There Is No Need To Be Apologetic About The Limitations Of Policy Analysis (Essay Sample)

“THERE IS … NO NEED TO BE APOLOGETIC ABOUT THE LIMITATIONS OF POLICY ANALYSIS” (HOGWOOD AND GUNN, 1984, P.264)
By
Douglas Ojwang’i
Trial Assignment

383 Durnsford Road, Wimbledon Park,
London SW19 8EF, United Kingdom
17th October 2012
“There is … No Need to be Apologetic about the Limitations of Policy Analysis”
(Hogwood and Gunn, 1984, p.264)
Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher posited that “different kinds of knowledge [i.e. scientific, pragmatic and value-led knowledge] should [as norm rather than the exception] inform rulemaking” (Sutcliffe & Court, 2005, p. 1). This notion advocates for the adoption of Evidence-Based Policy (EBP) models as opposed to Opinion-Based Policy making processes. The EBP model informs policy decisions by anchoring properly researched and analysed evidence into the Policy Making (PM) and Implementation Process. In the absence of such evidence, policy makers resort to intuition, tradition, ideology, conventional wisdom, or theory to guide policy development (EC, 2010). Often, this leads to policy failure given the social complexities, economic interdependence, and tendency to resist to change (Banks, 2009).
The effectiveness of the EBP model depends on the availability of skilled manpower and expert knowledge, and properly synthesised and extensively analysed statistics. According to the World Bank (2000), statistics forms the evidence upon which policies are constructed. It aids needs identification, goal setting, and policy monitoring. The absence of reliable statistics renders the policy implementation process blind – it is difficult to enlist and learn from the implementation mistakes and to hold the policy makers accountable (NSS, 2010). In 2000, the UK’s Cabinet Office defined analysis as the process of examining and interpreting statistical data in order to provide insights into policy formulation and service delivery (Campbell, et al., 2007). Thus the role of Policy Analysis (PA) is to shape and re-orient society through research, and problem solving by influencing social, economic and political decisions (Blanchard, 2007). Aday et al. (1993) notes that while knowledge creation defines the key contribution of research, the primary role of policy analysis in decision making is to apply the pre-conceived knowledge (as cited in Puentes-Markides, 2007). The PA process utilises reason, intelligence and evidence to arrive at a mix of optimal policy alternative(s) to address a policy problem(s).
The EBP model’s scientific (i.e. systematic & rational) approach to PA and decision making reduces policy failure risk. This PA process applies a holistic approach to evidence investigation thus leading to effective policy decisions and desired outcomes as “decisions are based on accurate and meaningful information” (NSS, 2010, p. 1). According to Hunter (2002) policy-failure or implementation-gap may be caused by either non-implementation, or unsuccessful execution of policy initiatives. Therefore it is prudent that the PA process continuously re-aligns itself to the dynamics of the “changing context of policy making” (Hajer, 2003, p. 175). This compels the Policy Analysts (PAs) to provide new evidence-based frameworks to guide the decision making process at every stage of the policy cycle (Rogers & Morrison, 2011).
PM is by definition political process; and it is not limited to policy analysis – such that, even the proponents of the EBP model do recognise the inevitable: “evidence is not the only factor that influences policy” (Rogers & Morrison, 2011, p. 8). In reality, the PM process takes place in an institutional void characterised by lack of universally accepted norms and rules to underpin its execution. The efficacy of PA is delimited by external factors (e.g. politics, globalisation & knowledge liberalisation) beyond the PAs’ ambit (Hajer, 2003 & Parsons, 2001). To unravel the wide spectrum of policy design problems, the policy practitioners have tried mix of measures. In 1999, the UK’s Cabinet Office recommended that an effective PM strategy should be: “forward, outward & [inward] looking, innovative and creative, use [...