The argumentative turn in public policy inquiry: deliberative policy analysis for usable advice

Author(s):  
Frank Fischer

The argumentation turn in policy analysis emerged in the late 1980s as a response to questions concerning social relevance and usable knowledge. Toward this end, it focused on an apparent gap between policy inquiry and real-world policymaking. Basic to the approach was a challenge to the ‘value free’ positivist orientation that has shaped the field of policy analysis, underscoring in particular the limits of the technocratic practices to which it gave rise. After tracing the political and academic debates that surrounded the uses of policy analysis, the chapter presents the alternative argumentative orientation and its post-positivist methodological perspective. The discussion emphasizes its language-based foundations and outlines the logic of a deliberative-analytic framework for the assessment of policy argumentation. It illustrates the ways that policy analysis needs to integrate empirical and normative inquiry. Policy findings and practical policy argumentation are interpreted by decision-makers and citizens in terms of their relations to the larger framework of norms and values that imbue them with social and political meanings. Moving beyond a narrow empirical assignment, the argumentative turn seeks to assist these actors by also drawing out these normative connections. It is, as such, an effort to make good on Harold Lasswell's call for a 'policy science' of democracy.

Author(s):  
Lee S. Friedman

This chapter reviews the development and growth of the policy-analytic profession. Historically, government decision makers have often called upon those with expertise to assist them in reaching their decisions. This chapter, however, concerns a new professional class of advisors that began developing during the 1950s in the United States. This new profession assists policy makers in understanding better their alternatives and relevant considerations for choosing among them. From here, the chapter offers some perspective on the research to date that has attempted to assess the effects of the profession—a perspective that emphasizes some important differences across the many types of governmental settings that utilize policy analysis, and the methodological difficulties that assessment efforts confront.


2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 751-772 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael M. Atkinson

Abstract.Political scientists are increasingly studying public policy in interdisciplinary environments where they are challenged by the political and normative agenda of other disciplines. Political science has unique perspectives to offer, including a stress on the political feasibility of policy in an environment of power differentials. Our contributions should be informed by the insights of cognitive psychology and we should focus on improving governance, in particular the competence and integrity of decision makers. The discipline's stress on legitimacy and acceptability provides a normative anchor, but we should not over invest in the idea that incentives will achieve normative goals. Creating decision situations that overcome cognitive deficiencies is ultimately the most important strategy.Résumé.Les politologues étudient les politiques publiques dans des contextes de plus en plus interdisciplinaires, où ils sont remis en question par les préoccupations politique et normatives d'autres disciplines. La science politique a des perspectives uniques à offrir, y compris un accent sur la faisabilité politique des politiques publiques dans un contexte de relations de pouvoir asymétriques. Nos contributions doivent être informées par les idées associées à la psychologie cognitive et nous devrions nous concentrer sur l'amélioration de la gouvernance, et notamment la compétence et l'intégrité des décideurs. L'accent de notre discipline sur la légitimité et l'acceptabilité fournit un point d'ancrage normatif, mais il ne faut pas trop investir dans l'idée que des mesures incitatives permettront nécessairement d'atteindre des objectifs normatifs. Créer des situations de décision qui surmontent les lacunes cognitives des acteurs est finalement la stratégie la plus importante à adopter.


1989 ◽  
Vol 31 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mats Lundahl

…widespread social evils are seldom unconnected with the selfish and brutal behavior of powerful groups and individuals…(Andreski, 1966)Most economic models do not explicitly incorporate the “state” or the “government” into their analyses. Instead, this entity is viewed as a deus ex machina which plans and directs economic policy according to notions of efficiency, growth, distributional justice, and so on, that form the central concepts of the models. Unfortunately, the same naive thinking permeates a good deal of public policy analysis. This is the case, for example, with issues of development and underdevelopment. Here, attention is concentrated on “technical,” or “economic,” solutions, while taking for granted, either implicitly or explicitly, the existence of the political will necessary to implement them.


Author(s):  
Jason Gallo

Evidence-informed policy is a deliberate process that features analysis of evidence as a necessary step to reaching a public policy decision. Risk is inherent in policy decisions, and decision-makers must often balance consideration of costs; social, economic, and environmental impacts; differential outcomes for various stakeholders; and political considerations. Policymakers rely on evidence to help reduce uncertainty and mitigate these risks. This chapter considers the policymaking process as infrastructure and takes a constructivist approach to the development of evidence. It highlights the reflexivity between the demand for, and supply of, evidence and issues of power, authority, expertise, and inclusion. Finally, the chapter addresses the challenges of applying evidence to complex problems where multiple, heterogeneous variables affect outcomes and concludes with a call for further research to examine the decisions, values, and norms embedded in the design and development of the technical architectures and processes used in policy analysis and decision support.


2005 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Gregory

Karen Baehler’s interpretation of my articles (Gregory, 1998, 2002, 2004) indicates that we are largely talking past each other. I believe we make a fundamentally different assumption about the nature of politics in what she refers to as ‘a healthy democratic polity’ (p.3), and about the nature of a capitalist political-economic system. Whereas Baehler acknowledges the importance of the political dimensions of policy analysis and public policymaking, I believe that these elements are more than just important but essential, omnipresent, ineluctable and conclusive in shaping public policy and its effects.


1994 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-52
Author(s):  
Jerry R. Skees

AbstractThis article challenges the traditional model of the economist as a humble technocrat who simply provides analysis given the preferences of policy decision-makers. Since decision-makers rarely reveal their preferences, it is important that the would-be policy research/analyst know the political economy and be willing to identify potential performance goals for society. Researchers who are willing to incur the transaction cost associated with becoming involved in useful policy research must learn to work within the imperfect policy process. Policy research that considers the importance of implementation and that acknowledges the institutions and the history will have the highest chance of being useful to policy-makers.


1975 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 389-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Minns

In his review article on policy analysis [Hugh Heclo, ‘Policy Analysis’, this Journal, II (1972), 83–108], Heclo describes public policy as ‘necessarily at the heart of the political scientist’s concern’. But because public policy ‘is concerned with metachoices’ – ‘choices as to how others shall make choices in whatever sphere public authority is intervening’ – ‘the study of policy therefore necessarily straddles a number of previously distinct academic disciplines’.‘However, I wonder to what extent political scientists are willing to take part in a ‘coherent “interdiscipline” of policy studies’. Heclo quotes Vernon Van Dyke’s warning that the prospect of this for political scientists is ‘appalling’.2 If we examine firstly what political science has to offer in policy analysis and secondly what policy analysis itself has to offer, I feel that Van Dyke will suddenly find himself with massive support.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document