Policy analysis

Week 1 – What is policy analysis?

What is policy?

Policy is a deliberate plan or choice made from various options to achieve a specific result. It involves setting goals or aspirations and identifying tools or methods needed to accomplish those goals.

Public policy refers to decisions made by governments or their representatives in modern societies. It reflects societal views on the roles and responsibilities of government, particularly in determining where regulation or intervention is necessary. It encompasses a range of elements such as laws, regulations, and funding priorities related to particular issue or topic.

What is policy analysis?

It’s a toolbox for solving societal problems, it is not just about coming up with ideas. It is about understanding how (existing) policies are made and figuring out ways to make them better, what works and what doesn’t, then sharing that knowledge so we can improve things. It’s a process of creating, evaluating, and sharing information to help us understand and improve policies.

Two main aims:

·       Analysis ‘for’ policy = to improve

o   Practical, prescriptive, giving advice -> investigating what went wrong and how to improve how public policies function (aim)

o   Leads to recommendations for change

·       Analysis ‘of’ policy = to understand

o   Academic, descriptive, analytical, explanatory -> describing and understanding how policies are made and implemented

o   Not about giving direct advice but about enhancing understand about how policies work or don’t work

o   Focuses on questions like transparency, democracy and the actual outcomes of policies

Why use theory in policy analysis?

Theories provide us with a structured way to understand and make sense of real-life phenomena, like how policies are made and implemented.

·       Theories offer framework or toolkit for organizing data. They help sort through information and direct the analysis, bringing to light what might be chaotic

·       Theories equip us with concepts and specific terminology, which helps us understand the phenomena at play

·       Theoretical approaches allow us to focus on specific stages behaviours of key actors involved in the policy cycle, this makes the analysis more manageable and insightful because you aren’t overwhelmed by the complexity of EU policy-making.

o   Advantages

§  Chronological breakdown: theories break down policy into a series of stages, from initial idea to implementation and reflection, providing a continuous overview rather than isolated snapshots.

§  Stakeholder interactions: they highlight interactions between stakeholders over time, showing how involvement and group configurations evolve with different interests

§  Systemizing knowledge: theories organize existing knowledge into a series of functional, goal-oriented stages where multiple actors pursue their interests within legal, institutional, and political constraints

o   Disadvantage

§  Not prescriptive: theories do not prescribe an ideal way to make policy but suggest a probable order of actions without specifying their duration

§  Predictive limitations: they cannot predict future stages of policy-making, even though they may offer clues based on past stages

§  Non-linear process: the policy process is not always neat or linear; stages can overlap and activities can occur simultaneous

§  Over-rationalization risk: the stages approach might lead to oversimplified explanations based on expected sequences of actions.

§  Applicability concerns: it’s unclear if the stages approach applies universally to all levels of analysis or only to specific institutions and contexts.

§  Lack of causal explanation: theories do not explain why policy moves from one stage to the next or why the process speeds up or stalls, as external events can modify the policy’s direction and urgency at any stage.

Whom do we analyse?

We analyse the role and behaviour of main actors who have a stake in the policy process at hand. Are their choices always rational?

Actors in:

·       Levels of governance

o   Local

o   Regional

o   National

o   Supranational

o   International

·       Types of organizations

o   Governmental bodies

o   European institutions

o   National agencies

o   European agencies

o   Trans – European NGOs

o   International firms

o   Business associations

We analyse their behaviour because we gain insights into how policies are shaped, implemented, and influenced within complex political and social landscapes.

What we analyse: EU policy instruments

1.      Legal acts

.          Regulations

.          Directives

.          Decisions

.          Delegated acts

.          Implementing acts

2.      Soft law

.          Recommendations

.          Opinions

3.      Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms

4.      Commission’s Green and White Papers

We analyse them because it helps us understand how policies are formulated, implemented, and assessed within the EU framework.

Week 2 – Understanding the policy cycle

Policy does not occur in a vacuum, it’s always a response to society’s demands and tends to follow a predictable path.

The policy cycle

·       Policy starts with an IDEA è

·       This is put on the political AGENDA è

·       For people to FORMULATE ideas è

·       Which are then ADOPTED è

·       So they can be IMPLEMENTED è

·       And EVALUATED for their success è

·       To lead to new IDEAS

Stage 1: AGENDA SETTING

Getting the idea noticed by policymakers and the public, raising awareness about the issue so it is considered a priority.

·       What: Is the actual topic (precisely)?

·       Why: Is this topic a (societal) problem?

·       How: Did it end up on the agenda?

·       Who: Was influential in getting it on the agenda?

·       So what: Why should we care?

Stage 2: POLICY FORMULATION

Various stakeholders, including government agencies, legislators, experts, and interest groups, develop specific proposals and strategies. Involves researching, debating and drafting potential policies.

·       What: Is the actual problem and how do we solve it?

·       Why: Did we pick these solutions?

·       How: Did we end up choosing these solutions?

·       Who: (again) was influential in pushing this preferred solution?

·       So what: What do we expect as a result? (and why is this the best way of achieving that result ?)

Stage 3: POLICY ADOPTION

Where decision-makers approve and enact the policy. The process may include voting, negotiations, and amendments.

·       What: Does the actual solution look like? (regulation, directive...etc)

·       Why: Are we proceeding with THIS proposal?

·       How: will this solution be adopted?

·       Who: is already on board? Who is still wavering?

·       So what: how do we create a functioning majority for this proposal?

Stage 4: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

Involves the actual administration of the policy by government agencies or other designated bodies. This can include developing specific programs, allocating resources, and ensuring that the policy is executed as intended.

·       What: does the adopted proposal require?

·       Why: are we ‘going along’?

·       How: new organizations? Expanded mandates?

·       Who: legislature? Executive institutions?

·       So what: who might torpedo? What can we do to increase chances of success?

Stage 5: EVALUATION

Involves assessing the outcomes and impacts of the policy to determine if it is achieving its objectives. Includes collecting data, analysing results and considering feedback from stakeholders.

·       What: did the change do? (in society)

·       Why: should we check the results of our policy?

·       How: can we do comparison research?

·       Who: should do this research?

·       So what: did we achieve our goals? (see stage 1&2)

Week 3 – Multiple Streams Framework

·       Created by John W. Kingdon in 1984, updated 2010

·       Explains how public policies are formulated.

·       Based on the idea that separate streams – problems, policies, and politics – must converge for a policy window to open, allowing for the creation of new policies.

·       MSF is built on the Garbage Can Model

o   Society is ambiguous

§  Because of ambiguity, a multitude of solutions to a given problem exist because problem definition is vague and shifting

§  Ambiguity = a state of having many ways of thinking about the same circumstances or phenomena

§  More information doesn’t reduce ambiguity

o   Actors have time constraints

§  Policymakers often do not have the luxury of taking their time to make a decision, their ability to give attention to or to process information is serial (there are many things going on at once and you can only focus ono one at a time)

§  But organizations can attend to many issues at once thanks to labor division

§  Many issues require attention, so policymakers sense an urgency to address them and to ‘strike while the iron is hot’

§  Time constraints limit the range and number of alternatives to which attention is given

o   Policy preferences are problematic

§  Problematic policy preferences emerge in the presence of ambiguity and time constraints

§  Policymakers don’t have clear preferences with regard to specific policies. They take their stand based on the outcome of the next election or the question of who will be the next president (they want to win elections)

o   Organisational technology is unclear

§  Technology = processes that turn inputs into products

§  When members of an organised anarchy are aware of only their individual responsibilities and exhibit only rudimentary knowledge of how their job fits into the overall mission of the organisation

o   Participation is fluid

§  Unclear technology is complicated by fluid participation

§  The composition of decision-making bodies is subject to constant change – legislators come and go, bureaucrats move from public service to private practice

o   Streams behave independently

§  Problem stream: unpredictable (natural disasters)

§  Political stream: interaction mode is bargaining

§  Policy stream: interaction mode is persuasion

Problem stream: RECOGNITION AND PRIORITIZATION OF ISSUES

Involves the issues that require attention. Problems are identified through various means such as indicators, focusing events, or feedback from existing programs. Policy-makers need to recognize and prioritize these problems for them to move onto the policy agenda.

·       Indicators: data and statistics that show a problem exists

·       Focusing events: incidents or crises that highlight a problem

·       Feedback: information from current policies or programs indicating they are not working as intended

What constitutes a problem?

1.      Starting point: the initial focus or context (health issues, economic conditions..etc)

2.      Comparison with other entities: how the issues compares to other countries, regions, or time periods

3.      Perspective: different stakeholders view problems differently

4.      Political preferences: priorities based on political ideologies

5.      context: current events and circumstances (significant incidents or crises that highlight the problem draw attention)

Policy stream: DEVELOPMENT AND REFINEMENT OF SOLUTIONS

Consists of the various solutions and proposals developed to address identified problems. These ideas often come from experts, academics, and policy entrepreneurs who are constantly working on new proposals. The process involves:

·       Generation of ideas: think tanks, research institutions, and individuals create potential solutions

·       Evaluation: proposed solutions are assessed for feasibility, cost, and acceptability

·       Selection: the most viable options are chosen and redefined.

Primeval soup: various ideas and proposals float around in the primeval soup until they find a problem to latch onto (most significant proposal/policy float to the top).

Softening up: policy communities discuss and refine proposals and prepare them for consideration when opportunities arise

Survival criteria for proposals

1.      Technical feasibility: must be practical and implementable

2.      Value acceptability: must align with values of policymakers and stakeholders

3.      Public support: must be acceptable to the public

4.      Financial viability: must be affordable and sustainable

Political stream: THE CURRENT POLITICAL CLIMATE AND WILL

The political stream encompasses the political environment and factors that influence policy making, such as:

·       Public/national mood: the general opinion and attitudes of the public

·       Pressure group campaigns/interest groups: advocacy and lobbying by interest groups

·       Administrative or legislative turnover: changes in government or key officials that might bring new priorities or perspectives (elections, current political preferences and priorities)

Convergence of streams

For a policy to be created, all three streams must converge at a critical moment, often referred to as the ‘policy window’. This convergence is typically facilitated by:

·       Policy entrepreneurs: individuals who invest their resources to promote a particular policy proposal

·       Coupling: the act of linking problems, solutions, and political will together at the right time

When a policy window opens, due to events like crisis, changes in administration, or shifts in public opinion, it creates an opportunity for advocates to push their proposals onto the decision agenda. This is the moment when significant policy change can occur.

Policy entrepreneurs – align the streams

·       Navigate and manipulate the system to align the three streams

·       Advocate for their proposals, creating opportunities for policy change

Political entrepreneurs – implement the proposed policies

·       Leverage the policy window created by policy entrepreneurs

·       Push through and implement the proposed policies

Week 4 – Goodness of fit, Rational choice, constructivism (implementation stage)

Regulations and decisions are directly applicable.

Directives are binding with respect to the results they aim to achieve, but is up to the national authorities of each member state to decide how to achieve those results. They still need to be transposed.

·       EU level: Commission collaborates with the ECJ to ensure that EU laws are implemented and adhered to by MS (guardian of the treaties).

·       MS level: transposition is a formal process required only for directives. Practical implementation involves national regulators enforcing these laws and ensuring compliance by those who are regulated.

Europeanization of public policy

Europeanization = the process by which domestic policies, politics, and practices and EU MS change due to the influence of the EU

Europeanization of public policy = domestic policy areas becoming increasingly subject to European policy-making, leading to changes in national policies driven by EU policies
 = EU-ization of public policy

Europeanization studies try to explain if, why, and how domestic politics and policies change under the pressure of European integration.

Europeanization & Goodness of fit

When the EU adopts a new policy, its implementation in a MS depends on the “goodness of fit” between the EU policy and the existing national policy.

·       Good fit: If the new EU policy aligns well with the MS’ existing policies, there is no need for significant change to domestic institutions. This makes it easy for the MS to implement the EU policy.

·       Poor fit: If the new EU policy if very different from the MS’ existing policies, it will be difficult for the MS to adopt and integrate the EU policy. This can lead to challenges like late implementation, incorrect implementation, or even non-implementation.

Limitations

Even though the EU policy might not align with national institutions, some MS manage to implement the EU policy without too many problems. This is because other factors influence the implementation process.

·       Administrative capability: the ability of national institutions to manage and execute policies

·       Existence of veto players: key individuals or groups who can block policy implementation

·       Pressure from interest groups: support from influential groups that advocate for the policy.

Analyzing policy implementation requires combining the ‘goodness of fit’ concepts with the other considerations from rational choice (focusing on strategic decision making) and constructivist approaches (focusing on norms and identities). This comprehensive approach provides better understanding of the complexities involved in implementing EU policies.

Rational choice (RC)

RC assumes that individuals in the policy process act rationally, calculating costs and benefits to make decisions.

·       Utility maximization: individuals choose the option that maximizes their personal benefits

·       Preferences: individuals have clear, stable preferences and can rank these preferences consistently over time

·       Logic of consequentialism: decisions are made based on the anticipated outcomes and consequences

The rational choice theory views policy actors as rational decision-makers who aim to maximize their benefits based on their preferences and expected outcomes.

Constructivism

= the social world is created by human interaction and shared understanding.
emphasizes that political processes and policies are shaped by social interactions, norms, and the actions of powerful actors, with decisions guided by what is considered appropriate within the social context.

3 main (non-competitive) school of thinking

Rationalism (enforcement)

In the context of enforcement, rationalism focuses on compliance and implementation decisions based on cost-benefit calculations. It emphasizes using cost-benefit analysis and coercive strategies to enforce compliance, though these strategies may not work as well with powerful member states.

·       MS weigh the costs and benefits before deciding whether to comply with EU policies.

·       More powerful (e.g. wealthier) states violate European law more often than weaker states because they are less sensitive to the costs imposed by material and ideational sanctions.

·       Monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms are used to enforce compliance, they include:

o   Infringement proceedings

o   Fines

o   Trade restrictions

o   Scoreboards

o   However, these mechanisms can be less effective in pressuring politically and economically powerful MS to comply with EU policies.

Management

In this context, non-compliance can occur involuntarily due to factors such as lacking government capacity and administrative shortcomings.

·       Government capacity: insufficient state capacities, inefficient bureaucracy, and unclear policy texts contribute to non-compliance

·       Facilitating compliance: the EU can help MS improve compliance and implementation by providing assistance in building administrative capacity. This assistance can include funding, subsidies, and guidelines.

Management approaches focus on addressing the administrative factors that influence MS implementation, with the EU providing support to enhance administrative capacity and facilitate compliance.

When it comes to the implementation of European law, both government autonomy and government capacity are necessary for the production of new and for the adaptation of preexisting national legal acts and their correct application

è states with lower government autonomy and capacity violate European law more often than states with higher government autonomy and capacity because their veto players may block or delay vital decisions and they do not have the material resources and/or efficient bureaucracies to comply.

Constructivism (legitimacy)

Constructivism in the context of compliance emphasizes that MS comply with policies out of normative beliefs and moral obligations, rather than solely based on self-interest.

·       Legitimate action: compliance and implementation are seen as legitimate actions and the appropriate course of action.

·       Persuasion and socialization: the EU employs processes of persuasion, socialization, and collective policy learning to convince MS to internalize new norms, redefine interests, and develop new identities.

·       Persuasive strategy: the EU can assists MS in compliance by explaining the rightfulness of rules through seminars, training, peer reviews, and other forms of engagement.

·       states with lower levels of support for the principle of the rule of law violate European law more often than states with higher levels because they generally feel a lower sense of obligation to comply with law.

·       states with higher public supports for the EU as a rulesetting institution violate European law less often than member states with an EU-skeptic population because they feel a lower sense of obligation to comply specifically with European law.

Constructivist approaches focus on fostering normative beliefs and moral obligations to encourage compliance, utilizing persuasive strategies to convince MS of the legitimacy and appropriateness of EU policies.

Week 5 – Value neutrality and analytical frameworks

Value neutrality

= making decisions based solely on objective evidence, without letting personal or societal values influence the outcome.

Evidence-based policy: the ideal is to say “We are doing X because evidence says Y.”
è decisions are made based on facts and data, not on opinions or biases.

Neutral: terminology

Neutral terminology refers to language that is free from bias or value judgements, aiming to describe facts without implying approval or disapproval. This sometimes produces incomplete answers.

Terminology is neutral when:

·       objective and descriptive words, not positive or negative

·       separate facts (objective) from values (subjective)

False neutrality

Occurs when an attempt to appear neutral actually leads to biased or incomplete conclusions. It involves practices that seem neutral on the surface but fail to fully represent the reality of a situation.

·       Neutrality doesn’t mean refusing to assign weight to arguments: proper neutrality involves fairly evaluating all arguments and evidence, giving appropriate weight to each based on its merits and relevance. E.g. consider both short- and long-term effects of a policy, rather than treating them as equally impactful without critical assessment.

·       Neutrality does not mean reporting only average values without uncertainties: true neutralities requires presenting data with its uncertainties and variances, not just averages. E.g. when reporting the average effectiveness of a medical treatment, also include the range of outcomes and the confidence intervals to give a complete picture.

·       Neutrality does not mean ignoring aspects you can’t quantify: important factors that are difficult to quantify, such as social impacts or ethical concerns, must still be considered in a neutral analysis.

·       Neutrality does not mean assuming linear relationships when reality is complex: neutrality should recognize and account for the complexities and non-linear relationships in real-world situations. E.g. economic models that assume a simple cause-and-effect relationship might miss critical feedback loops and interactions within the economy.

·       Neutrality does not mean engaging in “false equivalences”: presenting all arguments as equally valid, regardless of their factual basis or merit, is not neutral. E.g. in climate change debates, treating scientifically-backed evidence and unproven opinions as equally valid is a false equivalence and misleads the audience.

Neutrality in evidence-based policy process

·       taking time to identify the problem: clearly defining the issue at hand ensures tha the analysis is focused and relevant

·       setting up a benchmark: establishing a standard or point of reference helps in measuring the effectiveness and impact of different policy options

·       establishing relevant factors for analysis: identifying the key variables and elements that should be considered ensures a comprehensive and balanced evaluation.

·       choosing a process for decision-making: adopting a structured and transparent method for making decisions helps maintain objectivity and fairness

·       acknowledging uncertainty and variability: recognizing and accounting for the inherent uncertainties and variations in data and outcomes ensures a more accurate and realistic analysis

·       establishing an analytical framework: developing a consistent and systematic approach for evaluating evidence and making recommendations ensures that the analysis is thorough and impartial

Analytical framework

An analytical framework (instead of a theoretical framework) could be applied to carry out a policy analysis focusing on evaluation!!

You want to evaluate policy X’s effectiveness. Your analysis will be guided by a ‘framework’ for analysis which enables you to assess/measure concept(s), such as effectiveness, efficiency, impact, influence etc...

It is not something that is found readily available in the literature: you first search results in literature, now study and compare how scholars measure relevant concepts, and then borrow their frameworks to establish an analytical frame

Define

·       effectiveness: clearly state what aspect of the policy’s effectiveness you want to evaluate

·       measurement: define the key concepts you’ll use to measure effectiveness

·       indicators: define indicators or signs that demonstrate the policy’s effectiveness

Why use an analytical framework?

An analytical framework helps policymakers evaluate policies systematically, ensuring thorough and objective analysis for better decision-making.

·       Evaluation focus: it’s practical and centered on real-world policy evaluation

·       Structured analysis: organizes the analysis process, highlighting key factors

·       Objective assessment: ensures neutrality in assessing policy outcomes

·       Benefits

o   Clarity and consistency: provides a clear approach to policy analysis

o   Comprehensive evaluation: considers all relevant factors and alternatives

o   Objective decision-making: supports informed, unbiased decisions

To establish an analytical framework, you need to know specifically:

·       How would you evaluate policy X’s effectiveness? Effectiveness in what? What is meant by a policy being ‘effective’?

o   Make clear what you want to find through your analysis

o   Define the key concepts that should be measured

·       What would you look for as ‘indicators’ or ‘signs’ of a policy being effective?

Components of an Analytical Framework

1.      Problem definition: clearly define the issue

2.      Objectives and goals: establish what the policy aims to achieve

3.      Criteria for evaluation: determine metrics for assessing policy effectiveness

4.      Identification of alternatives: compare options based on evaluation criteria

5.      Assessment of impacts: analyse the potential effects of each option

6.      Comparison of alternatives: compare options based on evaluation criteria

7.      Implementation analysis: assess feasibility and practical aspects

8.      Monitoring and evaluation plan: develop a plan for ongoing performance tracking