One view on the question of what is the role of policy research
comes from Lawrence Mead [1983]. In “The Interaction Problem in Policy
Analysis,” he argues that when economic analysis is applied to solving a
problem, it tends to create barriers to solving the problem. Policy analysis
that contributes to making the problem more difficult to solve is the
‘interaction problem,’ according to Mead. The root of the interaction problem is
found in the theoretical orientation that lies beneath economic analysis: “an
agnostic view of policy goals, stress on optimization, use of mathematical
models, [and] microeconomic assumptions about behavior” [46]. Some ways,
identified by Mead, that would prevent the interaction problem include:
importing goals from other disciplines into economic analysis; base analytic
goals on evidence from practices as oppose to deriving the goals from existing
theory; allow for analysis and political ideology to coexist as one.
Mead’s argument fails to consider the case where applying
economic analysis to a problem can actually lead to lowering barriers to solving
the problem. In other words, analysis could in fact make the problem less
difficult to solve, diminishing the interaction problem. Consider, the author of
this précis was part of an economic policy consultant team that gathered to
examine the effects of 2009’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA] in transportation on social well-being of demographic groups. Using economic theory as a tool to predict how the investment decision would impact firms and demographic groups, we were aware that the investment could change behavior of firms in one of three ways: lead to no change in behavior in terms of hiring, lead to some changes, lead to big changes. To assess the theory, we tracked the pathway of the investment. The pathway played out like this: federal investment gets filtered to the state government; the state distributes the funds to businesses; enterprises hire people; the people they hire are those first in queue; those first in queue hold seniority; those who held seniority are predominantly white men [PolicyLink, 2010]. We found that without attention to who is not in queue, or gender and racial dynamics, the investment decision reinforced the status quo—employment disparities between demographic groups—regardless of whether that outcome was intended or not. We can see from the example that without the economic analysis the devastating consequence of the decision would not have been identified. On the flip side, with identification, this could make the problem of employment disparities less intractable to solve. My point here is that this is evidence that contradicts the argument presented by Mead.
Another view on the question of what is the role of policy
research comes from Nancy Shulock [1999]. In “The Paradox of Policy Analysis,” she argues that despite the increase in the production of policy analysis, its’ use by policymakers is quite limited. Part of the problem lies in the fact that the conventional view on use of policy analysis is narrow and outdated. Shulock presents a broader view and purpose. One purpose that she identifies is that it can be used for ‘framing the political discourse’ [229]. The example I used above fits into this conception. The economic analysis of ARRA impact in
transportation on social well-being of demographic groups was featured as part
of a Congressional Hearing on Transportation Equity in Minnesota. The hearing
was held at a Church and attended by media outlets. By entering the analysis in
the hearing, it became part of the democratic process. The analysis informed
residents, people from multiple faith backgrounds, and congressional leaders on
the potential impacts of the policy decision. Meanwhile, the analysis framed the
political discourse on transportation. The hearing took place on the eve of
the reauthorization of ARRA investment in transportation opportunity. Well positioned, the analysis planted perspectives and information with federal lawmakers. That information informed their negotiations on additional measures that needed to be put into place to ensure that transportation equity was maximized. This is an example that meets the criteria for one of the purposes of policy analysis identified by Shulock.
References
PolicyLink. 2010, June. “Equitable Recovery in Minnesota: Transportation.” Oakland, CA: PolicyLink.
Shulock, Nancy. 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. Vol. 18, No. 2.
Mead, Lawrence. 1983. “The Interaction Problem in Policy Analysis.” Policy
Sciences (16).
comes from Lawrence Mead [1983]. In “The Interaction Problem in Policy
Analysis,” he argues that when economic analysis is applied to solving a
problem, it tends to create barriers to solving the problem. Policy analysis
that contributes to making the problem more difficult to solve is the
‘interaction problem,’ according to Mead. The root of the interaction problem is
found in the theoretical orientation that lies beneath economic analysis: “an
agnostic view of policy goals, stress on optimization, use of mathematical
models, [and] microeconomic assumptions about behavior” [46]. Some ways,
identified by Mead, that would prevent the interaction problem include:
importing goals from other disciplines into economic analysis; base analytic
goals on evidence from practices as oppose to deriving the goals from existing
theory; allow for analysis and political ideology to coexist as one.
Mead’s argument fails to consider the case where applying
economic analysis to a problem can actually lead to lowering barriers to solving
the problem. In other words, analysis could in fact make the problem less
difficult to solve, diminishing the interaction problem. Consider, the author of
this précis was part of an economic policy consultant team that gathered to
examine the effects of 2009’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA] in transportation on social well-being of demographic groups. Using economic theory as a tool to predict how the investment decision would impact firms and demographic groups, we were aware that the investment could change behavior of firms in one of three ways: lead to no change in behavior in terms of hiring, lead to some changes, lead to big changes. To assess the theory, we tracked the pathway of the investment. The pathway played out like this: federal investment gets filtered to the state government; the state distributes the funds to businesses; enterprises hire people; the people they hire are those first in queue; those first in queue hold seniority; those who held seniority are predominantly white men [PolicyLink, 2010]. We found that without attention to who is not in queue, or gender and racial dynamics, the investment decision reinforced the status quo—employment disparities between demographic groups—regardless of whether that outcome was intended or not. We can see from the example that without the economic analysis the devastating consequence of the decision would not have been identified. On the flip side, with identification, this could make the problem of employment disparities less intractable to solve. My point here is that this is evidence that contradicts the argument presented by Mead.
Another view on the question of what is the role of policy
research comes from Nancy Shulock [1999]. In “The Paradox of Policy Analysis,” she argues that despite the increase in the production of policy analysis, its’ use by policymakers is quite limited. Part of the problem lies in the fact that the conventional view on use of policy analysis is narrow and outdated. Shulock presents a broader view and purpose. One purpose that she identifies is that it can be used for ‘framing the political discourse’ [229]. The example I used above fits into this conception. The economic analysis of ARRA impact in
transportation on social well-being of demographic groups was featured as part
of a Congressional Hearing on Transportation Equity in Minnesota. The hearing
was held at a Church and attended by media outlets. By entering the analysis in
the hearing, it became part of the democratic process. The analysis informed
residents, people from multiple faith backgrounds, and congressional leaders on
the potential impacts of the policy decision. Meanwhile, the analysis framed the
political discourse on transportation. The hearing took place on the eve of
the reauthorization of ARRA investment in transportation opportunity. Well positioned, the analysis planted perspectives and information with federal lawmakers. That information informed their negotiations on additional measures that needed to be put into place to ensure that transportation equity was maximized. This is an example that meets the criteria for one of the purposes of policy analysis identified by Shulock.
References
PolicyLink. 2010, June. “Equitable Recovery in Minnesota: Transportation.” Oakland, CA: PolicyLink.
Shulock, Nancy. 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. Vol. 18, No. 2.
Mead, Lawrence. 1983. “The Interaction Problem in Policy Analysis.” Policy
Sciences (16).
RSS Feed