Public Management and Administration - Owen E.hughes

or cost–benefit analysis. It has been said that when the only tool an analyst has is a hammer,
then all problems will look like nails. Some problems will call for quantitative analysis.
Others will require qualitative analysis. Most problems will require both.
The evaluation stage should identify those alternatives that are feasible and
those that are not; those that will be expensive, or politically impossible. At this
point more data may also have to be collected or the original problem redefined.
Step 5: Display and select among alternative policies
The results of the evaluation may be presented to the client as a list of alternatives,
or a preferred alternative rather than only one. No alternative is likely to
be perfect, instead, all of the alternatives will have good points and bad points,
particularly if the difference between ‘a technically superior alternative and a
politically viable one’ is borne in mind (Patton and Sawicki, 1986, p. 35).
Implementation of the programme occurs at this point as well; tasks and
responsibilities assigned and how the implemented policy is to be monitored.
Step 6: Monitor policy outcomes
No policy is complete at this point. There are often unintended consequences,
possible difficulties in implementation or changes in circumstances. Monitoring
or evaluation of progress is, or should be, fundamental to any policy no matter
how it is derived. The nature of public policy programmes is such that the results
of any one policy analysis will probably be that the original problem evolves into
others, so that rather than any one discrete analysis there will be many iterations.
In sum
Public Policy and Policy Analysis 121
The use of the Patton and Sawicki (or any similar) model can bring benefits in
analysing a matter of public policy. Perhaps there could have been more attention
paid to implementation and to policy termination. As with any set of headings,
it can guide or suggest things to look at when someone in government is
faced with a particular policy problem. It is even possible that the results of the
analysis may be better than without any such list. Also, Patton and Sawicki are
sufficiently ‘third stage’ policy people that, at various points, they say there will
not be any one, rational answer. They argue of their approach (1986, p. 38):
We organize the methods according to the steps in the process because we believe that policy
analysis is more than methods or techniques. It is a way of thinking about problems,
of organizing data, and of presenting findings. Policy analysis involves craft and creativity,
and policy analysts develop their own styles and their personalized ways of orchestrating
information. However, we believe beginning analysts can develop a set of basic
skills and a general approach that will provide a foundation for analytical development.