Policy Analysis and Policy-Making: Never the Twain Shall Meet?

Abstract

INTRODUCTION The biblical story of Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) relates that at one time the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech and lived together in plain of Shinar. But in their arrogance early men proposed to build a tower whose top may reach unto heaven, whereupon the Lord said,...let us...confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. A recurrent theme in scholarly literature is lack of understanding between policy analysis and policymakers. In some of research on policy debates, image of diverse and polyglot has in fact been used (Robinson, 1982; Thompson, 1984).(1) The question at issue is whether sets of policy actors playing different roles have cognitive frameworks and value premises so divergent from each other as to be analogous to differences of culture and language that separate tribal groups. In an early formulation of problem, Caplan et al. (1975) spoke of between which culture, communication, and conflicts of interest erected barriers to effective transmission of knowledge. If these barriers create miscommunication, misunderstandings, and mistrust, then they inhibit cooperation among policy actors necessary to achieve public purposes. The aim of this exploratory research is to approach a better understanding of barriers to communication between policy analysts and policymakers. The literature exploring notion that analysts and policymakers form two communities is extensive (Lester and Wilds [1990] provide a review of reviews). Policymakers, however, may be further divided into political actors (elected officials and appointed political executives) and public managers in career service. Although these two tribes have intermingled so extensively that divisions between them are variable and not always clear, few subjects are more fascinating and unnerving to public administration than complex, sticky web between political superiors and professional careerists (Roberts, 1991:190). Research on demographic differences between political and administrative officials has not shown divergent social backgrounds, educational attainment or wear patterns (Smith, 1973). Still, differences in communication style may distinguish two sets of officials since each makes a different contribution to formulation of public policy (Pfiffner, 1992). A variety of reasons why analysts, managers, and politicians can miscommunicate have been proposed. Divergent values are one important possibility but research on professional values of several kinds of public officials indicates much more similarity than difference (Edwards and Galloway, 1981; Edwards et al., 1981; Galloway and Edwards, 1982; Nalbandian and Edwards, 1983; Schilling, 1989; Schmidt and Posner, 1986, 1987). Competing interests based on organizational position or political affiliation are also possibilities. Another line of argument, one that provides point of departure for this research, proposes that organizational activities can be conceptualized as processes of learning (Lynn, 1987). Part of this process is experiential, that is, individual gains knowledge from his or her own experience. But knowledge is also gained from interaction with other persons. Theories of knowledge utilization suggest some reasons for gap between theory and practice, analysis and decision. The most durable of these theories invokes characteristics of social science knowledge, policymaker's context or characteristics of individual policymakers. Knowledge-specific theories suggest that attributes of social science information make it inaccessible to policymakers. For example, social science may be overreliant on quantitative methods and positivist models. While policymakers think in terms of competing, equally valid interests, analysts love causal theories that are storms of control. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 3 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.