Policy Sciences

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 309–321 | Cite as

What work makes policy?

Original Article

Abstract

The mainstream policy literature identifies a number of activities as part of ‘policy-making’: ‘policy analysis’, ‘policy advice’, ‘decision-making’, and perhaps also ‘implementation’ and ‘evaluation’. Describing policy in these terms is compatible with the Western cultural account, and these terms tend to be applied to positions, organisational segments and official procedures. But policy practitioners tend to find that on the one hand, their experience of their work bears little resemblance to the assumptions in this policy-making model, and on the other, that policy outcomes seem to reflect much broader processes than the work of specialist functionaries. On closer examination, we find that our thinking about policy activity draws on several distinct and potentially conflicting perspectives, and that what is seen as ‘policy work’ depends on the conceptualisation of the policy process. Framing the question in this way helps to understand the apparent differences between mainstream (American) accounts of policy activity and policy practice in other political systems.

Keywords

Policy analysis Policy practice Policy knowledge Interaction in policy Interpretive policy analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, D. (2005). Review of P. Bridgman and G. Davis. The Australian Policy Handbook, 3rd edn. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, G.T. (1971). Essence of Decision. Boston, MA: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, G. (2006). Ministerial staff: New players in the policy game. In H.K. Colebatch, (Ed.), Beyond the Policy Cycle: the Policy Process in Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, pp. 166–183.Google Scholar
  4. Auer, M.R. (2006). The Policy Sciences in Critical Perspective. In J. Rabin, W.B. Hildreth & G.L. Miller, (Eds.), Handbook of Public Administration. London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 545–562.Google Scholar
  5. Bridgman, P., & Davis, G. (2003). What use is a policy cycle? Plenty, if the aim is clear. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62, 98–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bridgman, P., & Davis, G. (2004). The Australian Policy Handbook, 3rd edn. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  7. Cabinet Office (1999). Professional Policy-Making for the Twenty-first Century. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  8. Colebatch, H.K. (2006a). Mapping the work of policy. In H. K. Colebatch, (Ed.), Beyond the Policy Cycle: The Policy Process in Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
  9. Colebatch, H.K. (Ed.) (2006b). Beyond the Policy Cycle: The Policy Process in Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  10. Colebatch, H.K. (2006c). The Work of Policy: An International Survey. Latham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  11. Colebatch, H.K. (2006d). Accounting for policy in Australia. Public Policy 1 37–5.Google Scholar
  12. Colebatch, H.K., & Degeling, P. (1986). Talking and Doing in the Work of Administration. In Apthorpe, R. (Ed.), Institutional Encounters: Bernard Schaffer’s Grammar of Bureaucracy and Official Provision. Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Davies, H., Nutley, S., & Smith, P. (Eds.) (2000). What Works: Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Public Services. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  14. Davies, P. (2004). Is Evidence-based Government Possible?. The Jerry Lee Lecture, presented at the 4th Annual Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  15. Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Dye, T.R. (1972). Understanding Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Feldman, M.S., & March, J.G. (1981). Information in organizations as signal and symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoppe, R., & Jeliazkova, M. (2006). How policy workers define their job: A Netherlands Case Study. In: Colebatch, H. K. (Ed.), The Work of Policy: An International Survey. Latham, MD: Lexington Books, pp. 35–60.Google Scholar
  19. Howard, C. (2005). The policy cycle: A model of post-machiavellian Policy Making? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 64, 3–13.Google Scholar
  20. Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2002). Implementing Public Policy. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Kickert, W.J.M., Klijn, E.-H., & Joppenjan, J.F.M. (Eds.) (1997). Managing Complex Networks. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Kingdon, J.W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston, MA: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  23. Lasswell, H.D. (1971). A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
  24. March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions. New York, Free Press.Google Scholar
  25. Marston, G., & Watts, R. (2003). Tampering with the evidence: A critical appraisal of evidence-based decision-making. The Drawing Board, 3, 143–163.Google Scholar
  26. Martin, P., & Halpin, D. (1998). Landcare as a politically relevant new social movement? Journal of Rural Studies, 14, 445–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Metze, T. (2006). No trespassing in the dairy gateway: Boundary Work in Deliberative Cooperation in Wisconsin, USA. paper presented to the Conference on the Interpretive Practitioner, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
  28. Noi, C. (2005). From Westminster to Washington. The Nation (Bangkok).Google Scholar
  29. Osman, S. (2005). Jakarta’s Plans for Political Aides Queried. Straits Times (Singapore).Google Scholar
  30. Parsons, W. (2004). Not just steering but weaving: Relevant knowledge and the craft of building policy capacity and coherence. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63, 43–57.Google Scholar
  31. Radin, B. (2000). Beyond Machiavelli: Policy Analysis Comes of Age. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Radin, B.A. (2006). Professionalization and policy analysis: The Case of the United States. In H.K. Colebatch, (Ed.), The Work of Policy: An International Survey. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, pp. 21–32.Google Scholar
  33. Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997). Understanding Governance. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rose, N. (1999). Powers of Freedom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of Government. British Journal of Sociology, 43, 172–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based decision-making. Public Administration, 80, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schön, D.A. (1971). Beyond the Stable State. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  38. Silverstein, A.M. (1981). Pure Politics and Impure Science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Stewart-Weeks, M. (2006). From control to networks. In: Colebatch, H.K. (Ed.), Beyond the Policy Cycle: The Policy Process in Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, pp.184–202.Google Scholar
  40. Tao, J. (2006). Policy work at the local level in the United States: Whispers of Rationality. In: Colebatch, H.K. (Ed.), The Work of Policy: An International Survey. Latham, MD: Lexington Books, pp. 181–198.Google Scholar
  41. Tenbensel, T. (2006). Policy knowledge for policy work. In: Colebatch, H.K. (Ed.), The Work of Policy: An International Survey. Latham, MD: Lexington Books, pp. 199–216.Google Scholar
  42. Weiss, C. (1991). Policy research: Data, idea or arguments? In: Wagner, P., Weiss, C.H., Wittrock, B., & Wollmann, H. (Eds.), Social Sciences and Modern States. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 307–332.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLP 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Public PolicyRobert Gordon UniversityAberdeenAustralia
  2. 2.Social Science and PolicyUniversity of New South WalesNew South WalesAustralia

Personalised recommendations