The politics of policy analysis: theoretical insights on real world problems

This post introduces a new Journal of European Public Policy Special Issue called ‘The politics of policy analysis: theoretical insights on real world problems’.

How can policy process research help to address policy and policymaking problems? This special issue of the Journal of European Public Policy seeks to address that question by examining the theory and practice of policy analysis. The call for papers sought state of the art articles that conceptualise the politics of policy analysis, and empirical studies that use theoretical insights to analyse and address real world problems. Contributions could draw on mainstream policy theories to explain how policymaking works, and/ or critical approaches that identify and challenge inequalities of power. Both approaches identify three general reference points or assumptions.

First, policy analysis is not a disinterested, objective search for truth and an optimal policy solution. It is not a technocratic process that can be separated from politics. Techniques such as cost-benefit analysis require technical skills, but are not a substitute for political debate. Therefore, phrases like ‘evidence based’ do not describe policymaking well.

Second, policy analysis is not part of a simple, orderly policy process. It does not contribute to a tightly managed policy cycle consisting of linear and clearly defined technical stages. Policymaking is a highly contested but unequal process. Many policymakers, analysts, and influencers cooperate or compete to use information selectively to define problems, and select policy solutions with inevitable winners and losers, in processes over which no actor has full understanding or control.

Third, optimal policy and linear policymaking are not good ideals anyway. The language of optimality depoliticises policy analysis and reduces attention to policy’s winners and losers. Simple images of policymaking suggest that policy problems are amenable to technical policy solutions. They downplay power and contestation. Ignoring or denying the politics of policy analysis is either naïve, based on insufficient knowledge of policymaking, or strategic, to exploit the benefits of portraying issues as technical and solutions as generally beneficial.

Further, governments are not in the problem solving business. Instead, they inherit policies that address some problems and create or exacerbate others, benefit some groups and marginalize others, or simply describe problems as too difficult to solve. The highest profile problems, such as global public health and climate change, require the kinds of (1) cooperation across many levels of government (and inside and outside of government), and (2) attention to issues of justice and equity, of which analysts could only dream.

This description of policymaking complexity presents a conundrum. On the one hand, there exist many five-step guides to analysis, accompanied by simple stage-based descriptions of policy processes, but they describe what policy actors would need or like to happen rather than policymaking reality. On the other, policy theory-informed studies are essential to explanation, but not yet essential reading for policy analysts. Policy theorists may be able to describe policy processes – and the role of policy analysts – more accurately than simple guides, but do not offer a clear way to guide action. Practitioner audiences are receptive to accurate descriptions of policymaking reality, but also want a take-home message that they can pick up and use in their work. Critical policy analysts may appreciate insights on the barriers to policy and policymaking change, but only if there is equal attention to how to overcome them.

We see this Special Issue as not only the source of five new articles but also the spark for a longer term discussion about how to engage head-on with this theory-practice conundrum. In this more general project, we seek new research that can perform a dual purpose, to:

1. improve policy theories and generate new empirical insights, and
2. provide practical lessons to non-specialist audiences, many of whom would otherwise use too-simple models of policymaking to guide their understanding.

The following articles engage with these issues in five different ways:

Occupy the semantic space! Opening up the language of better regulation

Evidence-Based Policy, Artificial Intelligence, and the Ethical Practice of Policy Analysis 

Social identities and deadlocked debates on nuclear energy policy 

Discourse analysis and strategic policy advice: manoeuvring, navigating, and transforming policy

Blood, Sweat, and Cannabis: Real-World Policy Evaluation of Controversial Issues  

You can also read the full introduction to the Special Issue: Cairney, P. (2023) ‘The politics of policy analysis: theoretical insights on real world problems’, Journal of European Public Policy, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13501763.2023.2221282

Applied Policy Analysis: A Taste of Reality

Dr Céline Mavrot, Dr Susanne Hadorn, and Professor Fritz Sager introduce the fifth article – ‘Blood, Sweat, and Cannabis: Real-World Policy Evaluation of Controversial Issues’ – published in the Journal of European Public Policy Special Issue ‘The Politics of Policy Analysis’. They reflect on the relationship between policy analysis and real-world politics, such as when salient issues divide actors and undermine the trust required to foster collaboration. An academic focus on the wider policymaking context can encourage policy actors to cooperate, while assigning some empirical authority to researchers can reduce the tendency for each actor to pursue their own interpretation of the current evidence.

The recent COVID-19 pandemic has once again highlighted ambivalent feelings regarding the role of science. Governments worldwide have given an unprecedented platform to scientists, and many suddenly became the Prince’s closest advisors. However, the pandemic has also prompted a massive infodemic, some of which promotes skepticism regarding COVID-19 and scientific authority. Democracies and evidence-based policies have a love–hate history. Scientists tend to have an equivocal attitude towards their role in real-world matters, torn between the will to bring useful information to the debate, and the fear of being instrumentalized. This dynamic makes policy analysis all the more intriguing.

What is the role of political science in such activity? It is the discipline most directly concerned with real-world politics, but has also devoted much effort to distinguish itself from the applied matters of power and politics. Some streams of public policy – such as policy evaluation – have kept applied social science at the center of their activity, but are often received with polite indifference or marked skepticism among the scientific community. However, far from being subordinated to the constraints of political mandates and lacking independence, applied streams of policy analysis have – when performed properly – developed reflectivity and instruments to maintain an analytical distance from their object of study. Therefore, a stronger dialogue between applied and theoretical streams of policy analysis would benefit the discipline.

In this contribution, we address the question of hands-on policy analysis, and question what politics does to science and what science does to policies. The article is based on a case of applied policy evaluation. The research team has evaluated the highly controversial policy on medical cannabis in Switzerland. The team was asked to assess the legality and adequacy of its implementation against the backdrop of a parliamentary and administrative controversy. We hold that policy analysis has much to gain from undertaking applied studies around concrete policy problems, and vice versa. We discuss four specific challenges policy analysis faces in its applied endeavors:

• political pressure (how to resist external pressure toward the results)
• scientific integrity (how to balance scientific rigor and needs in the field)
• access to sensitive data (how to manage explosive situations and confidential information), and
• epistemic legitimacy (how to defend the distinctive added value of political science applied to sectoral and highly specialized issues).

Bringing transversal concepts and an external viewpoint, policy analysis can contribute to de-escalating controversies by providing a 360-degree perspective on the issue at hand, and by retracing the historical reasons that account for policy incoherencies of deadlocks. In return, applied mandates allow policy analysts to penetrate the realm of policies behind closed doors. Mavrot, C., Hadorn, S. and Sager, F. (2023) ‘Blood, Sweat, and Cannabis: Real-World Policy Evaluation of Controversial Issues’, Journal of European Public Policy, https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2222141