In Policy, Practice, Pseudo-Academic, Theory on March 1, 2010 at 11:53 am
This post discusses two journal articles:
Hird, J.A. (2005). Policy analysis for what? The effectiveness of nonpartisan policy research organizations. The policy studies journal, 33 (1), pp. 83-105.
Shulock, N. (1999). The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it? Journal of policy analysis and management, 18 (2), pp. 226-244.
Both Shulock and Hird discuss the use of the knowledge generated by policy analysis in policymaking. Both scholars argue that policy analysis is primarily used in the policy process, and has a smaller effect on the policies themselves.
Shulock discusses two views of policymaking in her article. The first, she calls the traditional view. The traditional view comes out of a rationalist perspective of policymaking and argues that policy analysis should be and is used to solve problems. Policy analysis is, in this view, a tool to reduce uncertainty, maximize utility, and maximize the benefits relative to costs. Thus, policy analysis should have a direct impact on policy, and legislation should be based directly on policy analysis. In this view of policymaking, the public is both irrelevant, uneducated, and unimportant. In contrast, the interpretive perspective argues that the role of policy analysis is and should be to influence the debate around policy. This perspective sees policy analysis not so much as a tool but as another factor influencing democratic participation and discourse. This view sees the public as important and attentive. In this view, policy analysis is part of the complex policy process. Shulock is proposing that the interpretive view is the proper understanding of the role of policy analysis in the United States. Read the rest of this entry »
Bartels, book review, inequality, Policy, politics
In General, Policy, Pseudo-Academic, Quantitative Research on March 1, 2010 at 9:05 am
I recently read and presented on Larry M. Bartels’ 2008 book, Unequal Democracy in a class that I’m taking this semester. I really enjoyed the book and would recommend it to anyone interested in policy, political science, or inequality. I was particularly struck by Bartels’ ability to translate complex quantitative models into a story about partisan differences in economic policy that anyone can understand.
Bartels uses concrete data and advanced statistical methods to show that there has been a consistent trend in the United States where low and middle-income individuals fared better economically under Democratic administrations, while only the affluent benefited under Republican administrations. He shows that this is not a coincidence; the income disparity under Republicans and Democrats is larger than what would be observed by chance, or due to exogenous events. He uses time-series data, multiple regression, probits, and other methods familiar only to those who have taken a course in advanced quantitative methods, but he uses those methods to tell an artful story that seems to engage the reader, regardless of his or her training in statistical models. Read the rest of this entry »
In Opinions on January 12, 2010 at 9:14 am
Technology, specifically the Web, is a grand theodicy of the early 21st century. In the face of evil and societal failures it gives birth to new identities— souls— for individuals, nurtures the ever so important Libertarian freewill, grants such individuals the power to do great evil, and recognizes postmodern natural laws— a stable ‘natural’ medium/experience of the world from the level of computer code and network protocols to human institutions such as Facebook®. Read the rest of this entry »
In Announcements, General, News & Events on January 11, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Hello colleagues.
I believe that most of you expressed some interest in this as some point in time… if not feel free (as always!) to ignore this message. Last year Brandon Ching created thenewstate.com as an experiment in PA blogging. Though many of us hoped to participate, well… life got in the way. We simply did not generate enough content on a regular basis to… well… consider it successful.
BUT… Brandon is working on an updated site and we are going to try it one more time. There are two reasons for this:
1) We still think it is a good idea. Considering the evolving communication industry, it would behoove us to get some practice in alternative (rapidly becoming dominant) media forms. And writing non-academese is cool. 
Read the rest of this entry »
