions concerning
alternatives that promise optimal achievement of societal preferences. The
battery of these five tasks is remarkable because, the term "policy science"
notwithstanding, no scientific claims are made exceptfor the one task clearly
designated as scientific.
The Lasswellian synthesis removes the ambiguity attached to scientific
investigation in the political or policy context. In that context, scientificinquiry is a form of intervention but not of advocacy. The distinction
between intervention and advocacy is critical. The function of advocacy is
performed by two other intellectual tasks in the synthesisgoal-setting and
decision making. Similarly, the problem of historicity is handled by trend-
thinking and the provision of developmental constructs. As an intervener in
the political or policy process, the political or behavioral scientist is expected
to bring maximal objectivity to bear on his investigations. To achieve this
objectivity his primary commitment is to the canons of science. Althoughscientific investigation is not unrelated to the four other intellectual tasks of
the synthesis, it can proceed relatively unencumbered by considerations
derived from the philosophy of science. Lasswell would probably agree with a
remark by Clifford Geertz (1973, p. 5), the anthropologist, that "if you want
to understand what a science is, you should look in the first instance not at
its theories or its findings, and certainly not at what its apologists say about
it; you should look at what the practitioners of it do." Yet, the synthetic
perspective locates the scientific component in the total context of the
interventionist program and does not treat it as if it had to carry all alone the
whole burden of political or policy analysis. By recognizing that scientific
investigation follows rules and warranties of its own, the synthetic view of
policy pragmatics frees the behavioral scientist from concern with problems
not amenable to scientific investigation but simultaneously sensitizes him to
the relevant context and nonscientific strategies.
The requirements of an interventionist program of policy analysis are thus
manifold. In what I call the "consultative commonwealth "-a developmentalconstruct-skill specialists in the five intellectual tasks of policy pragmatics
are guided by "professional norms and modes of conduct [that] are acknowl-
edged components of individual and collective choice making, at the level of
7/29/2019 The Place of Policy Analysis in Political Science
9/19
The Place of Policy Analysis 423
both policy and administration" (Eulau, 1973, p. 189). The political scien-
tist's contributions to the entire interventionist program is, therefore, limited.
His particular responsibility is to make available a body of valid and reliable
knowledge from which biases and other sources of error have been removed
as much as possible. This view of policy science or, as I prefer to think of it,policy pragmatics, is very different from some current conceptions of the
political scientist's role in policy analysis.
The Proper Domain of Policy Analysis: Martin Landau,
University of California, Berkeley*
I suppose that the question before usWhat is Policy Analysis?has been
stimulated by the fact that policy analysis is an exceedingly popular enter-prise these days. It is "relevant," is nurtured by government and foundation
alike, and possesses a high technology which makes it all the more appeal-
ingif not glamorous. The rather voluminous literature which has appeared in
recent years is an indication of the popularity of this mode of address. It
certainly is the "in thing" and is deserving of some comment.
I
Any reading of the literature on "policy" makes it abundantly dear that it
is not a well-defined concept. Nor is there evident that kind of extensional
definition which points to discrete behaviors easily recognized by those who
work the area. The concept, as Max Born might say, is not decidable: were we
to invite those colleagues heavily invested in policy analysis to define the
term, the distribution of responses would be such as to indicate that there is
no standard rule of usage which would help us identify an instance of policy.
The lack of such a rule allows for a wide range of use within which policyanalysis is seen as a subset of the concept political, as co-extensive with this
concept, as extending to other dimensions (inter-disciplinary), or as a means
of mounting an integrated attack on social problems. Alternatively, there are
those who treat policy as a matter of valueas a statement of fundamental
principle; those who restrict the term to strategy, design, or program; and
those for whom the term comprehends values, goals, and means. Debates on
policy per se frequently seem to be matters of issue, but more often than not
they are semantic differences. If this is a correct reading of the literature,
*I wish to thank the Center For Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences forsupplying me with so splendid an opportunity to work.
7/29/2019 The Place of Policy Analysis in Political Science
10/19
422 The Workshop
then policy itself denotes a "fuzzy set," and its analysis is more scientific in
its trappings than in its substance.
There are those who proclaim policy analysis to be a new specialization, a
new field: in political science, a new subfield. This stands as a curiosity. The
goal of policy analysis is the solution of practical problems. Because of this
objective, it cannot recognize the limits of any field established for purposes
of analysis. By its nature, it must follow its problems wherever they go. It
cannot ignore anything that may be relevant to a solution. To the policy
analyst, then, the entire attention span and the whole of the operational
domain of political science would only be the beginning. For public policy,
vast and complicated as it has become, reaches into every substantive area of
life. And to be faithful to his objective, the policy analyst would soon have to
engulf all of social science and a hell of a lot of hard technology to boot. With
so extensive a domain of inquiry, the enterprise is bound to be disordered.
In the post-World War II period the then new public administration took
as its domain of inquiry the entire range of governmental policy. This was
rationalized as a corrective to an "iniquitous" policy-ad ministration dichoto-
my which was seen as the foundation of a then developing theoretical scienceof administrative behavior. The latter was deemed to be abstract, distant from
the real troubles of mankind, andin some cases-simply whoring after the
natural sciences. The slogan of this campaign, not at all unfamiliar to us
today, was "the purer the science, the less it is relevant." Debate, as might be
expected, was acrimonious, and centered on the complementary concepts of
discipline and field. Alas, what would now have to be called the old public
policy simply could not sustain itself as a distinctive field. Unable to maintain
any appreciable degree of disciplined and systematic effort, it soon fell preyto that type of introspective analysis which signals an identity crisis. Articles,
many written by the faithful and appearing with increasing frequency, la-
mented the lack of a controlled focus, the absence of theoretical power, a
research that was random and scattered, and a scope of inquiry so broad as to
defy classificationin short, the intellectual disorder of the enterprise.
Today's public policy cannot be any more successful. No field of inquiry,
no specialization, can be built upon an unrestricted and indefinite domain.
And in the case of public policy analysis, the odds are even less: for policyanalysts cannot be autonomous in the selection of problems to study; many
of the problems they are called upon to deal with are, as Aivin Weinberg puts
it, "trans-scientific;" and they are necessarily and legitimately subject to
7/29/2019 The Place of Policy Analysis in Political Science
11/19
The Place of Policy Analysis 425
political and social constraints that would be deemed outrageous interven-
tions in any academic discipline or theoretical science.
If we are to make sense of policy analysis, it would be well to conceive of
it as applied social science. And it would be even better to remember that it is
the findings of a theoretical science that ace to be applied.
As regards policy itself, the general ambiguity of this concept does not
obscure one cardinal propecty that all of its variable uses have in commona
policy proposal is attended by risk or uncertainty. That is, all policies belong
to the class of unverified propositions. Policies are hypotheses.
A policy proposes an intervention to alter some existing circumstance ormode of conduct. If well formulated, it will contain a description of the
desired state condition and the set of means which promise to realize that
condition (i.e., to attain its goals). It should be clear, thus, that policy
proposals engage the future tense: they fall into that tense. The object of any
policy proposal is to control and direct future courses of actionwhich is the
only action that is subject to control. Accordingly, they are assertions of fact
of the if-then form, and the one thing we know about them is that their
truth value has not been determined. All policies, therefore, carry with themsome probability of error and cannot be accepted as correct a priori. I should
note that whether a policy proposal is engineered, or the outcome of a
bargain, or the result of conflict, or the product of historical forces, or
whateverits epistemological status is not altered. It remains hypothetical.
I may extend this by suggesting that when a policy proposal is carefully
and fully formulated, it can be taken as a theory. Just as a scientific theory
serves to reduce the surprise value of its empirical domain, so a policy serves
to order its task domain. If it is successful (i.e., correct), it will produce no
surpriseeverything will proceed as plannedwhich, of course, would be a
singular rarity. In science itself, all theories and hypotheses ace regarded as
risky actors; all are deemed to be ecror prone. And that apparatus which we
refec to as scientific methodology has only one function-to pcevent and
eliminate error. This, in my view, is the primary task of policy analysis.
Elsewhere,1
I have dealt with this problem at some lengthand there is no
real point in cehearsing my discussion of the ways in which policies and
programs may be held accountable. It should suffice to say now that the
1 "On the Concept af a Self-Correcting Organization," Public Administration Review33 (1973): 533-552.
7/29/2019 The Place of Policy Analysis in Political Science
12/19
426 The Workshop
notion of accountability which derives from this conception of policy is
empiricalnot ideological or representational. Our tendency is to treat pol-
icies as matters of value, not as empirical claims. This is especially to be noted
where a policy is rather complex. In fact, the more complex a policy, the
more difficult it is to assess its truth value. In such a circumstance, we tend tomake our judgments on the basis of ideological factorsit is easier to do this
than to suspend judgment, especially when there is a demand for a decision.
But a reliance on ideological factors enables rationalization to displace valida-
tiona form of displacement fully as ubiquitous as goal displacement. Fixed a
priori commitment to a particular policy involves a commitment as to its
correctness, and effectivenessin advance of knowledge. The enemy here, as
in science, is dogma. It is subjective certainty masking objective uncertainty.
It is the failure to understand that every policy contains an objective contentwhich is only one choice out of many. It is that kind of stance, so common
and so understandable, that "imputes to a policy the merit of its motives."
We need, however, to consider the error potential of any policy. In the
first instance, it requires a description of the condition to be acted upon. Any
such description must contain assumptions as to causation and, therefore,
presupposes an explanation. All of which is clearly problematical. Then there
is the proposed solution which of necessity incorporates a presumptively valid
explanation as well as the statement of the goal. Here, I might note, feasibil-ity studies which are limited to the goal are obviously incomplete, since its
attainment may not erase the undesired condition. It may turn out to be
causally irrelevant; it may yield untoward second order effects. And third,
there is the problem of instrumentation, of selecting the appropriate method-
ology. The selection of a course of action is a function of knowledgea
knowledge of causation, and is rather similar to the selection of a therapy.
The diagnosis may be correct, the cure may be recognizable, but the therapy
may be wrong, risky, or a "missing goal." And even if correct, there is thematter of administration, what we now call implementationfor the manner
in which it is executed can vitiate a program when everything else has been
anticipated correctly.
This is the ground for my conception of policy analysis. Policy analysis is
the search for error all along the way. It is not a field in the usual academic
senseunless we wish to say that the study of error is a specialty. I do not. I
would much rather say that its task, as regards any policy, is to probe in the
interest of error prevention and to learn in the interest of error correction.This is what Kenneth Boulding calls the "institutionalization of disappoint-
ment"a system of criticism which permits policies to be tested in such
7/29/2019 The Place of Policy Analysis in Political Science
13/19
The Place of Policy Analysis 427
manner as to enable a self-correct ing capacity. Those aspects of policy
analysis which partake of this spirit should be preserved and extended: the
rest should be cast aside.
Is Policy Analysis a Case Study? Charles 0. Jones, University of Pittsburgh
I very much like this puzzling question for the clarification it demands and
the issues it raises. Surely no one can see such a question and not react by
asking "What on earth does it mean?" And that leads us to a dialogue on two
important, yet misunderstood, concepts. But certain issues are joined, too. In
particular, the question invites us to consider the connections, if any, be-
tween what we do as scientists and what we do as analysts. These briefremarks are directed primarily toward clarification of concepts so that we
might better understand our roles.
Let's begin with the case study. Surely we can get quick agreement on
what it constitutes. In general, the case study has been described as limited in
time, scope, methods, decision making focus, and comparative base. From
this description, it would appear that The American Voteris a case study and
American Business and Public Policy is not. Yet, of course, the latter is called
a case study, and the former has seldom, to my knowledge, been so labeled.So let's go to another interpretation of case study-that it concentrates on
some aspect on public policy, as distinct from some aspect of political
behavior. By this criterion American Business and Public Policy is a case
study because it deals with trade policy. The American Voteris not because it
deals with voting behavior in some presidential elections.
But wait a minute. Is not political behavior important for public policy?
Do not some political scientists seek to generalize about the policy implica-
tions of voter participation and decision? Conversely, are students of policyissues not interested as well in the political roots of decision making?
Perhaps it is a matter of research method. Often it seems that the case
study is characterized by "inferior" research methods. It is not truly "scien-
tific." It is not primarily quantitatively-based. Yet, there is no reason to
believe that rigorous scientific methods in problem definition, data collection,
and data analysis cannot be employed for accomplishing any of the goals
stated above.
Another type of judgment which may distinguish the case study from
other types of scholarship would be this: the case study focuses on a single
issue, whereas other studies cut across issues. The advantage of the latter is, of
7/29/2019 The Place of Policy Analysis in Political Science
14/19
428 The Workshop
course, that of increased generalizability. Yet single issue analysis may in fact
involve in-depth probing of multiple decision points from the definition of a
problem to feedback on policy and evaluation of effects. Multiple issue
analysis, on the other hand, may only focus on one decision pointe.g., voter
understanding at election time. Obviously, the matter of generalizability
depends on what one is trying to do. Clearly it is just as unacceptable to
generalize vertically from a horizontal base of analysis as it is to generalize
horizontally from a vertical base of analysis.
Leaving unresolved for the moment the matter of just what a case study is,
let us turn now to policy analysis. Elsewhere I have identified a number of
interpretations of the term "policy analysis" (Jones, I975a,b). There is no
need to repeat those here. Suffice it to say that the perspectives will differ
depending very much on who is asking what to be done. This is the essence of
the distinction between discipline research and policy research identified by
James Coleman (1972). It is one thing for the scholar to identify an im-
portant policy topic and demand of himself/herself that research be done. It
is quite another matter for the decision maker to identify an important policy
topic to be researched, and ask a scholar to participate in that research. A
further distinction can be made where the decision maker requests research
and analysis from an employee of the organization. Clearly, we have with
these three situations possibly and potentially important differences in moti-
vation, focus, approach, methods, time-table, scope, and results. And thesedifferences may appear even if the central issue is the same in all three
instances.
Further, a distinction may also have to be made among the contributions
of these various types of study and research. It is quite conceivable that the
self-starting researcher may produce a contribution to policy analysis and the
sponsored or directed researcher may not. The maxim, "Gold is where you
find it" is as applicable to the political decision maker as it is to anyone else.
Vet another complication in specified policy analysis is the matter of whatdistinguishes it from other kinds of analysis. Must it only treat substantive
questions? Are policy process questions also significant for policy analysis? Is
policy analysis limited to single-issue questions? Or might it not encompass a
number of issues and decisions? Is policy analysis limited to particular
methods? Time periods? Decision points?
These begin to sound very much like the questions asked of the case study.
And so let's begin again. "Is Policy Analysis a Case Study?" It is now possible
to answer that question with a very definite "maybe." It clearly depends onwhat one means by each of the terms. Well, that does not take us very far.
But the advantage of the exercise is not in finding an answer; rather it's in the
7/29/2019 The Place of Policy Analysis in Political Science
15/19
The Place of Policy Analysis 429
looking. For in the search for meaning, we discover that both terms confuse
as much as they clarify. They have developed in common usage to describe
quite uncommon sets of activity. What the question leads us to conclude is
that much more interesting and useful classifications must be developed. For
examplej research and analysis could be distinguished by some of the follow-
ing criteria (American Political Science Association, 1973; Jones, 1975a,b):
A. Data Base
1. Aggregate statistics within limited time period
2. Aggregate statistics over time
3. Interviewelites
4. Interviewsystematic sample survey
5. Interviewunsystematic sample
6. Documents
7. Secondary materials
8. Otherobservation, mail questionnaire; indexes
B. Data Analysis
1. Primarily quantitative
2. Primarily nonquantitative
3. Comparative between time periods
4. Comparative between units
a. cities, counties, metropolitan areas
b. states and/or regions
c. interest groups
d. populations
e. political parties
f. countries
g. miscellaneous governmental units
5. Comparative between issues6. Not primarily comparative
C. Explanatory Goal
1. Process
2. Outputs
3. Budgets
4. Characteristics of units
5. Intergovernmental relations
6. Perceptions of decision makers7. Attitudes important for policy
D. Policy Subject
1. Single-issue
7/29/2019 The Place of Policy Analysis in Political Science
16/19
430 The Workshop
2. Cross-sectional
3. No special issue emphasis
E. Intended Contribution
1. General knowledge (process or substance)
2. Decision making (process or substance)
F. Effects of Research
1. Disciplinary
2. Public policy (process or substance)
Once we have begun to distinguish among research efforts by these
criteria, we will be in a much better position to analyze contributions to the
discipline and to political decision making. If in some small way these
remarks contribute to that purpose, they will have accomplished their aim.
The Medical Metaphor: Robert Axelrod, The University of Michigan
Policy science is aimed at improving human welfare, just as medical science
is aimed at improving human health. The concept of "welfare" need not be
precisely defined in order for policy researchers to advance the conduct of
public policy, just as "health" need not be precisely defined in order of
medical researchers to advance the conduct of medical practice.
This utilitarian conception of policy science has a number of implications
for the conduct of policy analysis.
1. Policy research is inherently interdisciplinary. It must take advantage of
such fields as economics, psychology, and sociology as well as political
science. This is just as medical science needs to take advantage of knowledge
gained in chemistry and physics as well as biology. But beyond the use of
traditional disciplines, there is now an emerging sense of a common set of
paradigms, questions, and tools beginning to develop for policy science, and
this will probably continue. Conceivably there will even be a shared corecurriculum for policy analysts just as there is now a shared core curriculum
for medical researchers who get the M.D. degree.
2. Policy science includes fundamental as well as applied research. In
medical science, some of the most important work currently being done
involves DNA and the molecular basis of reproduction. It is not clear whether
the applications of this basic research will be in the curing of cancer the
improvement of genetic counseling, the identification of dangerous sub-
stances, or the prevention of inherited diseases. Likewise, fundamental re-search in the social sciences is an important part of policy science. Thus
research into topics such as attitude change can have greater value, even if it is
not clear in advance whether the applications of a specific project will be to
7/29/2019 The Place of Policy Analysis in Political Science
17/19
The Place of Policy Analysis 431
aid a voter to understand the appeals being directed at the public, or to aid a
President in making a more sophisticated foreign policy decision in time of
crisis. The unremitting insistence on research with a clear and immediate
application is a serious mistake, and the generally undistinguished work for
NSF's Research Applied to National Needs (RANN) is just an example ofthis.
1
3. While policy research need not be applied to be promising, there are
two principles that can be kept in mind concerning the potential value from a
policy point of view of a given theory. One principle is that ceteris paribus a
causal theory is more useful than a correlational description. Thus, as a guide
to action, it is more useful to know that smoking causes cancer than it is to
know only that smokers tend to get more cancer than nonsmokers. The
second principle is that the usefulness of a theory will be increased if itsindependent variables are subject to control, and if its dependent variables are
of social significance. Thus it is more useful to know whether or not violence
on television increases violence on the streets than it is to know whether or
not comets cause sheep to blink. A caution is in order here, since what may
appear to the untrained eye as a mere curiosity can in fact hold the key to the
discovery or verification of an important and fundamental theory. Fossils can
help inspire a theory of evolution, and the low suicide rates of Jews in 19th
century France can provide strong support for a theory of social alienation.
2
4. Policy science can be aimed at improving human welfare and still be
scientific. This is where the analogy with medicine is most revealing. A
researcher can devote his or her life to the amelioration of suffering, and
precisely because of this devotion maintain the highest standards of objec-
tivity in the evaluation of a given experimental drug. Obviously a policy
scientist may have a favorite theory, or a favorite policy, or even a favorite
candidate. But that need not prevent him or her from expanding the range of
our scientifically based knowledge.
3
5. We should be aware of the tendency to conceptualize a field too
narrowly in practice, even if we define it broadly in principle. For example,
most medical doctors tend to think of themselves as treating disease. This
1 See the report of the Simon Committee, "Social and Behavioral Programs in theNational Science Foundation," (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences,1976), pp. 70-79.
2 See Arthur Stinchcambe's discussion of Durkheim in Constructing Social Theories
(N.V.: Harcourt, Brace, 1968), pp. 24-28.3 It is well to heat in mind, however, that personal preferences, intellectual fashions,and economic incentives will affect whether a given topic is studied or ignored. Thesefactors will also affect how much proof is required to attain acceptance of a givenexplanation.
7/29/2019 The Place of Policy Analysis in Political Science
18/19
432 The Workshop
often has the effect of their waiting for the patient to come to them with a
problem, and has the consequent effect of an under emphasis on the potential
of preventive medicine and public health measures. Likewise, too many
policy scientists tend to think in terms of what economists call "consumer
sovereignty," This has the effect of their taking the preferences of individuals
as given, and has the consequent effect of an underemphasis on the potential
of leadership, persuasion, and education.
Of course there are also important differences between policy science and
medical science. The state of the art of policy science is certainly not as
advanced as the state of the art of medical science. But the recent advances in
such policy related fields as econometrics, voting behavior, and experimental
social psychology suggest that progress in the social sciences will proceed at
an accelerating pace. A more profound difference arises from the fact that inmedicine a disagreement about goals is the exception rather than the rule. In
public policy, however, disagreement about goals is intrinsic. Therefore, the
analysis of policy must include not only a scientific study of the conse-
quences of alternative choices, but also a humanistic study of what should be
sought and why.
REFERENCES
The Interventionist Synthesis: Heinz Eulau
Barton, Weldon V. 1969. Toward a policy science of democracy. Journal of
Politics, 31 (February 1969): 32-51.
Easton, David. 1950, Harold Lasswell; Policy scientist for a democratic
society. Journal of Politics, 12(August 1950): 450-77.
Eulau, Heinz. 1958. H. D. LasswelTs developmental analysis. Western Political
Quarterly, 11 (June 1958): 229-42.
1968. The maddening methods of Harold D. Lasswell: Somephilosophical underpinnings. Journal of Politics, 30 (February 1968):
3-24.
1973. Skill revolution and consultative commonwealth. American
Political Science Review, 67 (March 1973): 169-91.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic
Books.
Greenstein, Fred I. 1968. Harold D. Lasswell's concept of democratic char-
acter. Journal of Politics, 30 (November 1968): 696-709.Horwitz, Robert. 1962. Scientific propaganda: Harold D. Lasswell. In Herbert
J. Storing, ed., Essays on the scientific study of politics. New York: Holt,
Reinhart, and Winston, pp. 225-304.
7/29/2019 The Place of Policy Analysis in Political Science
19/19
The Place of Policy Analysis 433
Johnson, Ronald W. 1975. Research objectives for policy analysis. In Ken-
neth Dolbeare, ed., Public policy evaluation. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage
Publications, pp. 75-92.
Karl, Barry. 1974. Charles E. Merriam and the study of politics. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.Lasswell, Harold D. 1930. Psychopathology andpolitics. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
1951. The policy orientation. In Daniel Lerner and Harold D. Lasswell,
eds., The policy sciences. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
1963. The future of political science. New York: Atherton Press.
Iipskyj George A. 1955. The theory of international relations of Harold D.
Lasswell. Journal of Politics, 17 (February 1955): 43-58.
Merelman, Richard M. 1976. On interventionist behavioralism: An essay inthe sociology of knowledge. Politics and Society, 6 (1976): 57-78.
Rogow, Arnold A. (ed.), 1969. Politics, personality, and social sciences in the
twentieth century: Essays in honor of Harold D. Lasswell. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Rubenstein, Robert, and Harold D. Lasswell. 1966. The sharing of power in a
psychiatric hospital. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Schick, Allen. 1975. The trauma of politics: Public administration in the
sixties. In Frederick C. Masher, ed., American public administration: Past,present, future. University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, pp.
142-80.
Is Policy Analysis a Case Study? Charles O. Jones.
American Political Science Association. 1973. Political science and state and
local government. Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Associa-
tion.
Bauer, Raymond A., Ithiel de Sola Pool, and Lewis A. Dexter. 1963. Ameri-can business and public policy. New York: Atherton.
Campbell, Angus; Philip E. Converse; Warren E. Miller; and Donald E. Stokes.
I960. The American voter. New York: Wiley.
Coleman, James. 1972. Policy research in the social sciences. Norristown,
N.J.: General Learning Press.
Jones, Charles O. 1975a. Policy analysis, political science, and public ad-
ministration. Paper delivered at the National Conference on Public
Administration) Chicago, Illinois.1975b. Policy analysis: Academic utility for practical rhetoric. Paper
delivered at the Midwest Political Science Association meeting, Chicago,
Illinois.