The distribution of analytical techniques in policy advisory systems: Policy formulation and the tools of policy appraisal
| Author | Seck L Tan,Michael Howlett,Bryan Evans,Andrea Migone,Adam Wellstead |
| Published date | 01 October 2014 |
| Date | 01 October 2014 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0952076714524810 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Public Policy and Administration
2014, Vol. 29(4) 271–291
! The Author(s) 2014
The distribution of
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
analytical techniques in
DOI: 10.1177/0952076714524810
ppa.sagepub.com
policy advisory systems:
Policy formulation and
the tools of policy
appraisal
Michael Howlett
Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby
BC, Canada; Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National
University of Singapore, Singapore
Seck L Tan
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of
Singapore, Singapore
Andrea Migone
Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby
BC, Canada
Adam Wellstead
Faculty of Social Sciences, Michigan Technological University,
Houghton, Michigan, USA
Bryan Evans
Department of Political Science, Ryerson University, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada
Abstract
The literature on policy analysis and policy advice has not generally explored differences
in the analytical tasks and techniques practiced within government or between govern-
ment-based and non-government-based analysts. A more complete picture of the roles
played by policy analysts in policy appraisal is needed if the nature of contemporary
Corresponding author:
Michael Howlett, Simon Fraser University, 888 University Way, Burnaby, BC British Columbia V5A 1S6,
Canada.
Email: howlett@sfu.ca
272
Public Policy and Administration 29(4)
policy work and formulation activities is to be better understood. This article addresses
both these gaps in the literature. Using data from a set of original surveys conducted in
2006–2013 into the provision of policy advice and policy work at the national and sub-
national levels in Canada, it explores the use of analytical techniques across depart-
ments and functional units of government and compares and assesses these uses with
the techniques practiced by analysts in the private sector as well as among professional
policy analysts located in non-governmental organizations. The data show that the
nature and frequency of use of the analytical techniques used in policy formulation
differs between these different sets of actors and also varies within venues of govern-
ment by department and agency type. Nevertheless, some general patterns in the use of
policy appraisal tools can be discerned, with all groups employing process-related tools
more frequently than “substantive” content-related technical tools, reinforcing the pro-
cedural orientation of much contemporary policy work identified in earlier studies.
Keywords
Policy-making, professionalism/professions, public administration, administrative organ-
ization and structures, contracting out, good governance
Introduction: Analytical techniques and policy analysis
Gill and Saunders (1992, 6–7) characterize policy analysis as “a method for struc-
turing information and providing opportunities for the development of alternative
choices for the policymaker.” As part of the policy formulation process, this activity
involves policy appraisal, that is, providing information or advice to policy makers
concerning the relative advantages and disadvantages of alternative policy choices
(Howlett et al., 2009; Mushkin, 1977; Sidney, 2007; Wildavsky, 1979).
A variety of different policy workers operate in a broad range of venues both
internal and external to government to provide advice employing a variety of
analytical techniques or “formulation tools” in this effort (Colebatch et al., 2011;
Mayer et al., 2004). These tools generally are designed to help evaluate current or
past practices and aid decision-making by clarifying or eliminating some of the
many possible alternative courses of action mooted as policies are formulated.
They play a significant role in the structuration of policy-making and in the deter-
mination of policy outputs’ content, and thus of policy outcomes (Sidney, 2007).
This is the “work” of policy and deepening our knowledge of this work and of
those engaged in it is an important undertaking in contemporary policy research.
It is generally true that there is a lack in the knowledge of many of the tasks and
activities involved in policy formulation (DeLeon, 1992; Linder and Peters, 1990),
and there is limited data for virtually every aspect of the policy appraisal activities
governments engage in and for the nature of the advice they receive in so doing
(Page, 2010; Page and Jenkins, 2005). In the policy literature, while many works
recommend and suggest how formulation should be conducted (Dunn, 2004;
Vining and Weimer, 2010), very few authors have studied how it is actually
Howlett et al.
273
undertaken in practice (Colebatch, 2005, 2006; Colebatch and Radin, 2006;
Noordegraaf, 2011).
Various country-based studies have pioneered the study of such work. Four
decades ago, for example, in the case of the US, Arnold Meltsner (1976) observed
that analysts undertook a number of roles in the policy-making process but empha-
sized their specialist training and expertise in sophisticated analytical methods of
policy appraisal and evaluation. This formed the basis of assumptions about the
nature of policy work and policy appraisal in many jurisdictions for decades
(Howlett and Wellstead, 2012).
Later observers of the US case, such as Beryl Radin (2000), Nancy Shulock
(1999), and Sean Gailmard and John Patty (2007), however, argued the use of such
techniques in policy-making and policy work was exaggerated. In the UK and
Germany as well, contrary to the early picture of carefully recruited analysts
trained in policy schools to undertake specific types of microeconomic-inspired
policy analysis presented by Meltsner (Weimer and Vining, 2010), investigators
such as Edward Page and Bill Jenkins (2005) and Julia Fleischer (2009) found
British and German policy-making to instead typically feature a group of “policy
process generalists” who rarely, if ever, dealt with policy matters in the substantive
areas in which they were trained and in fact had very little training in formal policy
analysis or analytical techniques. The extent to which this average picture accur-
ately described the situation in all venues within a country and within governments
has remained an open question until recently.
Over the past decade better evidence has slowly accumulated on the nature
of policy work and the array of analytical techniques utilized by different
actors in different venues of policy appraisal (Boston et al., 1996; Mayer
et al., 2004; Sullivan, 2011; Tiernan, 2011). For example, Turnpenny et al.,
in 2008–2009 mapped many of the activities involved in both ex post and ex
ante policy evaluation (Hertin et al., 2009; Nilsson et al., 2008; Turnpenny et al.,
2009), and more recent research from Australia and elsewhere has looked at regu-
latory impact assessments and the use of other similar tools and techniques in
formulation activities in different countries(Carroll and Kellow, 2011; Rissi and
Sager, 2013).
Recently, the authors and their colleagues published a set of studies exploring
the activities of governmental and non-governmental policy actors in Canada,
which has expanded the frontiers of knowledge on these subjects. This work
joined the research undertaken by other authors who probed the activities and
backgrounds of professional policy analysts in Canadian government (Bernier
and Howlett, 2011; Howlett and Joshi-Koop, 2011; Howlett and Newman, 2010;
Howlett and Wellstead, 2011); those working for NGOs (Evans and Wellstead,
2013); ministerial staffers (Connaughton, 2010; Eichbaum and Shaw, 2007, 2011;
Fleischer, 2009; Shaw and Eichbaum, 2012); policy consultants (Perl and White,
2002; Saint-Martin, 1998a, 1998b, 2005; Speers, 2007); and many other prominent
members of Canadian national and sub-national level policy advisory systems
(Craft and Howlett, 2012a; Dobuzinskis et al., 2007; Halligan, 1995).
274
Public Policy and Administration 29(4)
Consistent with the pattern found in Australia (Tiernan, 2011), Ireland
(Connaughton, 2010), New Zealand (Eichbaum and Shaw, 2011), and the UK
(Page and Jenkins, 2005), these analyses found that most policy workers in
Canadian government primarily engage in process-related tasks and activities with-
out a great deal of training or effort devoted to more formal policy appraisal
techniques. However, while providing the most extensive record of policy work
in a single jurisdiction available to date, this research continues to have several
limitations.
First, although distinguishing between regional and central level activities
(Wellstead and Stedman, 2010; Wellstead et al., 2009) and finding some significant
variations in analytical modes and techniques practiced at these levels, it has gen-
erally not differentiated very carefully between different organizations and func-
tions of government within Departments and units (an exception being Howlett
and Joshi-Koop, 2011).
Second, although this research began to explore differences between govern-
ment-based and non-government-based analysts and analysis, this has remained
preliminary. And, significantly, this research also did not take into account the
activities of the so-called invisible analysts in government (Speers, 2007); that is,
the ever-growing number of external consultants who work on a contract basis
for governments on policy matters, sometimes replacing internal analysis and
analysts (Howlett and Migone, 2013; Lindquist and Desveaux, 2007; Momani,
2013).
To better understand the nature of contemporary policy work, analytical tech-
niques and formulation activities, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial