Question

Q3_4 From Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis, by M. Granger Morgan. How should we integrate "policy analysis" into government decision making? And what role should it serve? Can/should policy analysis tell is what we "ought" to be doing?

Answer 1

Policy analysis is basically studying and evaluating the current policies and if required implementing the alternative policies for the best possible outcome and keeping in mind satisfaction of public. Policy analysis also helps to define and set the expected goals of a proposed policy and in identifying similarities and differences in expected outcomes and estimated costs with competing alternative policies.

While formulating public policies it is mandatory to keep in mind both current and future problems, and thus policy analysis furthers helps to predict future needs based on past and present conditions. Outcomes of policies can be in different forms—tangible outputs which can be measured and less-tangible outputs for which the impacts are more difficult to measure. In many cases, it is difficult to determine if the policy itself resulted in desired change or if other exogenous or external factors were the most direct cause. Nevertheless, it is important to determine if policy is responsible for the desired change; otherwise, there would be no need for the policy. Policy analysts often use theoretically grounded statistical models to determine if the policy will have the desired impact. In a final stage of policy analysis, analysts collate the information gathered to determine which policy alternative will best meet present and future needs.

For doing the policy analysis there are two types of empirical analysis: qualitative studies and quantitative studies. There are different tools through which Qualitative studies of ploicy can be done. For example, some qualitative studies involve archival analysis, studying policy history and determining what has been done in the past to solve certain policy problems. Qualitative studies is done by taking personal interviews, asking individuals to describe in words a variety of issues involved in the policy process—from policy agendas to formulation, implementation, and evaluation. Interviews with policy makers and with the clientele being served by a particular policy may provide valuable information about policy goals, processes, and outcomes.

Archival analysis is basically used in doing the public policy analysis. Through studies of policy history, policy analysts get to know important lessons from earlier times and which further help them to apply those lessons to current or future problems and goals. A new policy goal may sound highly innovative and cost-effective and promise to meet worthy goals, but archival research may illustrate the hidden costs and pitfalls that might result in policy failure.

Personal interviews are play an important role in improving public policy. Public policy is usually created and implemented by professionals working in government. Through their individual experiences in particular policy areas, the experiences of elected and appointed officials become key policy artifacts. When these individuals leave government service, their experience and wisdom are often lost. One way to prevent this is to document the informal lessons or experiences of senior elected and appointed officials. Personal interviews are perhaps the most effective method of accomplishing this goal, largely because a personal interview technique will allow for a high degree of flexibility in information collection.

Quantitative studies are important tool for policy analysts for addressing important policy issues. Cost-benefit is major part of quantitative policy analysis. It is primarily concerned with cost involved in that policy and comparing the expected outcomes and benefit of it. Of the two elements of the equation, the determination of costs is often more easily computed. Costs are most often measured in monetary terms; labour and supplies are easily converted to dollar costs. While there are always hidden costs associated with any policy decision, those costs can be estimated given previous experiences in prior public policy endeavours. Opportunity costs—the costs associated with choosing a particular policy over an alternative policy—can also be estimated. Yet, most aspects of public policy benefit are not easily measured in monetary terms. Individual clientele of a policy and individual officials fulfilling policy goals have a tremendous influence on the quality of a policy outcome or output, but the calculation of a benefit is often measured and aggregated in a manner that fails to capture those nuances.

Despite limitations in estimation, benefits must be measured in monetary or unit output terms for a cost-benefit calculation to proceed. Policy makers may determine benefit estimates through survey research by asking clientele of a policy to indicate how the public policy has impacted their lives. Policy makers also view the benefit in terms of the output of a policy—that is, the number of individuals who were served. In higher education policy, for instance, policy makers may conduct surveys of alumni to determine the impact of their higher education experience on their salary level and to also inquire about their positive and negative experiences at the university or college. Additionally, policy makers may conduct a head count of the number of student credit hours generated and the number of university or college graduates to measure policy output and equate it to a benefit.

Public services must at all times satisfy the increasing demands of the citizens for not only more but also better services. In addition, the financial resources of a government are usually limited which requires that public services should be rendered as efficiently and effectively as possible. Efficiency is a criterion which requires maximum policy output with minimum resource input or consistent output with a smaller resource input. Policy results are thus measured against the costs to produce such results. Effectiveness on the other hand is a criterion which compares policy results with the quality of the services obtained. It aims to render the best service and to do it correctly. During an analysis and evaluation of the efficiency for example of a programme, the following aspects could be considered: The cost of programme execution; how the specific programme compares with similar programmes; whether or not alternative programmes could be compiled to obtain a better output or similar output at a lower cost; and whether or not changes could be made to an existing programme to increase its output or to decrease its costs. An analysis and evaluation of a programme includes a cost benefit analysis, which seeks to measure all costs and benefits to a community. It is true, however, that a cost benefit analysis includes various intangibles that sometimes cannot be easily measured in terms of financial costs and benefits. For example, the cost of building an expressway could be determined and the benefit of such an expressway could also be motivated, but when houses are to be demolished to build the expressway, the question of benefit to the community could be questioned because benefit has not only a financial component but also a value component.