2 results
Three - The “lumpiness” thesis revisited: the venues of policy work and the distribution of analytical techniques in Canada
- Edited by Laurent Dobuzinskis, Simon Fraser University, Canada, Michael Howlett, Simon Fraser University, Canada
-
- Book:
- Policy Analysis in Canada
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 19 April 2022
- Print publication:
- 23 May 2018, pp 49-68
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction: analytical techniques and policy analysis
At its heart, policy analysis is what Gill and Saunders (1992, pp. 6–7) characterized as “a method for structuring information and providing opportunities for the development of alternative choices for the policymaker.” This involves providing information or advice to policy makers concerning the relative advantages and disadvantages of different policy choices (Mushkin, 1977; Wildavsky, 1979).
Professional policy analysts employ many different types of tools in this work (Mayer et al., 2004; Colebatch et al., 2011). These tools are generally designed to help evaluate current or past practices and aid decision-making by clarifying or eliminating many possible alternative courses of action. In this sense, these policy tools play a significant role in policy formulation activity and potentially play a significant role in determining the content of policy outputs and thus policy outcomes (Sidney, 2007).
As such they are a worthy subject of investigation in their own right. Unfortunately, however, generally speaking little is known about many of the practices involved in policy work (Colebatch, 2005; Colebatch, 2006; Colebatch & Radin, 2006; Noordegraaf, 2011) nor about the tasks and activities involved in policy formulation (DeLeon, 1992; Linder & Peters, 1990). That is, although many works have made recommendations and suggestions for how formulation should be conducted (Vining & Weimer, 2010; Dunn, 2004), very few works have studied how it is actually practised on the ground, and data is limited on virtually every aspect of the policy appraisal activities in which governments engage (Page, 2010; Page & Jenkins, 2005).
Some progress has been made on this front in recent years. Nilsson, Jordan, Turnpenny and their colleagues have made considerable progress in, for example, mapping many of the activities involved in both ex post and ex ante policy evaluation (Nilsson et al., 2008; Hertin et al., 2009; Turnpenny et al., 2009). This has been joined by work done in Australia and elsewhere on regulatory impact assessments and other similar tools and techniques used in formulation activities (Carroll & Kellow, 2011; Rissi & Sager, 2013).
In addition, more evidence has slowly been gathered in these countries and elsewhere on the nature of policy work and the different types practised in different situations by different actors (Mayer et al., 2004; Boston et al., 1996; Tiernan, 2011; Sullivan, 2011).
Policy Work in Multi-Level States: Institutional Autonomy and Task Allocation among Canadian Policy Analysts
- Michael Howlett, Adam M. Wellstead
-
- Journal:
- Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique / Volume 45 / Issue 4 / December 2012
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 May 2013, pp. 757-780
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Abstract. Despite all the attention paid to the topic of policy analysis as a conceptual endeavour, empirically, the actual work of policy analysts is little investigated and little known. This is true generally of most countries and jurisdictions but it is most acute at the subnational level of government in multilevel states. Recent work in Canada, however, based on comprehensive surveys of analysts of provincial and territorial policy, on the one hand, and regionally and Ottawa-based federal policy workers on the other, has found many similarities with national-level work but also significant differences. This work has highlighted differences in the distribution of tasks across jurisdictions—mainly the extent to which policy work involves implementation as well as formulation-related activities—as key distinctions found in policy work across levels of the Canadian multilevel system. This article uses frequency and principal components analysis (PCA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) to probe these dimensions of policy work. It shows provincial and territorial analysts to be similar to regionally based federal workers in task allocation, undermining a straightforward depiction of differences in policy work by level of government. The extent of autonomy enjoyed by policy workers in different jurisdictional venues, both from internal actors and those outside of government, is shown to be the key driver of differences in policy work across levels of government.
Résumé. Malgré toute l'attention accordée au thème de l'analyse politique comme un effort conceptuel, empirique du travail réel des analystes des politiques est peu étudié et mal connu. Ceci est vrai en général de la plupart des pays et juridictions, mais est le plus aigu au niveau sous-national de gouvernement dans les États multi-niveaux. Des travaux récents au Canada, cependant, basée sur des enquêtes complètes des provinces et des territoires, d'une part, et régional et basée à Ottawa analystes de la politique fédérale, d'autre part, a trouvé de nombreuses similitudes avec le travail au niveau national mais aussi des différences significatives. Ce travail a mis en évidence des différences dans la répartition des tâches entre les administrations – notamment la mesure dans laquelle le travail politique consiste à la mise en œuvre ainsi que la formulation des activités liées – comme les distinctions clés trouvés dans le travail politique à travers les niveaux de l'canadienne système multi-niveau. Cet article utilise la fréquence et analyse en composantes principales (ACP) et la modélisation par équations structurelles (SEM) pour sonder ces dimensions du travail politique. Il montre les analystes provinciaux et territoriaux à être semblables à l'échelle régionale basée sur les travailleurs fédéraux dans la répartition des tâches, minant une représentation directe des différences dans le travail politique, par niveau de gouvernement. Le degré d'autonomie dont jouissent les travailleurs dans les différents lieux de la politique juridictionnelle – à la fois par des acteurs internes et ceux de l'extérieur du gouvernement – se révèle être le principal moteur de différences dans le travail politique à travers les niveaux de gouvernement.