Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Analytical debates and policy learning: analysis and change in the federal bureaucracy

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of the primary agents of change within federal organizations is the policy analyst. This is so because analysts are formally charged with critiquing existing policies and the organizations that implement them, and with proposing new policies and implementation procedures. But it is often forgotten by both proponents and critics of policy analysis that analysts themselves work within — are are responsive to — an organizational context. This paper provides an attempt to view analysis as a process that initiates and responds to policy change, and that is constrained by the organizational context within which analysis takes place. A set of cases, drawn from energy policy at the federal level, are used to illustrate that process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaron, Henry (1978) Politics and the Professors: The Great Society in Perspective, Washington, DC: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Petroleum Refiners Association, (1980) APRA Tax Proposals. Washington DC: American Petroleum Refineers Association, July, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, Tom, (1981) ‘Day of Reckoning for Oil Refiners.’ Fortune, January 12, pp. 38–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashford, Nicholas (1984) ‘Advisory Committees in OSHA and EPA: Their Use in Regulatory Decisionmaking,’ Science, Technology and Human Values, Winter 9 (1), pp. 72–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, Robert, (ed.) (1976) Structure of Decision: The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balas, Egan (1979) ‘The Strategic Petroleum Reserve: How Large Should It Be?’ Management Science Research Report No. 436, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie-Mellon University, June 30.

  • Banburger, Craig (1980) General Council, DOE, ‘Refinery Policy — Previous FEA/DOE Positions,’ memorandum to William Lewis, PE, DOE, April, 15.

  • Banfield, Edward(1980) ‘Policy Science as Metaphysical Madness,’ in Robert Golden, ed., Policy Analysts, Bureaucrats, Statesmen: who leads?. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barke, Richard (1984) ‘Technological Change and Regulatory Adjustment: The FCC and Technical Standard Setting,’ paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Policy Analysis and Management, New Orleans, LA, October 1984.

  • Brecht, Arnold (1959) The Foundations of Twentieth Century Political Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, Garry (1973) Politicians, Bureaucrats, and the Consultant. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickman, Ronald (1984) ‘Science and the Politics of Toxic Chemical Regulation,’ Science, Technology and Human Values, 9 (1) Winter, 107–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, Harvey (1984) ‘The Resolution of Technically Intensive Policy Disputes,’ Science, Technology and Human Values, 9 (1) Winter, 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clock, Greg (1980) ‘Refining, Petrochemical Construction on the Upswing,’ Oil and Gas Journal, 78 (20) May 19, pp. 43–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, Lynn, General Council, DOE, (1980) ‘Action Memorandum: Refinery Policy,’ memorandum to William Lewis, PE, DOE, March 3.

  • Cooper, Mark, (1983) ‘Comments,’ in Mitchell, ed., The Deregulation of natural gas. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crandall, Robert, and Lester Lave (eds) (1981) The Scientific Basis of Health and Safety Regulation. Washington, DC: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, John, (1927) The Public and its problems. Chicago, IL: Swallow Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs, Anthony, (1972) ‘Up and Down with Ecology — The Issue Attention Cycle,’ in The Public Interest, 28 (Summer).

  • Fraatz, J. M. B. (1982) ‘Policy Analysis as Advocacy,’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1 (2) Winter, pp. 273–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritschler, A. Lee (1983) Smoking and Politics, 3rd ED. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, Michael, et al. (1978) ‘The Nonutilization of Evaluation Research,’ Pacific Sociological Review, 21 (1) January, pp. 21–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberger, Martin, et al. (1976) Models in the Policy Process. New York, NY: Russell sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberger, Martin, et al. (1983) Caught unwares: the energy decade in retrospect Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • H. J. Gruy and Associates, Inc. (1983) letter to D. G. Russell, Vice President, Production, Shell Oil Company, April 4.

  • Heclo, Hugh, (1978) ‘Issue Networks in the Executive Establishment,’ in The New American Political System, edited by Anthony King. Washington, DC: American Interprise Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heclo, Hugh, (1975) ‘OMB and the Presidency — The Problem of Neutral Compentence,’ The Public Interest, No. 38, Winter, pp. 80–89.

  • Heclo, Hugh, (1974) Social Policy in Britain and Sweden, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, Terrence and Hank Jenkins-Smith (1985) ‘Analysis of the Economic Effects of the Alaskan Oil Export Ban,’ Operations Research, 33 (6), November–December, 1173–1202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holcombe, Randall (1977) ‘A Method For Estimating GNP Loss From a Future Oil Embargo,’ Policy Sciences, 8 (1) June, pp. 217–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, I. (1970) ‘Social Science Mandrins: Policymaking as Political Formula,’ Policy Sciences v. 1, pp. 339–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, Irving (1983) Groupthink. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins-Smith, Hank and David L. Weimer (1985) ‘Analysis as Retrograde Action: The Case of Strategic Petroleum Reserves,’ Public Administration Review, vol 45. 485–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins-Smith, Hank, (1983) ‘Adversarial Analysis in the Bureaucracy: The Case of the Alaskan Oil Export Ban,’ paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Policy Analysis and Management, Philadelphia, PA.

  • Jennrich, John (1980) ‘DOE Refinery Policy Draws Fire,’ Oil and Gas Journal, 78 (33) August 18, pp. 66–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Bruce (1984) ‘From Analyst To Negotiator: the OMB's New Role,’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 3 (4) pp. 501–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • ‘Joint Independent Gas Producers Committee — Consumer Federation of America Analysis of Shell Old Gas Study,’ (1983) Washington, DC, May 16.

  • Kalt, Joseph (1981) The Economics and Politics of Oil Price Regulation: Federal Policy in the Post-Embargo Era. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keunne, Robert, et al. (1975) ‘A Policy to Protect the U.S. Against Oil Embargoes,’ Policy Analysis, 1 (4) Fall, pp. 571–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, John (1973) Congressmen's Voting Decisions. New York, NY: Harper and Row, p. 223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, John (1984) Agendas Alternatives, and Public Policy. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, Thomas (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, Imre (1971) ‘History of Science and its Rational Reconstruction’, in Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, no. 8, pp. 42–134.

  • Landau, Martin (1977) ‘The Proper Domain of Policy Analysis,’ American Journal of Political Science, v. 21 (May).

  • Langenkamp, R. Dobie (1980) Resource Development and Operations, Resource Applications, DOE; ‘Discussion of Whether Federal Subsidies Should Be Provided to Encourage Domestic Refineries to Upgrade Existing Capacities.’ memorandum to William Lewis, PE, DOE, April 11.

  • Leffler, William, (1974) Petroleum Refining for the Non-Technical Person. Tulsa, OK: Pennwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leman, C. K. and R. H. Nelson, (1982) ‘The Ten Commandments for Policy Economists,’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1 (1) Fall, pp. 97–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, Murray (1973) ‘Scientific Method and the Adversary Model: Some Preliminary Suggestions,’ Evaluation Comment, 4 (2) June, pp. 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, William (1980) PE, DOE; ‘Refinery Investment,’ memorandum to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Energy, June 4.

  • Lewis, William, (1979) PE, DOE; ‘Analysis of the Cost and Benefits of a Protective Tariff on Refined Petroleum Products,’ memorandum to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Energy, December 31.

  • Longley, Lawrence, (1978) The Politics of Broadcast Regulation. New York, NY: St. Martins.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacRae, Duncan (1975) ‘Policy Analysis as an Applies Social Science Discipline,’ Administration and Society, 6 (4) February, pp. 363–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madison, Christopher, (1980) ‘The Minors Fear for Their Lives When Federal Controls are Gone,’ National Journal, July 19, pp. 1172–1176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone, (1980) ‘Policies as Theories’, in Omega, no. 8, pp. 151–162.

  • Malbin, Michael (1980) ‘Congress, Policy Analysis, and Natural Gas Deregulation: A Parable about Fig Leaves,’ in Goldwin, ed., Bureaucrats, Policy Analysts, Statesmen: Who Leads?. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, pp. 62–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maraniss, David (1983) ‘Competing Interests Snarl Gas Debate,’ Washington Post, June 6, p. A14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marver, James (1979) Consultants Can Help: The Use of Outside Experts in the U.S. Office of Child Development. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, C. S. (1983) Increase in the United States ‘Old Gas’ Reserve Due to Deregulation, Houston, TX: Shell Oil Company, April.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, Edward ed. (1983) The Deregulation of Natural Gas. Washington: DC: American Enterprise Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monthly Energy Review (1984) Washington, DC: Energy Information Agency, Department of Energy, May.

  • Mut, Stuart (1983) Senior Vice President, ARCO Oil and Gas Co.; letter to U.S. Congressman W. J. Tauzin, May 16.

  • Nachmias, David (1979) Public Policy Evaluation: Approaches and Methods. New York, NY: St. Martins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. C. (1977) ‘When Evaluators Disagree: Perplexities and Perspectives,’ Policy Sciences, 8, pp. 147–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riker, William (1982) Liberalism Versus Populism. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rein, Martin and Sheldon White, (1977) ‘Policy Research: Belief and Doubt,’ Policy Analysis, 3 (2) Spring, pp. 239–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert Plett Associates (1982) Analytical History of the Entitlements Program. Washington, DC: DOE/RG/10572-1.

  • Robinson, John (1982) ‘Apples and Horned Toads: on the Framework-Determined Nature of the Energy Debate,’ Policy Sciences, v. 15, pp. 23–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rushevsky, Mark (1984) ‘The Misuse of Science in Governmental Decision Making,’ Science, Technology, and Human Values, v. 9, issue 3 (Summer), pp. 47–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, (1981) The Regulation of Natural Gas: Policy and Politics, 1938–1978. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schantz, John J. (1978) Oil and Gas Resources—Welcome to Uncertainty. Reprint No. 58, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C..

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuler, Henry (1979) The National Security Implication of Increased Reliance Upon Importation of Refined Products. Washington, DC: Conant and Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheffler, Israel (1967) Science and Subjectivity. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultze, Charles (1968) The Politics and Economics of Public Spending. Washington, DC: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidman, David (1977) ‘The Politics of Policy Analysis: Protection or Overprotection in Drug Regulation?,’ Regulation, 1 (1).

  • Shell Oil Company (1983) ‘The Costs and Benefits to the U.S. Economy of Additional Gas Resulting From ‘Old’ Gas Decontrol,’ Houston, TX: Shell Oil Company, May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokey, Edith and Richard Zeckhauser (1978) A Primer for Policy Analysis. New York, NY: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweetnam, et al., ‘An Analysis of Acquisition and Drawdown Strategies for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Policy and Evaluation,’ Policy and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Energy, December.

  • Teisberg, Thomas, (1981) ‘A Dynamic Programming Model of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve,’ Bell Journal of Economics, 12 (29) Autumn, pp. 526–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timines, Nicolai Jr. (1983) Deputy Director, Office of Policy Analysis, Department of the Interior, Memorandum to Jackson Silvey, Associate Director, Office of Policy Planning and Analysis, Department of Energy, September 22.

  • Under Secretary of Energy (1980) ‘Release of Policy and Evaluation Protective Tariff/Refinery Study,’ memorandum to Secretary of Energy, January 14.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (1983) Office of Policy Planning and Analysis, Supplemental Analysis of Natural Gas Consumera Regulatory Reform, Washington, D.C.: May.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (1982) Office of Energy Emergencies, Environmental Protection, Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Issues and Analysis of the Use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Staff Paper on the Department of Energy Approaches and Current Status of Studies. Washington, DC: DOE/EP-0075, December 1.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (1980) Office of Policy and Evaluation, Cost and Benefits of a Protective Tariff on Refined Petroleum Products After Crude Oil Decontrol. Washington, DC: DOE/PE-0028, December.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (1980) Office of Policy and Evaluation, Comments on the Refinery Policy Study/Summary of Analysis. Washington, DC: unpublished report, August.

  • U.S. Department of the Treasury (1981) Office of Tax Analysis and U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Planning and Evaluation, Evaluation of Certain Proposals to Aid Domestic Refiners. Washington, DC: unpublished paper, January 16.

  • U.S. House of Representatives (1983) ‘Cost to Consumers of Producing Added 52 TCF of Old Gas Reserves Under Deregulation,’ staff analysis, Subcommittee on Fossil and Synthetic Fuels, May 6.

  • U.S. Senate (1981) Committee on Finance, Incentives for Domestic Refining, hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and Agricultural Taxation, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Senate (1979) Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, testimony of Jack O'Leary, Deputy Secretary of Energy, before the Subcommittee on Energy Regulations, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 11.

  • Webber, David (1983) ‘Obstacles to the Utilization of Systematic Policy Analysis: Conflicting World Views and Competing Diciplinary Matrices,’ Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 4(4) June, pp. 534–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weimer, David (1982) The Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Planning, Implementation, and Analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, Carol (1983) ‘Ideology, Interests and Information: The Basis of Policy Decisions,’ in Calahan and Jennings (eds.) Ethics, The Social Sciences, and Policy Analysis. New York, NY: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, Carol (1972) Evaluation Research: Methods of Assessing Program Effectiveness. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavksy, Aaron, (1962) ‘The Analysis of Issue Contexts in the Study of Decision Making,’ The Journal of Politics, v. 24, pp. 717–732.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, Aaron, and Ellen Tenenbaum (1981) The Politics of Mistrust: Estimating American Oil and Gas Reserves. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, James Q. (ed.) (1980) The Politics of Regulation. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of New Mexico, 87131, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA

    Hank C. Jenkins-Smith

Authors
  1. Hank C. Jenkins-Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jenkins-Smith, H.C. Analytical debates and policy learning: analysis and change in the federal bureaucracy. Policy Sci 21, 169–211 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136407

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136407

Keywords

Search

Navigation