RESPONSABILIDADES GENERALES

When Lester and Stewart (2000) speak of approaches to policy analysis, they mean the various ways political scientists go about analysing policy, i.e. the different approaches to finding out what governments do something, why they do it, and what difference it makes. The authors of the text state that an approach to policy analysis is sometimes described very broadly as policy research, and as applied social science research. However, approaches to policy analysis are also very specifically categorised (Lester and Stewart, 2000: v-iv).

The Process Approach has as its primary objective the examining of a part of the policy process. Accordingly, it identifies stages and then analyses the determinants (influencing factors) of each particular stage. Such an analysis encompasses an approach that recognises a societal problem as an issue for action, and then policies are adopted, implemented by agency officials, evaluated, and finally terminated or changed based on the success or the lack of it (Stewart, Hedge and Lester 2008: 39).

The Substantive Approach examines a substantive area. That is, an analyst acquires voluminous knowledge in a policy area where government action deals with a substantive (considerable) societal problem. Examples of substantive policy areas are environmental, educational, health care, energy, crime, welfare, economic, domestic, foreign, science and

technology. Lester and Stewart state that expertise in such an area encompasses both technical and the political aspects of a substantive policy. For example, Charles Jones used a substantive approach when he wrote a book on air quality policy. He acquired an abundant grasp of the technical and the political issues associated with clean air. Lester and Stewart believe that substantive knowledge is necessary to understand and interpret one’s empirical findings accurately when an analyst studies a far-reaching public problem. Furthermore, they believe that expertise within a substantive area is highly desirable and gives an analyst more credibility (Stewart, Hedge and Lester 2008: 39).

The Logical-Positivist Approach (Behaviour or Scientific Approach) examines the causes and consequences of policy using scientific methods. Here an analyst advocates the use of deductively derived theories, models, hypothesis testing, hard data, the comparative method and rigorous statistical analysis. ``Scientific’’ in this context means several things. Firstly, it means clarifying key concepts used in the analysis of policy. For example, concepts such as policy implementation must be defined more carefully than was the case in the past. Secondly, it means working from an explicit theory of policy behaviour and testing this theory with hypotheses. Thirdly, it means using hard data, developing good measures of various phenomena, and examining various explanations across time (Stewart, Hedge and Lester 2008: 40).

The Econometric or Public Choice or Political Economy Approach tests economic theories. The approach is based on economic theories of politics in which human nature is assumed rational or motivated by purely personal gain. This approach assumes that people pursue their own fixed weighted preferences regardless of collective outcomes. Essentially, it integrates the general insights of public policy research with the methods of public finance. For example, it assumes that the preferences of individuals are narrow and diverse, which requires that these individuals aggregate, or ‘logroll’, their preferences into majorities that can command governmental action. For example, John Chubb has used such an approach to study policy implementation (Stewart, Hedge and Lester 2008: 41).

The Phenomenological or Post-Positivist or Naturalistic Approach analyses events through an intuitive process. Those who oppose the scientific (behavioural) study of

public policy prefer an approach where intuition is more important than positivist or scientific approaches. This approach posits that analysts need to adopt a respect for the disciplined employment of sound intuition and use less quantification and hard data. This view is concerned with understanding rather than prediction, with working hypothesis rather than rigorous hypothesis testing, and with mutual interaction between the inquirer and the object of study rather than detached observation on the parts of the analysts. Thus, this approach favours case studies (Stewart, Hedge and Lester 2008: 41).

The Participatory Approach’s primary objective is to examine the role of multiple actors in policy-making. This approach is closely related to the post-positivist challenge and involves a greater inclusion of the interests and values of the various stakeholders in the policy decision-making processes. It includes an extended population of affected citizens who would be involved in the formulation and implementation of public policy analysis through a series of discursive dialogues. The declared purpose of participatory policy analysis is to gather information so that policy-makers can make better recommendations and decisions. The participatory approach may be more useful as a guide to agenda- setting, policy formulation, and policy implementation rather than any other stages in the process (Lester and Stewart, 2000: 40).

The Normative or Prescriptive Approach prescribes policy to decision-makers or others. This approach seeks to define a desirable ‘end state’. This type of analysis will propose a particular prescription and announce that it is both desirable and attainable. That is, such analysts will advocate a certain policy position and use rhetoric in a very skilful way to convince others of the merits of their position. It has been found that such an analyst utilises skilful argumentation and (sometimes) selective use of data to advance a certain political position to convince others, that their position is a desirable policy choice (Stewart, Hedge and Lester 2008: 43).

The Ideological Approach seeks to analyse policy from a liberal or conservative point of view. Accordingly, analysis explicitly adopts a liberal or conservative ideological stance within its analysis. Liberal or conservative ideological perspectives are sometimes referred to as vision in such analyses. There are two types of vision, namely constrained

vision and unconstrained vision. A conservative stance is labelled as a constrained vision while an unconstrained vision is the liberal position. A constrained vision is a picture of egocentric human beings with moral limitations. The fundamental social and moral challenge is to make the best of possibilities that exist within the constraints, rather than to dissipate energies in vain. An attempt to change human nature is capable of directly meeting other people’s needs as more important than their own and therefore is capable of consistently acting impartially, even when their interests or those of their family are involved (Stewart, Hedge and Lester 2008: 43).

The Historical Approach examines public policy over time. This analysis would examine, for instance, public policies from the perspective of a hundred years or more which may unveil certain patterns that were previously unrecognised due to a short timeframe analysis (i.e. analysis limited to a decade or less). Two opposing perspectives have emerged using this type of analysis. The first is that policy-making tends to follow a cyclical or zigzag pattern in which tendencies that are more conservative follow more liberal tendencies and then this pattern is repeated across time. Another perspective suggests that public policy reflects policy learning as a country evolves towards more thoughtful policy-making. Thus, with the historical approach, either the cyclical or the zigzag perspective is selected or the analyst uses an evolutionary explanation (Lester and Stewart, 2000: 41-42).

The Scientific Policy Analyst Approach’s motivation is to search for theory, regularities or truth. This analysis is similar to the logical-positivist approach. Such analysis engages in the search for the causes and consequences of public policies rather than the prescription of policies (Lester and Stewart, 2000: 42-43).

The Professional Policy Analyst Approach’s motivation is for the improvement of policy and policy-making. These analysts believe that policy studies will eventually develop a policy science that is capable of informing decision-makers by effectively defining and diagnosing policy problems; proposing policy alternatives; developing models that can aid in the achievement of desired ends and methods for testing those modes; as well as

establishing intermediate goals and estimating the feasibility of various policy programmes.

The Political Policy Analyst Approach is the advocacy of policy. The primary task is to give credence to certain policy positions or to challenge others. Teaching policy analysis within this perspective would stress fundamental research skills and instruction in the rhetorician’s methods of rationalization and argumentation. It is much as the normative or prescriptive approach described earlier (Lester and Stewart, 2000: 43-44).

The Administrative Policy Analyst Approach is the effective and efficient implementation of policy, and tends to adopt the same methods and goals of the professional policy analyst.

The Personal Policy Analyst Approach’s motivation is the concern on how policy affects life. The personal policy analyst is reflected in the citizen and layperson’s use of policy skills to reach tentative solutions to some of the basic policy-related problems. In effect, this last category is a residual category that involves laypersons who adopt policy analysis, but who are not members of any other category such as scientific, professional, political, or administrative categories (Ibid: 43-44).

Thus, policy analysis is either broadly or specifically classified. Firstly, it provides discussion of policy analysis from its broadest level: policy analysis, policy research, and applied social science research. As stated, within the broadest category, one approach is coined ``policy analysis’’ and it refers to a narrowly defined problem. In this instance, an analysis consists of basic data collection techniques, including the compilation of readings and the synthesis of main ideas into a coherent course of action. For example, such an analysis might be done to advise the health and human services department on whether it should recommend a particular type of welfare policy. The second type of policy research refers to a monograph on a broad problem, such as the feasibility of natural gas deregulation. This type of analysis might take a year or more to prepare, and the methods used might include decision analysis, cost-benefit analysis and systems analysis. Finally, the third type of analysis is applied social science research. It refers to a

scholarly assessment of the effects of a policy intervention on some narrowly defined set of outcomes, such as analysing the impact of using seat belts on reducing traffic fatalities (Lester and Stewart, 2000: 36). There are numerous approaches to policy analysis. In actual practice, scholars often cleverly combine several approaches in various ways. By knowing these various approaches to public policy, one acquires the ability to recognize a type of policy analysis for what it is when one sees it, then evaluate it on its own terms rather than by applying criteria that are inappropriate to a specific policy analysis or by failing to evaluate it at all (Lester and Stewart, 2000: 44).