Part 2 Week 3 Articles

Shulock Article
A) Briefly describe the two views of policy-making that Shulock outlines in her article.
The two views are the traditional and interpretive (AKA alternative) view. Under the traditional approach, the policy analysis is used to give advice to a specific client regarding the eventual decision or action the policymaker (i.e. client) should take to solve policy problems. Experts trained in proper analytical techniques examine a particular situation and advise clients on the best outcome after the detailed analysis is complete. Decision makers are goal oriented and seek the best option through a systematic process. The information is objective and a useful problem-solving tool that relates policies to outcomes. Analysts learn and measure the impact policy decisions will have on citizens. The traditional approach uses a state based approach and may support incremental changes in policy.

Under the interpretive approach, policy analysis is used: 1) as part of the democratic process; 2) by policy makers, interest groups and citizens to interpret issues; 3) to discover public interest; and 4) to justify actions taken. The information provided by the analysis is part of the decision making process and frames people's understandings of problems. The debate and discourse regarding issues can lead to learning which may change the outcome. Decisions are not about projecting results or consequences, but about the process and organizational legitimacy. Policy analysis is used to rationalize legislative action. Citizens are attentive and marshal popular support for the way issues are framed. Policy makers pay attention to citizen viewpoints.

B) In your opinion, which of these views of policy-making is most accurate? Why?
I'm a little conflicted regarding which viewpoint is most accurate. There is a place for client based analysis that is specifically determining which policy or program should ultimately be selected. Some people still need expert advice when choosing between particular options defined to solve a specific problem. So, a demand for this type of analysis exists. Since analysts are measuring and determining the impact policy has on citizens, it doesn't really give citizens their own voice. This is a little troubling since citizens are usually the beneficiaries of most types of policy decisions.

Shulock's interpretive approach really seems to address how policy analysis could best be used and is used as part of the actual decision making process. It also gives citizens their own voice in the process and the ability to impact the final decisions as active participants in the discussion and debate. When developing policies or legislation, the interpretive process really allows the policy analysis to frame people's understanding of an issue hopefully resulting in a better policy or outcome. Assuming the analysis is accurate, unbiased, and reliable, policies that are more responsive to the public interests is a desirable outcome. In reality, a synthesis of the two approaches would result in the best policies and decisions. However, the interpretive approach is better for promoting a strong democratic process upon which our government is based. Of the two, I like the interpretive approach the best.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/17/obama-open-insurance-cooperatives-alternative-government-run-program/

This article does a good job explaining the insurance cooperative idea that is being discussed as a possible alternative to a government run health care program. Policy analysis is used to teach people what an insurance cooperative is along with providing some historical insight into health cooperatives that existed in the past. This guidance can increase people's understanding of this particular piece of health care reform policy. It also helps frame the debate by bringing up additional questions that need to be addressed regarding this option. Policy players insights
regarding this particular aspect of the reform efforts are also included.

Although this assignment required only finding one article, this editorial did a pretty good job explaining the decision making environment surrounding health care reform. Plus, I spent a lot of time today trying to find an article that worked for this question. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/opinion/12herbert.html?em

Hird Article
A) What does Hird conclude about the use of policy analysis in decision-making?
Hird compares the influence of non-partisan policy research organizations (NPROs) on state legislators in 19 states. The literature on NPROs questions whether they can remain neutral and contribute in a meaningful way to policy making. Earlier studies on knowledge utilization found a modest and/or indirect impact of policy research on making policy. This study finds NPROs have a significant impact on legislators evaluations of their access to information and of the quality and capabilities of their NPROs.

NPROs are generally perceived as a very important source of high quality information. However, legislators do not perceive NPROs have substantial influence on policy making in comparison with other interests. NPROs are good at providing information, but the provision of information does not translate into policy making influence. However, larger, more analytical NPROs have significantly more influence than smaller, more descriptive NPROs. Legislators from states with large NPRO's that provide more analytical analysis value their work more than legislators from states with smaller NPRO's that focus on more descriptive and short-term analysis. Trust, proximity, and the type of organization is important in determining policy making influence.

B) Are you convinced by his research and his argument? Why or Why not?
I agree that legislators are listening to policy research coming from NPROs and rely heavily on their staffs to provide data and information. It makes a lot of sense that analysis with a short term and descriptive focus is not as beneficial as research with a more analytical emphasis and a longer term focus. Because of the type of information provided, it makes sense for it be used in the process rather than the actual policy decision. If the analysis is perceived to provide background information to help legislators understand issues and possible remedies, it seems likely the research would be less influential in the actual decision making process.

While I like his findings and conclusions, the research itself could have been better. A 25% return rate is not very high. I also wonder why only 19 states were surveyed. Is this because all states do not have NPROs? The definition of what organizations constitutes a NPRO is a little vague to me. I hate to admit the actual NPRO terminology was new to me. Some organizations who claim to be non-partisan seem to have an agenda or aren't really what they claim to be. If we are going to make an argument that NPROs are less influential in the policy process, shouldn't we be comparing these groups to other groups that also provide information and analysis to the decision making process?