Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning

Carl Patton, David Sawicki, Jennifer Clark

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317349990
• Edition: 3
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Updated in its 3rd edition, Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning presents quickly applied methods for analyzing and resolving planning and policy issues at state, regional, and urban levels.

Divided into two parts, Methods which presents quick methods in nine chapters and is organized around the steps in the policy analysis process, and Cases which presents seven policy cases, ranging in degree of complexity, the text provides readers with the resources they need for effective policy planning and analysis. Quantitative and qualitative methods are systematically combined to address policy dilemmas and urban planning problems. Readers and analysts utilizing this text gain comprehensive skills and background needed to impact public policy.

Part I Methods

The Need for Simple Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning

DOI: 10.4324/9781315664736-1

Our increasingly complex society confronts us with more and more difficult policy problems that are not easily solved.¹ Although these problems may be “attacked” or “addressed,” often they have no clearly correct answers. Some authors characterize the problems of modern society as “squishy,” “fuzzy,” “subjective,” and “wicked” and as often having the following attributes:

1. They are not well defined.
2. They are seldom purely technical or purely political.
3. Their solutions cannot usually be proven to be correct before application.
4. No problem solution is ever guaranteed to achieve the intended result.
5. Problem solutions are seldom both best and cheapest.
6. The adequacy of the solution is often difficult to measure against notions of the public good.
7. The fairness of solutions is impossible to measure objectively.

There are many examples of complex problems. What is the best location in a state for a maximum-security prison? Should a ban on phosphorus that has proven ineffective in improving water quality be lifted? A city council is considering offering tax breaks for developers willing to build offices in certain sections of downtown. Should the mayor veto the plan? The county executive has proposed a $190 million expansion of the metropolitan airport. Should the county board of supervisors support this plan? These problems will be answered: That is, decisions will be made. Even if the decision is to do nothing, it will still have consequences for citizens.

How will decision makers make their decisions? On the basis of what information will they act? To whom will they listen: lobbyists, constituents, policy advisers? The number of trained professionals employed in government and in the private sector to offer advice on these matters is growing. They usually call themselves planners, policy analysts, or public managers.

This book is for people who want to work in this area or who are working in this area and wish to improve their analytical skills. It is called Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning because it is intended as the first book a beginning analyst will use in building a portfolio of methods to approach knotty public policy problems.

1.1 Quick, Basic Policy Analysis

We believe there is a set of systematic procedures or policy analysis methods that can be used to attack contemporary policy problems. We also believe there is a subset of these methods that are basic methods, yielding quick results and serving as theoretically sound aids to making good policy decisions. Some people might argue that the variety of public policy problems is so great that no one set of systematic procedures could be developed for dealing with all of them. Critics might also say that geographic and political contexts for these problems are so far-ranging that the problems don’t have much in common, thus defying any standard approach. Yet a process for approaching these problems has evolved and has been applied.

Called the rational model, one simple version takes the form of Figure 1.1, in which problem definition leads to the identification and evaluation of alternatives followed by policy implementation. There is evidence that when time and resources are available, the analytical process does take this or an acceptably similar form. Most often, however, this rational problem-solving process is not followed because of the pressures of time, limited knowledge, and constrained resources.

Figure 1.1 The Classical Rational Problem-Solving Process

This book is different from others in that we present only quickly applied methods, those that can be useful when there is no time for researched analysis. Policy analysts are often required to give advice to policy makers in incredibly short periods of time, in contrast to university researchers and think tank consultants who are hired specifically to conduct intensive research on public policy issues.

Some have called this latter type of work policy studies or policy research. Analysts doing this work are typically given comparatively large budgets and long periods of time to produce results, and they work with large sets of data. Consequently, the methods they use are different from those used by staff members who work for decision makers on a day-to-day basis. The terms researched analysis and quick analysis were coined to describe this difference.² Since we have included in this book only methods that we feel are both quick and theoretically defensible, we consider them to be highly useful for completing a short-term assignment or for taking the first cut at a longer-term project. Thus, we call them basic methods, and the product of their application basic analysis.

The goals of persons who produce researched analysis are different from those of persons who produce basic analysis. Certain to be critically reviewed by their peers, researchers seek the truth behind problems and nonintuitive, or even counterintuitive, solutions. Fellow researchers are impressed with the complexity, elegance, and precision of the analysis.

For quick, basic analysis the goals are much more practical. The goal may be simply to inform public decision makers well enough so they don’t get caught in major errors. An example might be to assist the mayor of a large city who must decide whether to side with the director of public works in defending the cost of garbage collection when an opponent claims the cost to be double that of other cities of comparable size.

Somewhat more idealistically, the goal might be to inform decision makers well enough so that a more enlightened discussion of public policy occurs and better policy is adopted as a result. On a practical level, quick, basic analysis may be all that is justified for a one-time local problem where the cost of a large-scale study would exceed the benefit from the precise solution or where for political reasons the best technical alternative has little chance of being adopted.

The process of basic analysis is much more complex, in some respects, than that of researched analysis. Researched analysis is rather well codified; there are routine steps of exploration and accepted standards of scientific behavior. On the other hand, the most compelling feature of basic analysis is whether the consumer understands it, is able to follow its logic, and as a result is able to formulate better policy. This means that there is interplay between the basic analytical routines themselves, the process for interacting with clients, and the communications tools used to convey the results of analysis. This is why some authors describe basic analysis as craft rather than science. Success is measured by the quality of public debate and the efficacy of the policy adopted. Therefore, basic analysis must be responsive to the policy problem. Methods must be selected for their ability to attack the client’s problem in the time available without obfuscation.

Much has been written about the differences between policy analysis and planning. To avoid a tortuous review, we will highlight what is important for users of this book. Some might say that the differences are well described by the phrases researched analysis and basic analysis, with planning being the former and policy analysis the latter.

This, like other simple dichotomies sometimes proposed, is inadequate. First, were the pertinent literature in both fields to be reviewed, one would find that policy analysis has concentrated primarily on problems of the federal level of government, while planning has focused on those of state, regional, and local levels of government. Although this is an accurate statement about the literature, this dichotomy, too, has relatively little meaning for our purposes. State and local governments adopt policies, and the federal government often develops plans.

Some critics would say that policies are more broad and abstract, require more information and analysis, and have wider ramifications than plans, but others would argue the opposite. The answer depends on the level of government: One’s tactics may be another’s policies and yet another’s plans. This semantic difference is not very important. Most practicing planners and policy analysts use both basic methods and researched methods in their work, whether that is in public or private practice.

More telling perhaps is the historical development of each field and the resulting differences in the paradigms of the fields processes.³

Classic comprehensive planning includes the following elements:

1. An extensive inventory phase, usually for gathering data on the natural geography and environment, on the physical infrastructure, and on the demographic and economic characteristics of the resident population
2. A search for alternative solutions, which may be described as exhaustive, but in fact is severely constrained, with significant alternatives eliminated before presentation to the client (the public)
3. The preparation of a plan
4. An unspecified client: “the public interest”
5. A subject-oriented, as opposed to a problem-oriented, scope (e.g., the transportation system versus congestion of the downtown loop)
6. A rather long time horizon (at least ten years)
7. An apolitical approach to the process of implementation

Policy analysis, on the other hand, includes this parallel set of characteristics:

1. An inventory or search phase, limited in scope and directed at a particular issue
2. A constrained search for alternatives, which are then all usually evaluated and displayed to the client
3. The preparation of memoranda, issue papers, policy papers, or draft legislation
4. A particular client, be it a chief executive, an elected official, a public interest group, a neighborhood, or a bank, likely to have a particular perspective on the problem
5. An issue or problem orientation, described alternatively as a reactive posture
6. A time horizon often compromised by terms of elected officials and uncertainty
7. A political approach to getting things accomplished

The comprehensive planning process has more in common with researched methods, and the policy analysis process has more in common with basic methods. However, several additional points should be made.

First, policy analysis is, in a sense, only part of a larger policy planning process. Analysis itself is the breaking up of a policy problem into its component parts, understanding them, and developing ideas about what to do. Many activities beyond analysis are involved in the policy development process, and the term policy analysis may often be used when policy planning would be more appropriate.

Second, the two descriptions suggest that policy analysis is much more reactive than planning, always happening after someone has spotted a problem or proposed a solution. This is a reality of policy analysis at present; it may be a result of a shortage of resources for analysis in government. Someone must take the first step in creating or designing the plan, policy, or program, and this role of the professional planner in government has been severely neglected.

Third, planning is conducted because of the concern for the appropriate use of resources in the long run and the concern for the larger public interest. As noted above, the policy analysis paradigm specifies work for a single client. That client might be an embodiment of the public interest, like a mayor taking a particularly heroic stand on an issue seen as vital to city residents. Or the client might hold a very personal agenda, like reelection, that could well work in opposition to the public inte...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Figures
• Tables
• Preface
• PART 1 Methods
• 1 The Need for Simple Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning
• 2 The Policy Analysis Process
• 3 Crosscutting Methods
• 4 Verifying, Defining, and Detailing the Problem
• 5 Establishing Evaluation Criteria
• 6 Identifying Alternatives
• 7 Evaluating Alternative Policies
• 8 Displaying Alternatives and Distinguishing among Them
• 9 Monitoring and Evaluating Implemented Policies
• PART 2 Cases
• 10 Downtown Development
• 11 Defending against Accusations of Discriminatory Housing Practices
• 12 Municipal Garbage: Solid-Waste Collection Methods
• 13 University On-Campus Parking Policies
• 14 Emergency Aid for Home Heating Fuel: Developing an Allocation Formula
• 15 A State Tax on Plastic Shopping Bags
• 16 Public-Private Redevelopment Projects: The Case of Underground Atlanta
• Bibliography
• Index