30.10.2012 Views

Public Management and Administration - Owen E.hughes

Public Management and Administration - Owen E.hughes

Public Management and Administration - Owen E.hughes

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

implementation of large-scale government programmes by the Kennedy <strong>and</strong><br />

Johnson administrations (deLeon, 1988). The size <strong>and</strong> complexity of the 1960s<br />

social programmes led to a dem<strong>and</strong> for better analysis. Mathematical techniques<br />

deriving from R<strong>and</strong> or the United States Defense Department under<br />

Robert McNamara could conceivably be applied to the public sector. It was an<br />

age of science. It was an age in which any problem was seen as having a possible<br />

solution which could be discovered through the proper application of the<br />

scientific method. Related to the belief in solutions was the availability of<br />

large-scale computers <strong>and</strong> suitable software for processing statistical data to<br />

levels of great sophistication.<br />

The early period of policy analysis is generally regarded as a failure by being<br />

oversold, that is, by assuming that numbers alone or techniques alone can solve<br />

public policy problems. It is only from 1980 that Putt <strong>and</strong> Springer see what<br />

they term a ‘third stage’ in which policy analysis is perceived as ‘facilitating<br />

policy decisions, not displacing them’ (1989, p. 16). As they explain:<br />

Third-stage analysts decreasingly serve as producers of solutions guiding decision makers<br />

to the one best way of resolving complex policy concerns. Policy research in the third<br />

stage is not expected to produce solutions, but to provide information <strong>and</strong> analysis at multiple<br />

points in a complex web of interconnected decisions which shape public policy.<br />

Policy research does not operate separated <strong>and</strong> aloof from decision makers; it permeates<br />

the policy process itself.<br />

Instead of providing an answer by themselves, empirical methods were to be<br />

used to aid decision-making. While few of the early policy analysts saw themselves<br />

as decision-makers (though it was a charge levelled against them) that<br />

was the extent of the analyses used. Third-stage policy analysis is supposed to<br />

be a supplement to the political process <strong>and</strong> not a replacement of it. Analysis<br />

assists in the mounting of arguments <strong>and</strong> is used by the different sides in a particular<br />

debate. All participants in the policy process use statistics as ammunition<br />

to reinforce their arguments. The collection of data has greatly improved<br />

<strong>and</strong> the ways of processing numbers are better than before. However, whether<br />

or not third-stage policy analysis is so different from early policy analysis will<br />

be considered later.<br />

Empirical methods<br />

<strong>Public</strong> Policy <strong>and</strong> Policy Analysis 117<br />

Much has been said in passing of the empirical methods <strong>and</strong> skills needed by<br />

policy analysis <strong>and</strong> policy analysts. In one view, two sets of skills are needed.<br />

First, ‘scientific skills’ which have three categories: information-structuring<br />

skills which ‘sharpen the analyst’s ability to clarify policy-related ideas <strong>and</strong> to<br />

examine their correspondence to real world events’; information-collection<br />

skills which ‘provide the analyst with approaches <strong>and</strong> tools for making accurate<br />

observations of persons, objects, or events’; <strong>and</strong> information-analysis skills<br />

which ‘guide the analyst in drawing conclusions from empirical evidence’

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!