23 results
Contents
- Peter Knoepfel, Corinne Larrue, Frédéric Varone, Michael Hill
-
- Book:
- Public Policy Analysis
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 14 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 21 February 2007, pp iii-iv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
eleven - Research and working hypotheses
- Peter Knoepfel, Corinne Larrue, Frédéric Varone, Michael Hill
-
- Book:
- Public Policy Analysis
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 14 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 21 February 2007, pp 251-272
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
This chapter recapitulates the main analytical dimensions previously identified for the definition of the six products of a public policy found in political-administrative and social reality (see Chapters Seven to Ten). In this context, particular emphasis is placed on the complementary nature of the substantive and institutional content of these products. Based on this synoptic view, we will now present three possible ‘access points’ for the formulation of working hypotheses to be tested in the course of an empirical analysis of the explanatory factors behind these six policy products. In doing this, we make direct reference to the logic of the analysis model (Chapter Six) and to the basic elements (actors, resources and institutions) on which our public policy approach, which is inspired by actor-centred institutionalism, is based (Chapters Two to Five).
In a nutshell, we will attempt to explain the six products of a public policy as a function of the strategies of public and private actors, the resources that they mobilise to assert their rights and interests and the constraints or opportunities placed on them by institutional rules – both general and specific to the area being studied. Thus, this chapter formulates hypotheses on the (causal) links that potentially exist between the policy products (variables to be explained) and the ‘games’ played by the actors who compose the basic triangle (explanatory variables).
The proposed analytical model may be applied from different scientific perspectives, that is, to describe, interpret, explain or anticipate the content of a policy. Table 11.1 demonstrates the potential utility of the model in terms of these analytical levels. This chapter concentrates on the formulation of research and working hypotheses that facilitate the development of empirical research based on an explanatory perspective.
11.1 Variables to be explained: the substantive and institutional dimensions of policy products
Table 11.2 presents the six products that the analyst can define in the course of a policy cycle as a function of multiple material supports (for example, government programmes, legislation and regulations, annual reports of administrative services, expert evaluations, informal documents produced by the administration and interest groups, syntheses of consultation or negotiation processes, print media, websites).
Beyond the generic definition of these six products, Table 11.2 lists the operational dimensions presented earlier by way of illustration for the detailed study of their constituent elements.
ten - Evaluating policy effects
- Peter Knoepfel, Corinne Larrue, Frédéric Varone, Michael Hill
-
- Book:
- Public Policy Analysis
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 14 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 21 February 2007, pp 221-250
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
A policy aims to resolve a social problem that has been defined as politically relevant to the public arena (see Chapter Seven). Once it has been programmed and implemented (see Chapters Eight and Nine), a policy is – or should be – subject to systematic evaluation. During this final stage of the policy life cycle, the analyst focuses on the effects generated by the state measures. In concrete terms, this means establishing the benefits and costs of policy, including where applicable whether groups have effectively modified their behaviour. In summary, policy evaluation involves the empirical testing of the validity of the causality model on which the policy is based. Thus, the analysis concerns both the relevance of this ‘theory of action’ and the scope of its practical application.
This chapter deals with ‘evaluative statements on policy effects’, which is the sixth policy product in our analysis model (see the introduction to Part III). We start by providing operational definitions of the concepts of policy ‘impacts’, which take account of changes affecting target groups (including changes in their behaviour), and policy ‘outcomes’, which describe the effects actually generated among the end beneficiaries (Section 10.1). There may be related effects on third parties. Based on these two variables, we present the five criteria that are generally applied when evaluating the effects of a policy: extent of impact, effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and productive economy (Section 10.2). These two preliminary stages then enable us to identify the form and content of the various evaluative statements that can be observed in political-administrative reality (Section 10.3). Finally, we identify the principal actors of the evaluation stage, their direct and indirect games and the resources and institutions mobilised during the process of the production of these evaluative statements (Section 10.4).
10.1 Definition of policy effects
While the concept of the formal implementation act (‘output’) identifies the final products of political-administrative processes (that is, the tangible results of implementation), the ‘impacts’ and the ‘outcomes’ concern the real effects of a policy in the social arena. Thus, at this level, what is involved is the empirical testing of the relevance of the intervention hypotheses (did the target groups react as anticipated?) and causality hypotheses (do the end beneficiaries see their situation improving?). To facilitate the empirical analysis of these effects, we present below the operational dimensions that make it possible to identify and qualify policy impacts and outcomes.
one - Theoretical perspectives on policy analysis
- Peter Knoepfel, Corinne Larrue, Frédéric Varone, Michael Hill
-
- Book:
- Public Policy Analysis
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 14 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 21 February 2007, pp 3-16
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Policy analysis consists in the “study of the action of public authorities within society” (Mény and Thoenig, 1989, p 9). In terms of disciplines, a number of academic sectors have been and are associated with it. It was adopted as early as 1979 by Wildavsky (1979, p 15) in his plea for the development of this approach: “Policy analysis is an applied subfield whose contents cannot be determined by disciplinary boundaries but by whatever appears appropriate to the circumstances of the time and the nature of the problem”. Similarly, Muller (1990, p 3) mentions that “policy analysis is located at the junction of previously established knowledge from which it borrows its principal concepts”.
We start by presenting a quick review of the literature from the traditional policy analysis schools1 and then go on to examine the specific theoretical framework adopted in this book.
1.1 Various currents in policy analysis
The main disciplines that can be observed within the different schools define themselves in accordance with the theoretical and normative perspectives, on which the positions of the different authors are based and/or towards which they tend. Thus, after Mény and Thoenig (1989) and Muller (1990, p 3), it is possible to identify three major currents in policy analysis that reflect different aims without, however, being mutually exclusive. These currents differ mainly in terms of their focuses on specific fields of analysis.
Thus, we make distinctions between a first school of thought that associates policy analysis and the theory of state, a second that explains the way in which public action works and, finally, a third that focuses on the evaluation of the results and effects of the latter.
1.1.1 Policy analysis based on the theories of state
For the first group of authors, policy analysis is a means of explaining the actual essence of public action because policies are interpreted as revealing its nature. This current, which the political sciences dominates and lays claim to, in France in particular, attempts to link the policy approach with political philosophy and major questions concerning the theory of state. Thus, Mény and Thoenig (1989) define their approach in terms of a contribution to questions concerning ‘the emergence and nature of the state’ or to ‘the essence of politics’.
Part I - Theoretical framework
- Peter Knoepfel, Corinne Larrue, Frédéric Varone, Michael Hill
-
- Book:
- Public Policy Analysis
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 14 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 21 February 2007, pp 1-2
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
In the first part of the manual, we provide a clear and detailed presentation of the theoretical framework on which our policy analysis model is based.
Part III - Analysis model
- Peter Knoepfel, Corinne Larrue, Frédéric Varone, Michael Hill
-
- Book:
- Public Policy Analysis
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 14 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 21 February 2007, pp 111-112
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Part III presents in detail the logic behind our analysis model and the variables and hypothesis that constitute it. Our approach is designed to take into account both substantive (‘how can the public problem be resolved’) and institutional (‘which actors will get involved, which resources are required and which institutional rules apply?’) dimensions.
We start this section of the book by presenting the framework that facilitates the empirical analysis as part of a comparative approach (Chapter Six). This is followed by the definition of the dependent variables (or social phenomena to be explained) based on the four main stages of a policy: agenda setting (Chapter Seven), programming (Chapter Eight), implementation (Chapter Nine) and evaluation (Chapter Ten).
In the context of these policy phases, we identify six types of products to be analysed:
1. The political definition of the public problem (PD).
2. The political-administrative programme (PAP).
3. The political-administrative arrangements (PAAs).
4. The action plans (APs).
5. The formal implementation acts (outputs).
6. The evaluative statements on the changes in target group behaviour (impacts) and on the effects achieved in terms of the resolution of the problem (results or observable outcomes among end beneficiaries).
These six products are analysed in each of the above-listed chapters in terms of their substantive and institutional dimensions.
The last chapter of Part III (Chapter Eleven) presents the different working hypotheses on the possible links between these different products, the games played by public and private actors, the resources mobilised and the (general and specific) institutional rules associated with policies. Chapter Twelve provides an overall conclusion to the volume.
Frontmatter
- Peter Knoepfel, Corinne Larrue, Frédéric Varone, Michael Hill
-
- Book:
- Public Policy Analysis
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 14 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 21 February 2007, pp i-ii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
twelve - Conclusion
- Peter Knoepfel, Corinne Larrue, Frédéric Varone, Michael Hill
-
- Book:
- Public Policy Analysis
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 14 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 21 February 2007, pp 273-288
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
This review of the arguments and cases discussed throughout the book is primarily intended to prompt researchers and practitioners working in the area of policy analysis and management to revisit the arguments presented, develop them further, complement them with other theoretical approaches and apply them in actual analysis situations. Thus, we present some reflections on the strengths (Section 12.1) and weaknesses (Section 12.2) of our theoretical concepts and their application in concrete cases. Finally, we describe two possible future directions for the development of policy analysis (Section 12.3), that is, governance and institutional regimes.
12.1 Strengths of the proposed approach
Based on our experience in teaching and research (both theoretical and applied), we believe that the analysis model presented in this manual has the advantage of not being centred on a single theoretical, and always normative, conceptualisation of the state, but rather offers a balanced approach to the analysis of public policy.
(a) Rejection of a single theory of state
As stated at the beginning of this book (see Chapter One), our analytical model does not propose to develop a new theory on the functioning of the state and its position with respect to civil society in general. To put it in more positive terms, the position on which our conceptual work throughout this book is based stems from our desire to present a model that can be applied in the context of a broad range of conceptualisations and interpretations of the state and its actions. What we have in mind here, for example, are the diverse and often strongly diverging theories on:
• the relationships between public and private actors (for example, neo-Marxist, neo-corporatist and neo-liberal approaches);
• the access to resources available to different categories of actors (for example, the analysis of networks based on the interdependency of resources between actors);
• the role of general or constitutive institutional rules in the context of the effectiveness of public action.
Thus, our analytical model aims to remain open to a number of theoretical trends in the area of the public sector and state action that are inspired by law, politics and economics. However, this openness assumes that the promoters of the various approaches in question will accept the principle of the operationalisation and empirical verification of the concepts and hypotheses on which their theory is based.
eight - Policy programming
- Peter Knoepfel, Corinne Larrue, Frédéric Varone, Michael Hill
-
- Book:
- Public Policy Analysis
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 14 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 21 February 2007, pp 151-186
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The first product to be explained as part of the programming stage of a public policy is the political-administrative programme (PAP). The PAP defines the legal bases for the objectives, intervention instruments and operational arrangements of the public action. This group of elements also incorporates decisions on the administrative process and organisation of the implementation of the policy, that is, the political-administrative arrangement (PAA) that is understood here as the second product to be explained. The PAP then partly (pre)defines the intermediary acts of the policy, that is, the decisions concerning the action plans (APs) that define the priorities of the application of the PAP in terms of time and space and between the different social groups. Finally, it provides – more or less precise and restrictive – indications with respect to the administrative production of more or less formalised final measures (outputs) creating a direct link, either legal or factual, between the policy's target groups and the competent implementing public bodies. The concepts ‘action plan’ and ‘final formalised measure’ will be discussed in the next chapter that deals with the implementation stage and its products (see Chapter Nine).
In effect, we consider that the programming stage of a policy is complete when the two products, the PAP and PAA, are empirically identifiable. Thus, the following paragraphs explore the constituent elements of each of these two pillars of the policy process. As with the product ‘political definition of the public problem’ (PD), we place particular emphasis on the operationalisation of the dimensions specific to the PAP (see Section 8.1) and the PAA (see Section 8.2) so as to facilitate the application of these concepts in the course of empirical research. Finally, we identify the principal actors, the resources and institutional rules mobilised during the process of formulation and formal adoption of a policy's PAP and PAA (see Section 8.3).
8.1 Political-administrative programme (product no 2)
PAP represents the set of regulatory acts and norms that parliaments, governments and the authorities charged with execution consider necessary for the implementation of a public policy. The PAPs of different policies can vary in terms of their level of detail (variable regulatory density), degree of centrality (national and/or regional/local authority definition of the PAP), and degree of coherence (the internal appropriateness of the constituent elements).
Public Policy Analysis
- Peter Knoepfel, Corinne Larrue, Frédéric Varone, Michael Hill
-
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 14 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 21 February 2007
-
This book offers a critical examination of both the discourse and practice of participation in order to understand the significance of this explosion in participatory forums, and the extent to which such practices represent a fundamental change in governance.
four - Policy resources
- Peter Knoepfel, Corinne Larrue, Frédéric Varone, Michael Hill
-
- Book:
- Public Policy Analysis
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 14 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 21 February 2007, pp 63-90
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
In this chapter, we present the resources that motivate public and private actors to assert their values and interests in the course of the different stages in the policy life cycle. In the traditional policy analyses, resources are generally considered as specific elements of political-administrative programmes (PAPs), or as means of action specific to actors’ efforts to resolve a collective problem.
In reality, a policy is not created or realised in a void. From the outset, the available resources exert a significant influence on the intermediate and final results of a policy. Even before the first intervention plans have been drafted, civil servants, politicians and private actors already see themselves as confronted with the ‘conditions of production’ for a proposed public action; they find themselves situated on a ‘building site’ with limited but necessary resources for the structuring and ‘construction’ of a public policy.
Until recently, the only policy resources considered by analysts were the law (legal and regulative bases), money and personnel. However, research carried out in recent years by representatives of the administrative sciences working in the area of organisational sociology, human resources and information systems shows that information, organisation, public infrastructure, time and consensus can also be considered as resources employed by policy actors. Political scientists also stress the importance of the political support or power that can be mobilised as a resource by different actors.
The availability of different resources to the actors involved in a policy process, their production, management, exploitation, combination, and even their substitution or exchange, can exert a significant influence on the processes, results and effects of a policy. In a number of variants of the New Public Management model the distribution and ‘management’ of resources at the disposal of policy actors is seen as a matter of choice for the executive. This approach involves treating such important resources as, for example, organisation, consensus, time as the sole responsibility of executive bodies and aims to limit the influence of parliament. Decisions about these have political elements; hence this approach may undermine democracy (Knoepfel, 1996, 1997b). As we shall demonstrate in this chapter, in our opinion, it is an excessively narrow vision of the role of policy resources and their influence on the quality of policy implementation and its effects.
three - Policy actors
- Peter Knoepfel, Corinne Larrue, Frédéric Varone, Michael Hill
-
- Book:
- Public Policy Analysis
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 14 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 21 February 2007, pp 39-62
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
We take policy to mean a series of decisions or activities resulting from structured and recurrent interactions between different actors, both public and private, who are involved in various different ways in the emergence, identification and resolution of a problem defined politically as a public one.
In this chapter, we focus on the types of actors concerned by policy, while following chapters will deal with the resources to which these actors have access in order to represent their interests (Chapter Four), on the one hand, and with the institutional context that influences their individual and collective behaviour (Chapter Five), on the other. These three concepts (actors, resources and institutions) constitute the principal focus of our analysis and are the key factors on which we will base our policy analysis model (Part III).
3.1 ‘Empirical actors’
Given that policies embody the results of the interactions between different public and private actors, we must start by defining the actual concept of an actor. For the purposes of this study, the term ‘actor’ can be taken to designate either an individual (a minister, member of parliament, specialist journalist etc), several individuals (constituting for example an office or a section of an administration), a legal entity (a private company, an association, a trade union and so on) or a social group (farmers, drug users, the homeless etc).
Note, however, that a group of several individuals constitutes a single actor insofar as, with respect to the policy under consideration, they are in broad agreement and share a common approach as far as the values and interests that they represent and the concrete aims that they pursue are concerned. This consensus can be arrived at, for example, through the hierarchical structure or through the democratic process.
Talcott Parsons (1951) inspired our approach to the concept of actor. In his view, in order to analyse a social action, we must focus essentially on the simplest unit that retains the significance of what Parsons terms a ‘unit-act’. This elementary act is undertaken by at least one actor who has an objective (bringing about a future state of affairs with a view to which the actions of the actor in question are directed), and who uses certain means to achieve that objective (Bourricaud, 1977, p 31).
References
- Peter Knoepfel, Corinne Larrue, Frédéric Varone, Michael Hill
-
- Book:
- Public Policy Analysis
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 14 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 21 February 2007, pp 289-314
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
six - Analysis model
- Peter Knoepfel, Corinne Larrue, Frédéric Varone, Michael Hill
-
- Book:
- Public Policy Analysis
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 14 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 21 February 2007, pp 113-124
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
6.1 Policy cycle and its products
Based on the keys to the analysis presented in the previous section, we interpret a public policy as a set of decisions and activities resulting from the interaction between public and private actors, whose behaviour is influenced by the resources at their disposal, the general institutional rules (that is, the rules concerning the overall functioning of the political system) and specific institutional rules (that is, the rules specific to the area of intervention under scrutiny).
The adoption of such an approach leads us to differentiate our analysis variables as follows:
• the specific scope and content – both substantive and institutional – of the different policy products constitute the dependent variables, that is, the social phenomena to be explained,
while
• the actor constellations and behaviour, which are themselves directly influenced by mobilisable resources and the general institutional context, constitute the independent variables, that is, explanatory social phenomena.
In order to concretise this meta-hypothesis by means of an analytical model that can be applied in the context of practical studies ‘in the field’, we must first identify the nature of the substantive and institutional results of public actions. In order to operationalise these dependent variables, we adopt the concept of the policy cycle (see Section 2.4 in Chapter Two). Thus, we interpret the unfolding of a policy process in terms of the following four main stages: (1) the placing of the problem to be resolved on the governmental agenda; (2) the legislative and regulatory programming of the public intervention; (3) the implementation of the political-administrative programme (PAP) by means of action plans (APs) and formal acts (outputs); and (4) the evaluation of the resulting effects (impacts and outcomes).
Figure 6.1 presents the six products of a public policy as a function of these different stages.
Thus, the analyst must try to identify these six types of products for all policies in accordance with the following characteristics:
• The political definition of the public problem (PD) not only includes the decision on political intervention, but also, and above all, the delimitation of the perimeter of the public problem to be resolved, the identification of its probable causes by the public actors and the kinds of public intervention envisaged.
• The PAP includes all of the legislative or regulatory decisions taken by both central state and public bodies and necessary to the implementation of the policy in question.
seven - Political agenda setting
- Peter Knoepfel, Corinne Larrue, Frédéric Varone, Michael Hill
-
- Book:
- Public Policy Analysis
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 14 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 21 February 2007, pp 125-150
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
If, as defined in Chapter Two, public policies consist of a group of activities and decisions taken by different actors with a view to resolving a problem that is politically defined as public in nature, it is important first and foremost to look into the actual concept of ‘public problem’.
In this chapter, we discuss the processes whereby a social problem is identified and then ‘thematicised’ as a public problem as well as the different characteristics of agenda setting. According to our analytical model, the political definition of the public problem (PD) constitutes, in effect, the first product that the analyst must study when tackling the cycle of public intervention in the context of an empirical study.
In reality, the processes involving the political definition – and redefinition – of public problems have not been the subject of theoretical and empirical analyses that are comparable, in number at least, with those carried out on the (subsequent) stages of policy programming, implementation and evaluation. Obviously, the failure to take the stakes associated with the definition of the problem tackled by a policy into account is a definite drawback when it comes to the analysis of this policy, including studies carried out on its implementation:
Yet we know that the problem definition stage frames and generates virtually everything that follows in the policy process, so our failures to examine problem definition sentences us to operate through a glass darkly (DeLeon, 1994, p 89).
As Anderson (1978, p 20) and others demonstrate, the development of a policy cannot be interpreted as the simple resolution of given problems defined on the basis of their intrinsic characteristics. It also involves the constitution and definition of public problems. This is a political designation process that influences or determines the actors involved in the policy (that is, the public authorities of the political-administrative arrangement [PAA], the target groups, the end beneficiaries and third-party groups), and the actual nature of the public actions carried out (that is, the modes of intervention selected in the political-administrative programme [PAP]).
From this perspective and by way of introduction, we stress the need for a (re-)constructive analysis of public problems (Section 7.1). Then, in accordance with the structure proposed in Chapter Six, we will move on to the general definition and operationalisation of the concept of the ‘public problem’ (Section 7.2).
List of tables and figures
- Peter Knoepfel, Corinne Larrue, Frédéric Varone, Michael Hill
-
- Book:
- Public Policy Analysis
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 14 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 21 February 2007, pp v-vi
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Index
- Peter Knoepfel, Corinne Larrue, Frédéric Varone, Michael Hill
-
- Book:
- Public Policy Analysis
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 14 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 21 February 2007, pp 315-317
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Introduction
- Peter Knoepfel, Corinne Larrue, Frédéric Varone, Michael Hill
-
- Book:
- Public Policy Analysis
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 14 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 21 February 2007, pp ix-xviii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The recent evolution of western democracies is characterised by the myriad challenges currently facing public sector actors. These include:
• the reduction of budget deficits and structural debt;
• the maintenance of political control over the economy in the face of the increasing influence of globalisation processes;
• the fulfilment of increased public expectations with respect to the levels of services provided;
• the increasing competition between public authorities at local, regional and international level;
• the management of the redistribution conflicts associated with the long-term exclusion of certain social groups;
• the need for the more professional management of (increasingly) scarce public resources;
• the democratic imperative of a systematic evaluation of the effects of laws and regulations;
• the political integration of minorities and the consensual management of the conflicts that result in their opposition to the majority.
Various institutional responses to these problems are currently being tested in the majority of western democratic regimes. Governmental and parliamentary agendas at all levels (local, regional, national and European) currently feature numerous pilot projects involving New Public Management or the reinvention/modernisation of the state, various accompanying processes involving liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation of certain public sectors and companies and alternative proposals for the reform of legislative and executive bodies. In this context of growing uncertainty, political-administrative actors are seeking credible and consensual solutions and, hence also, expertise on the different possible solutions for the modernisation of the political-administrative system and its interventions.
Policy analysis as presented in this manual aims to provide an understanding of, or response to, these basic questions concerning the legitimacy, efficacy and durability of public action.
Characteristics of the proposed method of policy analysis
The proposed method of policy analysis rests on three definitive analytical areas – the interaction between public and private actors, public problems and comparative analysis.
Analysis of the interaction between public and private actors
Policy analysis proposes to interpret the state and, more generally, the political-administrative system using the yardstick of its influence on the economy and society. Without denying or obscuring the power relationships inherent in all political-administrative processes, policy analysis concentrates on existing or emerging administrative organisations and the actual services they provide to the public.
Thus, with the emphasis on the comprehension of the complex workings of public action, the political institutions – previously the focus of research interest – are analysed from the perspective of the constraints and opportunities they offer to policy actors.
Part II - Keys to the analysis
- Peter Knoepfel, Corinne Larrue, Frédéric Varone, Michael Hill
-
- Book:
- Public Policy Analysis
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 14 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 21 February 2007, pp 17-20
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
In this second section, we present the prerequisites of our policy analysis model. We also define the concepts necessary to our analysis.
More precisely, our approach focuses on the individual and collective behaviour of the actors involved in the different stages of a policy. Thus, we assume that the content and institutional characteristics of a public action (the variable to be explained) are the product of the interaction between the political-administrative authorities, on the one hand, and the social groups that cause and/or support the negative effects of the collective problem that the public action seeks to resolve (explanatory variables), on the other. Apart from respective values and interests, the ‘games’ these actors play are dependent on the resources they succeed in mobilising so as to defend their positions with respect to the objectives, instruments and development process involved in a public intervention measure. These games can affect equally the substantive content of the public policy and the procedural and organisational modes of its formulation and implementation. In all of these cases, however, the actors must take into account the constraints and opportunities constituted by the institutional rules in force. The (meta) rules established at constitutional level and hence theoretically applicable to all policies, predetermine the more specific rules associated with a specific policy. The latter directly influence an actor's access to both this policy arena and the action resources that can be mobilised. If these specific institutional rules pre-structure the actors’ game, it should be kept in mind that they too are (partly) negotiated, mainly during policy formulation, by the actors who are (potentially) affected by the substantive targeted results.
Figure 1 summarises the key elements of the public policy analysis model adopted in this manual.
Before we explore all of the possible relationships between actors, resources and the institutions involved in a given policy, we must define exactly what we mean by these concepts.
Chapters Two to Five provide responses to four fundamental questions: what are the constituent elements of a public policy (Chapter Two)? How can the different categories of public policy actors be identified and characterised (Chapter Three)? What are the different types of resources that the actors can mobilise to influence the content and development of a policy (Chapter Four)?
Preface to the English edition
- Peter Knoepfel, Corinne Larrue, Frédéric Varone, Michael Hill
-
- Book:
- Public Policy Analysis
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 14 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 21 February 2007, pp vii-viii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
This book is a manual on public policy analysis; it makes no claim to present a new theory of the state. It is aimed at students and practitioners of public administration. It is based upon a book originally written in French titled Analyse et pilotage des politiques publiques.
The manual is structured and written in a way that is comprehensible to readers who may not have an academic background in the social sciences, but introduces and explains key ideas from law, sociology, political science and administrative science. It presents an analytical framework that can be used to carry out empirical studies on different public policies. It can also be used as an aid in the formulation, implementation and/or evaluation of new public policies.
Based on analysis and research carried out by the authors and applied to different domains of public action, this manual presents a model for the analysis of public policy as well as examples of the application of this model in everyday political-administrative situations. The original examples were mostly drawn from Switzerland and France. Most of these have been retained; others have been added from the UK. There is a substantial British literature from which it has only been practical to draw on to a limited extent, using examples that illustrate the model used in the book. For wider material readers could usefully refer to Dorey's Policy making in Britain (2005) or to Richards and Smith's Governance and public policy in the UK (2002).
France and Switzerland basically represent two extremes in terms of their modes of government: Switzerland is a federal state with direct democratic procedures based on consensus between the political parties while at the same time displaying a high level of linguistic, confessional and regional diversity; and France is a centralised state that is primarily founded on a system of representative democracy, organised on the basis of political bipartisanship and rooted in a shared republican history that aims (for at least the past two centuries) to homogenise local situations in terms of language, mode of political representation and support for one and the same conception of the public interest. The UK is (notwithstanding recent devolution) another centralised state, but with a rather different set of institutions to France.