On the question of the compatibility of ethics and policy analysis Douglas Amy (1984) and Charles Wolf (1980) seem to disagree that these concepts are incompatible. Amy advances several arguments for the incompatibility of ethics and policy analysis while Wolf argues that the incompatibility can be overcome if analysts are more inventive. Both authors do agree that ethics is either deliberately left out or ignored in policy analysis and research. In both their papers several points are highlighted: the dominance of positivism within the social sciences and the dominance of the social sciences within policy analysis, the ideological conflict that the inclusion of ethics in policy analysis and research would create between the analysts or researcher and their primary clients, and the use of cost-benefit analysis to measure efficiency as a way to include ethical issues in policy analysis. Of the reasons advanced for the incompatibility of policy analysis and ethics these three points resonate most and I would like to comment further.
Douglas Amy in “ Why Policy Analysis and Ethics are Incompatible” argues that the inclusion of ethics in policy analysis represents a threat to the analyst-client relationship, as the results of posing ethical questions when analyzing policy may contradict the ideological position of bureaucrats, politicians and the communities they represent. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families commonly referred to as “welfare” provides an example of how posing ethical questions could create ideological contradictions. In the US this type of income transfer has primarily been criticized for being too paternalistic in requiring that recipients actually engage in activity that results in them transitioning off of welfare. This conditional requirement reflects the ideologies of the policy analysts and bureaucrats as well as the politicians who support the continuance of this program. An ethical analysis of the provision of welfare could conclude that in the interest of equity and justice the program should be administered unconditionally in some cases. This would directly contradict the ethos in US society regarding work and being productive which is one of the main reasons that the condition that recipients should engage in activities that lead to possible employment is imposed.
In “Ethics and Policy Analysis” Charles Wolfe argues that the fundamental ethical assumption that underlies all policy analysis is that it is better to apply a systematic and scientific approach to the analysis of public policy. Then steers away from this point instead choosing to focus on the ways analysis can include ethics such as choice. This systematic scientific approach to policy analysis is the direct result of the dominance of positivism in processes of policy analysis and research. This reliance on positivist theory is largely what makes ethics and policy analysis so incompatible. Positivism focuses on the analysis of measurable variables, employing quantitative methods to identify trends and make predictions. Advancing even basic ethical questions, which relate to equity or equality and justice presents substantial measurement and evaluative problems for the policy analyst. In the case of welfare for example one could ask, “ How does such a public assistance program achieve equity?” The resulting answers would only be normative in nature and based on the value judgments of the analysis working on such a question. Such value judgments are difficult to quantify and measure and therefore would be near impossible to use as the basis of predictions. So that such ethical questions are ignored in policy analysis and research because they yield results that are not easily measured.
Both Amy (1984) and Charles (1980) make reference to the use of Cost-Benefit analysis as a way of incorporating some ethical concerns into policy analysis. I believe as Charles (1980) inferred, that the use of Cost-Benefit analysis is a “cop-out” by analysis who are not creative or talented enough to develop the means to measure and analyze other ethical issues. Cost-Benefit analysis imposes a limit on the ability of analysts to explain policy issues as it focuses exclusively on questions of efficiency while other equally important questions of equity and justice are left out of the analysis. This practice in policy analysis is inadequate in many policy arenas, as several policy issues remain unresolved. In the case of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, while a cost-benefit analysis of this program may yield positive results that support the continued provision of this program example number of families assisted, re-entry into the workforce and elevation out of poverty. A cost-benefit analysis is of little use in evaluating the potential equity and equality enhancing attributes of the program and will provide even less by way of its effects on justice in terms for example of whether or not the benefits are going to individuals who truly require public assistance.
Whatever the reasons advanced for the exclusion of ethics in policy analysis it is undeniable that several questions concerning the effects on equity and justice of public decisions remain unanswered. Inclusion of ethical questions in the policy analysis and research process could lead to improved policies and programs that benefit society in general.
References
Amy, Douglas J., “Why Policy Analysis and Ethics are Incompatible,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 3(4), 1984
Wolf, Charles Jr., Ethics and Policy Analysis, RAND Corporation, 1980.
Douglas Amy in “ Why Policy Analysis and Ethics are Incompatible” argues that the inclusion of ethics in policy analysis represents a threat to the analyst-client relationship, as the results of posing ethical questions when analyzing policy may contradict the ideological position of bureaucrats, politicians and the communities they represent. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families commonly referred to as “welfare” provides an example of how posing ethical questions could create ideological contradictions. In the US this type of income transfer has primarily been criticized for being too paternalistic in requiring that recipients actually engage in activity that results in them transitioning off of welfare. This conditional requirement reflects the ideologies of the policy analysts and bureaucrats as well as the politicians who support the continuance of this program. An ethical analysis of the provision of welfare could conclude that in the interest of equity and justice the program should be administered unconditionally in some cases. This would directly contradict the ethos in US society regarding work and being productive which is one of the main reasons that the condition that recipients should engage in activities that lead to possible employment is imposed.
In “Ethics and Policy Analysis” Charles Wolfe argues that the fundamental ethical assumption that underlies all policy analysis is that it is better to apply a systematic and scientific approach to the analysis of public policy. Then steers away from this point instead choosing to focus on the ways analysis can include ethics such as choice. This systematic scientific approach to policy analysis is the direct result of the dominance of positivism in processes of policy analysis and research. This reliance on positivist theory is largely what makes ethics and policy analysis so incompatible. Positivism focuses on the analysis of measurable variables, employing quantitative methods to identify trends and make predictions. Advancing even basic ethical questions, which relate to equity or equality and justice presents substantial measurement and evaluative problems for the policy analyst. In the case of welfare for example one could ask, “ How does such a public assistance program achieve equity?” The resulting answers would only be normative in nature and based on the value judgments of the analysis working on such a question. Such value judgments are difficult to quantify and measure and therefore would be near impossible to use as the basis of predictions. So that such ethical questions are ignored in policy analysis and research because they yield results that are not easily measured.
Both Amy (1984) and Charles (1980) make reference to the use of Cost-Benefit analysis as a way of incorporating some ethical concerns into policy analysis. I believe as Charles (1980) inferred, that the use of Cost-Benefit analysis is a “cop-out” by analysis who are not creative or talented enough to develop the means to measure and analyze other ethical issues. Cost-Benefit analysis imposes a limit on the ability of analysts to explain policy issues as it focuses exclusively on questions of efficiency while other equally important questions of equity and justice are left out of the analysis. This practice in policy analysis is inadequate in many policy arenas, as several policy issues remain unresolved. In the case of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, while a cost-benefit analysis of this program may yield positive results that support the continued provision of this program example number of families assisted, re-entry into the workforce and elevation out of poverty. A cost-benefit analysis is of little use in evaluating the potential equity and equality enhancing attributes of the program and will provide even less by way of its effects on justice in terms for example of whether or not the benefits are going to individuals who truly require public assistance.
Whatever the reasons advanced for the exclusion of ethics in policy analysis it is undeniable that several questions concerning the effects on equity and justice of public decisions remain unanswered. Inclusion of ethical questions in the policy analysis and research process could lead to improved policies and programs that benefit society in general.
References
Amy, Douglas J., “Why Policy Analysis and Ethics are Incompatible,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 3(4), 1984
Wolf, Charles Jr., Ethics and Policy Analysis, RAND Corporation, 1980.
RSS Feed