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 »