Policy Analysis by Design – Relativism & Critical Theory

1. Policy Analysis by Design – Relativism & Critical Theory Gouk Tae Kim April 9, 2008

2. Frames of Reference • Welfare economics • Public choice • Social structure • Information processing • Political philosophy  What’s next? Choice of framework !

3. Relativism & Critical Policy Inquiry • Background: Multiple Values & Frames  Each frame comes with different lens  In real world of public policy ? Dynamic, intertwined policy problems and multiple, conflicting values • Two theories of knowledge  Acknowledging plurality of frames of reference • Chapter 10: Relativism (Three frame-sensitive concepts/disciplines of policy analysis) 1. Eclectic (Eclectic use of frames of reference) 2. Forensic (It’s all grist to the mill = All frames come to the mill of policy argument) 3. Relativistic (Chaos of values) • Chapter 11: Critical Enlightenment 1. Accommodate Truth to Power 2. Critical Theory

4. Chapter 10: From Positivism to Relativism • Account of Science by Kuhn - Incommensurability: Contingent of knowledge across/inside of paradigm - Paradigm in Science = Frame of Reference in Policy Field • Criticism of Rationalistic Positivist argument • In Real World? Complex & dynamic world Relativism • “Policy analysis cuts across and draws upon a variety of social science disciplines; hence paradigm proliferate” (p. 150) • Best way to resolve the disagreements?

5. Chapter 10: Relativism (cont.) • Eclectic Policy Analysis • Multi-paradigm, Multiple frames, Eclectic orientation • “Story telling” • “The policy analysist as storyteller is eclectic, drawing pertinent insights from frames while remaining aloof from subscription to any one of them.” (p.151) • Variety of Frames– Welcome aspects!! • Inform selection of variables in analysis • Equally stimulating stories about the same event

6. Chapter 10: Relativism (cont.) 2. Forensic Policy Analysis • Paradigm is partially commensurable • Forensic image = A Lawyer building a case for a client (or against an opponent) • “To make a case, empirical evidence, interpretations, and appeals to normative principles are adduced selectively” (p. 152)  Middle ground between rationality and relativism • Forensic conception of policy analysis  Take frames as the units of argument ! • Justify the claim by apply a warrant to transform information • Air pollution case • Warrant comes from different frames discussed in the part 2

7. Chapter 10: Relativism (cont.) 3. Relativistic Policy Analysis • No once-and-for-all judgment • Criticizing the superiority of science over other frameworks • “science is a tradition just like any other, with no legitimate claim to special standing” • Tacit knowledge and personal experience • Soft vs. Hard frames • Collective decision through social learning

8. Chapter 11 – From Relativism to Critical Enlightenment • Second round Relativism vs. Positivism  Step forward • Two Relationships: 1. Policy Maker & Analysts 2. Analysts & Stakeholders  Common perspective shared by all stakeholders in a policy issue can be established

9. Chapter 11: Critical Enlightenment (cont.) • Accommodation / Accommodating Truth to Power  Seeking accommodation • Overcoming disagreements among different frames in the policy field • Value accommodation • Gap between program managers and analyst  Evaluability assessment = analyst and managers work together to develop problem definitions, goals and realistic success indicators. • Optimistic information-gathering approach  political factor/accommodating • Pessimistic information-gathering approach = Incrementalism • “A hammer to hit the nail” “Ensure that institutionally fashionable hammers hit politically acceptable nails”

10. Chapter 11: Critical Enlightenment (cont.) 2. Critical Policy Analysis • Interactions of policy analyst and stakeholders • Critical Theory continuous interchange of ideas, interpretations and criticism between social scientists and other political actors • “Competing arguments from different frames could be compared and assessed on the basis of their reflective acceptance by political actors.” • Progressive democratization of mankind • “determines the range of choices open to elites and citizens and the consequences that will follow from these choices.”

11. Chapter 11: Critical Enlightenment (cont.) 2. Critical Policy Analysis (cont.) • = extension of forensic model • Persuasive/persuasion • Call for participation in policy debate • Open communication and developmental constructions into a political system • Encourage dialogue and criticism • Analysist should work to eliminate systematically distorted communications • Critical methodology 1) values & the nature of the problem need to be exposed, discussed, disputed / 2) equalize the distribution of power  educating participants/sponsoring/directing /3) holistic  active participants 4) institutional innovation  institutional redesign

12. Conclusion • Multiple / Conflicting Values & Frames The proliferation of frames of reference in the policy field • Forensic &Eclectic orientations (liberal and forgiving)  Accommodation & Critical policy (harsh and unyielding) • Relative attractiveness of the various theories of knowledge  Any frame of reference is as good as any other • Disadvantages of relativism: “Nothing goes" & “Anything goes“ • Two-level incommensurability

13. Conclusion (cont.) • “Attempts to converge on a single policy paradigm may result in preventing the progress of public policy as well as shrink the problem-solving power currently dispersed though a variety of approaches.” • Choice & Challenge • Democratization of Policy Analysis Process • Empowering Stakeholders/the Public • Selection among approaches in Context • Accommodation (and eclectic policy analysis): high control, minimal political conflict • Forensic and critical policy analysis: Modest demands on context, stakeholders in the policy process be willing to devote large amounts of their time and energy to a discursive process. The modesty of the demands on context • "(Policy) design is the creation of an actionable form to promote valued outcomes in a particular context. It is the emphasis on clarified values and context sensibility."