Policy Analysis and Rationality - Research Paper Example

Introduction Policy is the of action (or that of inaction), adopted by the governments or government controlled bodies, and organizations on critical matters. Policy experts, academics, analysts and political scientists, counsel the governments, their agencies, and organizations on policy research, and provide real-time solutions to vexing issues. Policy can mean to refer to a specific proposal, a program of activity, or a desired state of affairs. They are, often, field specific and serve a long-term purpose. Policy Policy is a very flexible and elastic term. Framing and implementing a policy, too, is a participatory and a flexible process. It is a plan of action that aims for desired outcomes. A policy is a set of decisions, which is oriented towards long-term purpose or to a particular problem. Under ideal conditions, the policy making apparatus is transparent, open, accessible, and amenable to change. However, often policy implementation reveals a wide gap between what is intended, and what actually the outcomes are. Public policy has two theoretical typologies; one, evidence based academic enquiry and the other, practicality based institutional and professional experience. Pure research yields us the theoretical knowledge of ‘what works’; institutional experience yields us the knowledge of ‘what works in practicality’. The challenge for the academics is to produce policy-relevant knowledge that can be practically applied in the field. The focus of activity in the institutional and professional arena is better management of learning and knowledge within government departments and agencies. Institutions help to develop systems, which can facilitate better management of ‘learning’ and enhance knowledge within government departments and agencies (Parsons, 2002). Policy is the administrative framework and mechanism to reach the desired outcomes. Policy decisions leads to outcomes that seek to change things for the better. Broadly and flexibly, policy making is a participatory process involving the governments, the people represented by pressure groups and unions, and the media (Althaus, Bridgman, & Davis, 2008). Decisions thus made spell the course of action and guide the present as well as future decisions. The science of policy is pivoted around knowledge, policy-making, and power (Parsons, 2002). Policy making necessarily consists of three successive stages of agenda setting, option formulation and implementation. Yet, another stage of monitoring the outcomes and accordingly making directional changes can be added to it. Governments act as agents to implement public policy towards, the principal, and the people. .Public Policy Political systems are open adaptive systems in which inputs, essentially political support, are converted to outputs (decisions and actions) through a political process (Easton). A policy that is implemented through a due political process is a public policy. Macerhenas calls public policy, the output of the political processes whose responsibility rests with the government. According to Dye (1972) public policy encompasses everything that the government chooses to do or not do. A policy becomes a public policy when it has governmental sanction or is subject to legal coercion. Public policies are developed by the government, its institutions and agencies, to address issues of public concern. Public policy involves people, institutions, and governments in the process of decision making (Althaus et.al. 2008). Public policy can be read from the laws, regulations, decisions, and actions of a government. Policy revitalizes the democratic function by improving the capacity of decision makers and citizens to clarify their value choices. Broadly speaking, public policy is the set of decisions made by, or the course of actions adopted by, the government. Such policies are generally made at the federal level and do not carry any time restrictions. People use their respective pressure groups, unions, the media, corporations, community groups; the markets, and the governments, to evolve and get a policy implemented. One can perceive the policy through the written documents. Policy can also be read between the lines from policy statements. Policy is the basic principles through which a government is guided to achieve and preserve in the interests of the national community. Governments carry out long-terms plans and meet objectives through a particular set of decisions. Policy is an ongoing process reflected in decisions, laws, rules and the acts of a government. Public policy is generated within the framework of governmental procedures, influences, and organizations. (Hogwood and Gunn, 1984). Rationality Rationality is pivotal to directing, coordinating, and justifying decisions and policies. Rationality entails rescuing of public policy from irrationality and restoring to it its rational, analytic and scientific ideal. Rationality, thus, is a key factor in shaping of policy. It is the aim of policy makers to base the policies on rationality. Value rationality is not just the best means of given ends but also what the ends themselves should be (Thacher, 2004). The use of rationality in public policy builds a communicative capacity in the government and the society. Rational decision making focuses on leveraging the resources to the maximum to get the desired maximum benefit (Butler and Valie). It is the intent of the policy maker to explore as many options as are possible along with their costs to derive the maximum benefit from a given situation. The concept of rationality of public policy lies in whether it effectively and efficiently accomplishes given goals. However, it is not always that policy makers are able to make rational decisions, and less so, implement them. It is, also, not always that rationality prevails in the decision making environment. The end objectives of a policy cannot be described as rational or irrational. It is only the policies that are used to attain that are rational or irrational. Rational decision making is one which aims at the single best solution that provides desired outcomes. Use of scientific and rational models is suggested for public policy formulators. Despite the stiff challenges and criticism the rational policy making model is the most liked, and the most accepted model among policy analysts (Becker and Bryman, 2004).The popularity of the rational method is due to its normative nature. The prescriptive and normative approach helps the implementers to make rational choices to proceed forward (Becker and Bryman 2004). The concept of rationality has an important bearing on the way policy decisions are made. Often rationality presents the way in which decisions would be taken in the ideal scenario thus setting a benchmark standard against which quality of decisions in the real world can be assessed. Bounded Rationality It is a human tendency that we expect to solve problems through logical, value-free, and reliable means. Yet there is an abject lack of rationality in the complex, quasi-political world of public policy (Atlathus et.al). The mismatch between decision-making environment and the choices of the decision-maker is referred to as the ‘bounded rationality showing through’ (Simon, 1996). Thus, it becomes important to explain the concept of bounded rationality as applied to public policy. A rational decision made within boundaries of choice of alternatives is called the bounded rational decision making. In the concept of ‘bounded rationality’ the decision makers use practical rules to choose satisfactory rather than optimum solutions. Due to its empirical and evidence based leaning the concept of bounded rationality has won a sizeable following amongst the public policy theorists. Bounded rationality, though, born in the field of organizational behaviour, has impacted the field of public policy the most. Bounded rationality accepts that people intend to make rational choices but are unable to do so always. Bounded rational decision making is nearer to reality as it takes into account human limitations. There may, however, exist a gap between desired and actual outcomes. But policy includes the actual outcomes. In fact, implementation of public policy requires a series of decision making throughout the different levels of the government. Policy making is a complex task that often involves conflict of interests. Policy makers synthesize information and knowledge from different sources and incorporate them in the policies. Policy making requires a multi-disciplinary approach drawing on different sources and fields of study. Flexibility, creativity, and ethical sensitivity are decisive features of rationality, which is applicable in complex, dynamic, and interrelated situations. Implementation Gap At the organisational level policy may be understood as prioritising of decisions regarding budgets keeping in mind their intended objectives. These objectives single or complex, easy and difficult tend to get displaced in their impact when put into practice (Lane, 2005). Also, they, produce some unwanted and unintended outcomes. Thus there arises a deviation in theory and practice. This is so because policy making is carried out conceiving ideal situations, which do not exist in the practical world. The difference between intention and outcome is also called the ‘implementation gap’. Arguably public policies are not ‘one shot games’ and they evolve more, with time, than they achieve (Lane, 2005). Policy making is a social and political interactive process that involves negotiation and bargaining among groups representing and promoting different interests and values (Becker and Bryman, 2004). According to Althaus et.al. (2008) good policy is formed from the rigorous interface of process and the intellect. The ingenuity of the intellect cannot be substituted by the best of processes and similarly no smartness of the intellect can not help if the process that integrate web of activities of any public policy endeavour is missing. Governmentality Innovations in policy management have led to new and distinctive modes of governance. These innovations like the ‘neoliberal discourse’ are shorthand for a range of ideas, practices and approaches to the conduct of the governments. ‘Governmenality’ or the Foucaltian political rationality has the objectives of economic security and the prosperity of the state itself. Governmentality is rooted in the notion that that national well-being is rooted in the rational management of the national population (Beeson and Firth, n.d.). Rational and Incremental Policy Making Policy making process can be classified as rational and incremental. The rational policy making is a top down process. Under ideal conditions, policy implementation proceeds, as intended by the implementers, in the top down manner. The policy makers establish clear objectives, consider a range of options to achieve them, and select the best option after a thorough analysis of the means and their projected outcomes. The rational planning model diverges into two models; the ‘linear-instrumental’ and ‘situational-evaluative’ tradition. The ‘intended’ policy in itself will be determined through rational decision-making, a process with a logical sequence, from problem awareness, to goal-setting, to the formulation of clear objectives, through rational decision making, from problem awareness, to goal-setting, to the formulation of clear objectives to select and adopt the best strategy to attain the desired objectives and evaluation of the outcomes (Smith and May, 1980, p.164 cited at Becker and Bryman, 2004, p 20). The critics of the rationalist model state that there is never a ‘new policy’ and all decision making and policy implantation is incremental. In contrast to the rational policy model, the incremental policy model works in a bottom top approach. The means and ends are chosen simultaneously with incremental decisions carried out by making comparisons to what has been done before. The vision for policy implementation is guided, not by objectives, but by what has been achieved earlier. Decision making entails marginal incremental changes. Incrementalism is a normative mechanism used in an uncertain world. The interplay of politics, policy and administration with the reality, impinging upon the normative process creates messy and accidental outcomes (Althaus, et.al, 2008). Nevertheless policy making in a range of settings carried out in different social and political circumstance have yielded results as disparate as dismal failure or as a resounding success of the policy program. Such a range of experiments occurred across. Latin American during the 1980s and 1990s. Some of these were abject failures while others accomplished to an extent to reach the intended outcomes. (Althaus, et.al. 2008) Incrementalism assumes the nomenclature of ‘muddling through’ from Lindblom’s classic study the “The Science of Muddling Through.’ Policy-making in liberal democracies has, for the most part, been more about ‘muddling through’ rather than a process implementation in liberal democracies, has for the most part been more about ‘muddling through’ rather than a process in which social or policy sciences have had an influential part to play(Parsons, 2002, p 43). In this approach Lindblom, argued that in practice means and ends were not separable. According to him, policy emerged from a series of incremental changes and not from one clear decision. It was argued by him that the test of good decision is not the measure of its reaching the objectives but the process whereby they were reached. Thus, Lindblom (1959) proposed the development of a normative mechanism for use in an uncertain world. Lindblom (1959) argues that—pro-inertia and anti-innovation— two powerful characteristics of all human organizations are explainable only by the bottom up incremental approach (Lindblom, 1959) However, the bottom up idea is more influential than the top down directive wherever the public is well-informed, and can mobilize demand and support, to achieve desired objectives. Pressure groups, unions, chambers of commerce and industry play an important role in policy formulation. A growing concern for the policy maker is the fast degrading state of environment and the awakening in the general public to quell it. The environment protection groups play a discernible role in highlighting the cause of environment protection in the general public. Policy makers take into account, the latest compliance standards for environment conservation, while initiating and implementing policies. Whether incrementalism or bounded rationality serves the purpose of policy making better, is a subject matter of debate. Some theorists have opted for the middle road developing models that are optimization of the two. In between the rational and incremental models have developed a range of optimization theories that include the better elements of the two. For example, Dror’s optimum model supplements analytical assessment with informal means like judgment, brainstorming and creative invention. Similarly, in Etzioni’s model inconsequential decisions are handled incrementally and while consequential decisions get a structured approach of mixed scanning (Ham and Hill, 1984). The closer the objectives of the policies are to the ideal, the more successful they are thought to be. A rational choice is one that gives the best possible payoff between the costs and benefits in a given situation. Rational decision making occurs when there is an agreement on objectives and a clear understanding of means (Althaus, 2008, p59). Conclusion Policy making asks for more proactive approach of the social scientists and the analysts in working with the government to facilitate the policy-making process. A school of thought has emerged in the UK recently that tries to associate the evidence based practice and seeks greater cooperation between researchers and public policy decision makers. These ideas from this school should be carried over and applied elsewhere in the world. Since policy making is constantly under evolution, there should be greater sharing of ideas amongst social scientists, policy analysts, and the politicians to help in emergence of newer models of that are more specific to each given situation. References Althaus, C., Bridgman, P., and Davis, G., (2008) Australian policy handbook, Allen and Unwin Publishers. Becker, S., and Bryman, A., (2004) Understanding research for social policy and practice, The Policy Press Beeson, M., and Firth, A., (n.d) Neoliberalism as a political rationality, Retrieved April 13th 2009 firgoa.usc.es/drupal/filestore2/download/27201/mb-jsoc-98.pdf Dye, T, R., (1972) Understanding Public Policy, 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, 1972) 1. Ham and M Hill (1984) The policy process in the modern capitalist state Harvester Wheatsheaf. London Hogwood, B, W., and Gunn, L.W., (1984) Policy analysis for the real world, Oxford University Press. Lindblom, C, E, (1959) The science of “muddling through” Retrieved April 13th 2009, http://cobix.cob.sjsu.edu/php/rodan_s/enl169a/Lindblom,%20C%20E,%201952,%20Public%20Administration%20Review.%2019(2)%20pp%2077-88.pdf Lane, J-E., (2005) Public administration and public management, Taylor and Francis Publishers Parsons, W., (2002) From muddling through to muddling up-evidence based policy Public Policy and Administration 2002; 17;43 Thacher, D., (2004) Value rationality in policy analysis, Retrieved April 10th 2009.from http://www.fordschool.umich.edu/research/pdf/Value_Rationality_in_Policy_Analysis.pdf Read More