Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Designing the Policy Analysis Process

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Public Policy Analysis

Part of the book series: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science ((ISOR,volume 179))

Abstract

The literature on policy analysis contains few references to design. In fact, the word “design” is notably missing in the index of prominent textbooks on policy analysis (Dunn 1994; Miser and Quade 1985, 1988; MacRae and Whittington 1997; Nagel 1988; Roe 1994; Wildavsky 1987). Bardach (2000, p. 17) and Patton and Sawicki (1986, p. 177) use the term to refer to the design of alternative strategies or solutions as an important phase or activity in a policy analysis. Although the title of their book Policy Analysis by Design suggests otherwise, Bobrow and Dryzek (1987, pp. 18–21) speak only of “policy design”, which is not the same as the design of a policy analysis, because a policy and a policy analysis are two different artifacts. Apparently, although policy analyses are acknowledged to contain design activities, a policy analysis as a whole is not conceived of as something that can be designed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Terms like “enlighten” or “facilitate learning” sound less manipulative, but do less justice to what a policy analyst aims to do: make people see the world in a new way. All definitions of policy analysis would seem to entail this purpose: when “speaking truth to power” (Wildavsky 1987), the analyst tries to convey actionable insights to decisionmakers; when “making sense together” (Hoppe 1999), the analyst tries to lead different stakeholders to a shared understanding of the issue.

  2. 2.

    To make functional use of gender, the policy analyst is referred to as “she”, all other actors as “he”.

  3. 3.

    Building on the “seven standards of knowledge utilization” defined by Knott & Wildavsky (1980), Landry et al. (2003) empirically measured the extent of “change of mind” as a result of university research (here referred to as “the work”) on a 6-point scale: 1-Reception (the actor received the work), 2-Cognition (the actor read and understood the work), 3-Discussion (the actor participated in meetings for discussion and popularization of the work), 4-Reference (the actor cited the work in his own professional reports), 5-Effort/Adoption (the actor promoted the use of the work in decisionmaking), and 6-Influence (the work influenced decisions in the actor’s administrative unit).

  4. 4.

    For more details on policy design processes, see for example Brobow and Dryzek (1987), Schneider and Ingram (1988), Walker (1988), Smith and Browne (1993), Sidney (2007).

  5. 5.

    As Susskind et al. (2001, p. 98) put it, “Policy analysis is composed of both intelligence and social interaction. If analysis were purely intellectual, analysts would take center stage. Likewise, if policy analysis were totally interactive, there would be no need for analysts.”

  6. 6.

    Ropohl (1999, p. 63) links structure immediately to function, but it is wiser to keep flow and function as separate concepts, because some of the flows that occur once the artifact has been realized in its context may not contribute to the attainment of the goals the designer had in mind (e.g., a blowout while drilling for oil, or the flight of capital after a tax reform).

  7. 7.

    Some artifacts (think of dams, insulation, customs regulations) are designed to prevent a flow from occurring, but this also fits the general idea of “something static that guides something dynamic”.

  8. 8.

    It is instructive to read the second case reported by Bots and Hulshof (2000). This policy analysis, commissioned by the same client, and based on a very similar design, was much less successful, mainly because the definition of the criteria, and the collection of impact assessment information had to be based on less authoritative sources.

  9. 9.

    The design of communicative interactions has become a research field in itself under the name “collaboration engineering” (Briggs et al. 2003; Kolfschoten et al. 2006).

  10. 10.

    See Carton (2007) for an extensive study on the role of maps in policy analysis.

  11. 11.

    We use the term “meta-discourse” to distinguish this communicative interaction between designer and client + other stakeholders from the policy discourse (Fischer and Forester 1993; DeLeon 1998; Torgerson 2003) to which the policy analysis will contribute.

References

  • Bardach E (2000) A practical guide for policy analysis: the eightfold path to more effective problem solving. Seven Bridges Press New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekebrede G (2010) Experiencing complexity: a gaming approach for understanding infrastructure systems. Next Generation Infrastructures Foundation Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • Berendrecht WL, JJJC Snepvangers B. Minnema, and P.T.M. Vermeulen (2007) MIPWA: A Methodology for Interactive PlanningPlanning for Water Management, In: Oxley L, Kulasiri D (eds) MODSIM 2007 International congress on modelling and simulation. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, Canberra, pp 330–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobrow DB, Dryzek JS (1987) Policy analysis by design. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Bots PWG (2007) Design in socio-technical system development: three angles in a common framework. J Des Res 5(3):382–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Bots PWG, Hulshof JAM (2000) Designing multi-criteria decision analysis processes for priority setting in health policy. J Multicriteria Decis Anal 9(1–3):56–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bots PWG, Bijlsma R, von Korff Y, van der Fluit N, Wolters H (2011) Supporting the constructive use of existing hydrological models in participatory settings: a set of “rules of the game”. Ecol Soc 16(2):16

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs RO, de Vreede GJ, Nunamaker JF (2003) collaboration engineering with thinklets to pursue sustained success with group support systems. J Manag Inf Syst 19(4):31–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Carton LJ (2007) Map making and map use in a multi-actor context: spatial visualizations and frame conflicts in regional policymaking in the Netherlands. Ph.D. Dissertation, Delft, Delft University of Technology

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLeon P (1998) Models of policy discourse: insights versus prediction. Policy Studies J 26(1):147–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch M, Coleman PT, Marcus EC (eds) (2006) The handbook of conflict resolution: theory and practice. Wiley, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek JS (1990) Discursive democracy: politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn WN (1994) Public policy analysis: an introduction (2nd edn). Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrgott M, Figuera JR, Greco S (eds) (2010) Trends in multiple criteria decision analysis. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer F, Forester J (1993) The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Duke University Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • FOCS (1993) Financieel Overzicht Zorg 1994 [Financial overview of the care sector 1994], Tweede Kamer 23407. SDU Publishing (in Dutch), The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action, volume I: reason and the rationalization of society. Beacon Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy P (2005) Network complexity and the imaginative power of strategic spatial planning, In: Albrechts L, Mandelbaum SJ (eds) The network society: a new context for planning?. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 146–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemker K, van den Berg E, Bakker M (2004) Ground water whirls. Ground Water 42(2):234–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe R (1999) Policy analysis, science, and politics: from ‘speaking truth to power’ to ‘making sense together’. Sci Public Policy 26(3):201–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keen PGW (1980) Adaptive design for decision support systems. Data Base 12(1–2):16–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolfschoten GL, Briggs RO, De Vreede GJ, Jacobs PHM, Appelman JH (2006) A conceptual foundation of the thinklet concept for collaboration engineering. Int J Hum Comput Stud 64(7):611–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knott J, Wildavsky A (1980) If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem?. Knowledge: creation, diffusion, utilization 1(3):537–578

    Google Scholar 

  • Landry R, Lamari M, Amara N (2003) The extent and determinants of the utilization of university research in government agencies. Public Adm Rev 63(2):192–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki RJ, Weiss SE, Lewin D (1992) Models of conflict, negotiation and third party intervention: a review and synthesis. J Organ Behav 13(3):209–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lootsma FA (1999) Multi-criteria decision analysis via ratio and difference judgement. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Deventer

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • May PJ (1992) Policy learning and failure. J Public Policy 12(4):331–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer IS, van Daalen CE, Bots PWG (2004) Perspectives on policy analyses: a framework for understanding and design. Int J Technol, Policy Manag 4(2):169–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacRae D Jr, Whittington D (1997) Expert advice for policy choice: analysis and discourse. Georgetown University Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Miser HJ, Quade ES (1985) Handbook of systems analysis: overview of uses, procedures, applications and. practice. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Miser HJ, Quade ES (1988) Handbook of Systems Analysis: Craft issues and procedural choices. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Mu R, de Jong WM, ten Heuvelhof EF (2010) A typology of strategic behaviour in PPPs for expressways: lessons from china and implications for Europe. Eur J Transport Infrastruct Res 10(1):42–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel SS (1988) Policy studies: integration and evaluation. Praeger Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pan Z, Kosicki GM (2001) Framing as a strategic action in public deliberation. In: Reese SD, Gandy OH, Grant AE (eds) Framing public life: perspectives on media and our understanding of the Social World. Lawrence Earlbaum, Mahwah, pp 35–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton CV, Sawicki DS (1986) Basic methods of policy analysis and planning. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Roe EM (1994) Narrative PolicyPolicy AnalysisAnalysis: Theory and Practice. Durham/London: Duke University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Ropohl G (1999) Philosophy of socio-technical systems. J Society Philos Technol 4(3):59–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotmans J, Kemp R, van Asselt M (2001) More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight 3(1):15–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruwaard D (1994) Public health status and forecasts: the health status of the Dutch population over the period 1950–2010. National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection, The Hague, SDU Publishing (in Dutch)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelling TC (1960) The strategy of conflict. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider A, Ingram H (1988) Systematically pinching ideas: a comparative approach to policy design. J Public Policy 8(1):61–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidney MS (2007) Policy formulation: design and tools. In: Fischer F, Miller GJ, Sidney MS (eds) Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, politics, and methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 79–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1981) The sciences of the artificial (2nd edition). The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith GF, Browne GJ (1993) Conceptual foundations of design problem solving. IEEE Trans Syst, Man Cybern 23(5):1209–1219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susskind L, Jain RK, Martyniuk AO (2001) Better environmental policy studies: how to design and conduct more effective analyses. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgerson D (2003) Democracy through policy discourse. In: Hajer MA, Wagenaar H (eds) Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 113–138

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • VWS (1995) Ministerie van volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport. Nota Gezond en Wel. Volksgezondheidsbeleid 1995–1998. Tweede Kamer 24126 (1). SDU Publishing (in Dutch), The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker WE (1988) Generating and screening alternatives. In: Miser HJ, Quade ES (eds) Handbook of systems analysis: craft issues and procedural choices. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker WE, Fisher GH (1994) Public Policy Analysis: a brief definition. RAND Paper P-7856. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh JP, Fahey L (1986) The role of negotiated belief structures in strategy making, J Manag 12(3):325–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webler T (1995) “Right” discourse in citizen participation—an evaluative yardstick. In: Renn O, WeblerT, Wiedemann PM (eds.) Fairness and competence in citizen participation—evaluating models for environmental discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 35–86

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky A (1987) Speaking truth to power: the art and craft of policy analysis (2nd edn). Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  • Young HP (2005) Strategic learning and its limits. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, P.O. Box 5015, 2600 GA, Delft, Netherlands

    Pieter W. G. Bots

Authors
  1. Pieter W. G. Bots
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Technology, Policy and Man, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box, Delft, 2600 GA, Netherlands

    Wil A. H. Thissen

  2. , Department of Technology, Policy and Man, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5015, Delft, 2600 GA, Netherlands

    Warren E. Walker

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bots, P.W.G. (2013). Designing the Policy Analysis Process. In: Thissen, W., Walker, W. (eds) Public Policy Analysis. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 179. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4602-6_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation