|
|
| |
Policy Framework |
| |
|
The seminar participants explored the appropriateness of several models for use in presenting the two policy issues to a diverse audience of policy makers at the DRC's Leadership Policy conference.
|
|
Hollister Model | Rationalist Approach | Policy Paradox
|
| |
 |
A. Hollister Model |
|
| |
For the past several years, Lansing Mayor David Hollister has been an EPFP program presenter with a focus on the policy-making process in the state of Michigan. Mayor Hollister has offered the following policy framework for EPFP
Fellows to think about the practical assessments of public policy:
- "Good Policy, Good Politics"
An example of this is the "right turn on red" legislation. It saved energy resources, avoided traffic delays, and addressed time frustrations that people had in waiting for traffic.
- "Good Policy, Bad Politics"
An example of this is the "seat belt" legislation. It saves lives but people resist being told what to do and the confinement of the seat belt.
- "Bad Policy, Good Politics"
An example of this is mandatory sentencing guidelines for the courts. It's a "get tough on crime" policy; but, allows little or no judicial interpretation for extenuating circumstances and results in overcrowded prisons.
|
| policy framework |
| |
| |
|
B. Rationalist Approach |
|
| |
The following representation comes from the work of David L. Weimer and Aidan R. Vining as outlined in "Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice"
| PROBLEM ANALYSIS | - Understanding the problem
- Receiving the problem: assessing the symptoms.
- Framing the problem: analyzing market and govt. failures.
- Modeling the problem: identifying policy variables
- Choosing & explaining relevant goals and constraints.
- Choosing a solution method.
|
|  | | SOLUTION ANALYSIS | - Choosing evaluation criteria.
- Specifying policy alternatives.
- Evaluating: predicting impacts of alternatives and valuing them in term of criteria.
- Recommending actions.
|
|
| | | INFORMATION GATHERING | | Identifying and organizing relevant data, theories and facts; using facts. |
| | | COMMUNICATION | | Conveying useful advice to clients. |
|
|
|
This model stresses the interaction of the two components of the process: problem analysis and solution analysis. Weimer and Vining offer two "Meta-Analysis" Rules which should guide our thinking as we engage in policy analysis:
- Linear thinkers should adopt nonlinear thinking strategies, while nonlinear thinkers should adopt writing strategies
- Analysts should simultaneously utilize linear and nonlinear modes when conducting policy analyses
They offer a template in their book as a guide for gathering data. Pages 244-258 serve as a useful review entitled, "Gathering and Organizing the Data, Facts, and Evidence."
|
| policy framework |
| |
| |
|
C. Policy Paradox |
|
| |
Deborah Stone offers a contrasting view of the policy process in her book, "Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making." She suggests a policy framework that is based on the notion of community or "polis" with the following goals: Equality, Efficiency, Security, and Liberty. These concepts are outlined below:
| |
Concepts of Equality |
|
| |
| Simple Definition: Same size share for everybody |
| Complications in the Polis: |
Dimension | Issue | Dilemma |
| Recipients |
1. Membership (the boundaries equal slices of community) |
unequal invitations/ |
| |
2. Rank-based distribution (internal subdivisions society) |
equal slices |
| |
3. Group-based distribution (major internal cleavages of society) |
equal ranks/equal slices; unequal ranks/unequal slices |
| Items |
4. Boundaries of the item |
equal meals/ unequal slices |
| |
5. Value of the item |
equal value/ unequal slices |
| Process |
6. Competition (opportunity as starting resources) |
equal forks/unequal slices |
| |
7. Lottery (opportunity as statistical chance) |
equal chances/ |
| |
Voting (opportunity as political participation) |
equal votes/unequal slices |
|
| |
Concepts of Efficiency |
|
| |
| Simple Definition: Getting the most output for a given input |
| Complications in the Polis: |
| Output |
- Who determines what is the correct output goal, or objectives of a program?
- How should we value and compare multiple objectives?
- How do different objectives or inputs benefit different constituencies or groups?
|
| Input |
- How should we count inputs (e.g., labor costs) that are simultaneously outputs to some body else (e.g., jobs for local community)?
- How should we decide which of the many benefits/outputs of any input to count in the equation?
- How should we count the virtually unlimited opportunity costs of resources used as inputs?
|
|
| |
Concepts of Liberty |
|
| |
Simple Definition: People should be free to do what they want unless their activity harms other people.
Complications in the Polis:
- What harms to individuals should trigger government restraints on liberty?
- Material harms (e.g., bodily injury, loss of income, loss of property values, higher taxes)?
- Elevated risk of injury or loss (as opposed to actual, immediate injury)?
- Amenity harms (e.g., aesthetic, environmental, quality-of-life)?
- Emotional and psychological harms (e.g., distress, anxiety, loss of self-esteem)?
- Spiritual and moral harms (e.g., behavior that offends religious or moral beliefs)?
- What harms to communities, organizations, and groups should trigger restraints on liberty?
- Structural harms (actions or policies that reduce an organization or community's ability to function)?
- Accumulative harms (activities that are harmful only if a lot of people do them)?
- Harms to a group caused by harms to one of its members?
- Harms to society or community caused by individual failure to undertake helpful actions?
- Whose liberty should be curtailed?
- When the activities of several different people (groups, organizations) contribute to causing harms, whose activity should be restrained? Who should bear the burden of change?
- When corporate actors cause harms, should their activities be curtailed? In what ways?
|
|
| |
Concepts of Need (Security) |
|
| |
| Simple Definition: Minimum requirements for biological survival |
| Complications in the Polis: |
Dimension | Issue |
| 1. Valuation of resources: |
In assessing needs, should we count only material uses of resources, or also symbolic meanings and satisfactions provided by resources? |
| 2. Standard of comparison: |
Should we measure needs according to a fixed (absolute) standard or a relative one (how people's resources compare to those of other members of the community)? |
| 3. Purposes of resources: |
Should we provide only resources that meet immediate, direct needs for survival, or also resources that enable people to fulfill broader goals? |
| 4. Time: |
Should society secure only people's current needs or also provide protection against future needs and risks of harms? |
| 5. Unit of analysis: |
Should society secure only the needs of people as separate individuals or also people's relational needs (such as dignity, a sense of belonging, trust, and community)? |
|
The question for us to consider is should the issues that Deborah Stone raises be addressed in our policy analysis? How about the Hollister Model and the Rationalist Model? To what extent should we incorporate any of the models in our approach? To complicate matters, Larry N. Gerston offers the following definition of public policy: Public policy is the combination of basic decisions, commitments, and actions made by those who hold or affect government positions of authority.
One of the first tasks for the seminar to consider is reach consensus on what our approach to policy analysis should be?
|
| policy framework |
| |
|
