The P-Case

One Strategy for Creating the Policy Analysis “Case”
  • Aidan R. Vining
  • David L. Weimer


Being able to do policy analysis is the essential professional capability of the policy analyst. What is the best way to learn how to do policy analysis? Vining and Weimer describe a tool that they find to be effective in teaching—what they call the policy analysis “case,” or the “P-case.” The P-case differs considerably from the commonly used “Harvard style” management cases that describe a specific policy problem and context in an extensive narrative form. The version of the P-case described here has three major elements: (1) a specific problem statement; (2) an explicit policy analysis framework; and (3) a bibliography customized to the specific policy problem.

Vining and Weimer see the P-case as providing an important apprenticeship experience, bridging the gap between novice learning in the classroom and journeyman learning in the field. Most aspects of novice learning develop foundational skills and concepts in a low-risk environment. In the policy market, journeyman learning develops integrative skills through client-oriented projects in high-risk environments. The P-case simulates important aspects of the journeyman experience within the classroom, but without the risk associated with completing projects for actual clients.


case method policy analysis professional craft public management 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alexander, L.D., H.M. O’Neill, N.H. Synder and J.B. Townsend. 1986. How academy members teach the business policy/strategic management case. Journal of Management Case Studies 2(3): 333–44.Google Scholar
  2. Bane, M.J. 2001. Presidential Address—Expertise, advocacy and deliberation: Lessons from welfare reform. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20(2): 191–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardach, E. 2000. A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving. New York: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  4. Bloom, D. and C. Michalopoulos. 2001. How Welfare and Work Policies Affect Employment and Income: A Synthesis of Research. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.Google Scholar
  5. Boardman, A.E., D.H. Greenberg, A.R. Vining and D.L. Weimer. 2001. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Busch, M.L. and E. Reinhardt. 1999. Industrial location and protection: The political and economic geography of U.S. non-tariff barriers. American Journal of Political Science 43(4): 1028–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Canada-Wide Standards Development Committee for PM and Ozone. 1999. Discussion Paper on Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone. Canada-Wide Standard Scenarios for Consultation: 99–05–05.Google Scholar
  8. Chetkovich, C. and D.L. Kirp. 2001. Cases and controversies: How novitiates are trained to be masters of the policy universe. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20(2): 283–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dockery, D.W., X.P. Xu, J.D. Spengler, J.H. Ware, M.E. Fay, B.C. Ferris and F.E. Speizer. 1993. An association between air pollution and mortality in 6 United States cities. New England Journal of Medicine 329(24): 1753–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dooley, A.R. and W Skinner. 1977. Casing casemefhod methods. Academy of Management Review 12(2): 277–89.Google Scholar
  11. Expert Panel. 2001. Report of the Expert Panel to Review the Socio-Economic Models and Related Components Supporting the Development of Canada-Wide Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone: To the Royal Society of Canada. June. Ottawa: The Royal Society of Canada.Google Scholar
  12. Callaway, M.P., B.A. Blonigen and J.E. Flynn. 1999. Welfare costs of the U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws. Journal of International Economics 49(2): 211–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geva-May, I. with A. Wildavsky. 1997. An Operational Approach to Policy Analysis: The Craft. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gruber, J. 2002. The economics of tobacco regulation. Health Affairs 21(2): 146–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gueron, J. and G. Hamilton. 2002. The role of education and training in welfare reform. Brookings Policy Brief No. 20.Google Scholar
  16. Hahn, RW, J. Burnett, Y.H. Chan, E. Mader and P. Moyle. 2000. Assessing regulatory impact analysis: The failure of agencies to comply with Executive Order 12,866. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 23(3): 859–85.Google Scholar
  17. Head, K.C., J.C. Ries and D.L. Swanson. 1999. Attracting foreign manufacturing: Investment promotion and agglomeration. Regional Science and Urban Economics 29(2): 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jennings, D. 1996. Strategic management and the case method. The Journal of Management Development 15(9): 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kenny, S.J. 2001. Using the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house: Can we harness the virtues of case teaching? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20(2): 346–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krieger, M.H. 1988. The inner game of writing. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 7(2): 408–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Laux, F. 2000. Addiction as a market failure: Using rational addiction results to justify tobacco regulation. Journal of Health Economics 19(4): 421–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindsay, B., M.A. Groombridge and P. Loungani. 2000. Nailing the homeowner: The economic impact of trade protection of the softwood lumber industry. July 6. Cato Institute, Center for Trade Policy Studies: 11.Google Scholar
  23. Ling, P. and S. Glantz. 2002. Why and how the tobacco industry sells cigarettes to young adults: Evidence from industry documents. American Journal of Public Health 92(6): 908–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MacRae, D. and D. Whittington. 1997. Expert Advice for Policy Choice: Analysis and Discourse. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mansfield, E.D. and M.L. Busch. 1995. The political economy of non-tariff barriers: A cross-national approach. International Organization 49(4): 723–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moore, M., R. Schwindt and A.R. Vining. 2004. Canadian-U.S. trade policy: An economic analysis of the softwood lumber case. American Behavioral Scientist 47 (10): 1335–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morck, R., J. Sepanski and B. Yeung. 2001. Habitual and occasional lobbyers in the U.S. steel industry: An EM algorithm pooling approach. Economic Inquiry 39(3): 365–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Musso, Janet, Robert Biller and Robert Myrtle. 2000. Tradecraft: Professional writing as problem solving. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 19(4): 635–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Myers, S.L. 2002. Presidential Address—Analysis of race as policy analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21(2): 169–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Myneni, G., J. Dorfman and G.C. Ames. 1994. Welfare impacts of the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber trade dispute: Beggar thy consumer trade policy. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 42(3): 261–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. National Research Council. 2001. Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter III. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  32. Niels, G. 2000. What is the antidumping policy really about? Journal of Economic Surveys 14(4): 467–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nussbaum, M.C. 2000. The costs of tragedy: Some moral limits of cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Legal Studies 29(2), Part 2: 1005–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Okun, A.M. 1975. Equality and efficiency: The big tradeoff. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  35. Olekalns, N. and P. Bardsley. 1996. Rational addiction to caffeine: An analysis of coffee consumption. Journal of Political Economy 104(5): 1100–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Olsthoorn, X., A. Bartonova, J. Clench-Aas, J. Cofala, K. Dorland, C. Guerreiro, J.F. Henriksen, H. Jensen and S. Larssen. 1999. Cost-benefit analysis of European air quality targets for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and fine and suspended particulate matter in cities. Environmental and Resource Economics 14(3): 333–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Polyani, M. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  38. Pope, CA., M.J. Thun, M.M. Namboodiri, D.W. Dockery, J.S. Evans, RE. Speizer and C.W. Heath. 1995. Particulate air-pollution as a predictor of mortality in a prospective study of U.S. adults. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 151(3): 669–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ries, J.C. 1993. Windfall profits and vertical relationships: Who gained in the Japanese auto industry from VERs? Journal of Industrial Economics XLI(3): 259–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Robyn, D. 1998. Teaching public management: The case for (and against) cases. International Journal of Public Administration 21(6–8): 1141–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schwindt, R., A.R. Vining and D. Weimer. 2003. A policy analysis of the B.C. salmon fishery. Canadian Public Policy 29(1): 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vining, A.R. and A.E. Boardman. 2005. Metachoice for Policy Analysis. Forthcoming in Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 7 (2).Google Scholar
  43. Vining, A.R. and D.L. Weimer. 2002. Introducing policy craft: The sheltered workshop. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21(4): 683–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weimer, D.L. and A.R. Vining. 2005. Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Iris Geva-May 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aidan R. Vining
  • David L. Weimer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations