Abstract
Doing policy analysis in practice is not as rational and systematic as many textbooks seem to suggest. To understand this, we need to unpack the relationships between science, policy and politics, and between evidence, emotions and values in public persuasion and political decision-making. Public policy-making is incremental social problem-solving. The most important contribution policy analysis makes is crafting the right questions and facilitating collective thinking to support problem-solving.
This chapter introduces:
-
Relationships between science, policy and politics;
-
Policy analysis as crafting the right questions to facilitate collective social problem-solving;
-
The roles of evidence, emotions and values in public persuasion;
-
A fair go framework for public policy;
-
Collective thinking and the technique of storyboarding;
-
Multi-criteria decision analysis, as a tool to supplement cost-benefit analysis; and
-
Some further reflections on free and frank advice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Majone (1989) usefully distinguishes between data, information and evidence. Evidence is “information selected from the available stock and introduced at a specific point in the argument in order to persuade a particular audience of the truth or falsity of a statement. Selecting inappropriate data or models, placing them at a wrong point in the argument, or choosing a style of presentation that is not suitable for the intended audience, can destroy the effectiveness of information used as evidence, regardless of its intrinsic cognitive value. Thus, criteria for assessing evidence are different from those used for assessing facts. Facts can be evaluated in terms of more or less objective canons, but evidence must be evaluated in accordance with a number of factors peculiar to a given situation, such as the specific nature of the case, the type of audience, the prevailing rules of evidence, or the credibility of the analyst” (pp. 10–11).
- 2.
The concept of Grand Challenges has been applied for some years in both science and policy. It refers to challenges that are complex in at least three dimensions (technical, temporal and societal). These are major long-term challenges faced by society (e.g., climate change mitigation, overpopulation, food security, water supply and infectious diseases) whose costs will increase over time and which (globally) influence the lives of people in very different ways (Stiftung Mercator, 2015, p. 32).
- 3.
- 4.
Van Zwanenberg and Millstone also distinguish a fifth model (a risk-management model), which I have included in this summary as a variation on the inverted decisionist model.
- 5.
Wilkinson and Pickett (2010) do not merely report evidence. They present evidence in an attempt to warrant a normative argument about what developed nations ought to do. Admittedly, they present their argument in relatively straightforward consequentialist terms with little reference to ideas of justice, but as Marquez (2011) has noted, it is clear that Wilkinson and Pickett do think that income inequality is unjust, at least on account of its consequences.
- 6.
This model is sometimes called a Pragmatic-Enlightened Model, building on the philosophical tradition of American pragmatism (Kowarsch & Edenhofer, 2015, p. 118).
- 7.
- 8.
On policy implementation planning, see Weimer and Vining (2016, Chap. 12).
- 9.
- 10.
For a brief genealogy of evidence-based policy and the linear model of the relationship between evidence and policy, see Freiberg and Carson (2010, pp. 153–56), St John & Dale (2012, pp. 39–40). Head (2010, 2015) usefully summarises key issues and challenges in reconsidering evidence-based policy and promoting evidence-informed policy-making. On “big data”, analytics, policy and governance, see Bachner et al. (2017).
- 11.
Logically one can derive a moral “ought” from an “is”, but only if the “is” expresses a truth about a reality that embodies a moral norm. Grisez et al. (1987) provide an example: “Thus, from ‘This is the act an honest person would do’ one can deduce ‘This act ought to be done’” (p. 102). See also Jonas (1984, esp. pp. 130–35).
- 12.
- 13.
Wilson was subsequently recalled to prison in February 2013 following a breach of his parole conditions. He was granted parole again in December 2014 and released to live in a house on the grounds of Whanganui Prison where he was subject to GPS monitoring and supervision if he left the house. In 2018, he was sentenced to two years and four months’ imprisonment for further historical rape charges. He died of natural causes in October 2021, aged 74 years.
- 14.
Pluralist societies also host unreasonable doctrines that generate different and more difficult questions about the limits of liberal tolerance. See further Bromell (2019, Chap. 4).
- 15.
- 16.
Transit New Zealand was a Crown entity responsible for operating and planning the state highway network from 1989 to 2008. It was merged with Land Transport New Zealand in 2008 to form the New Zealand Transport Agency | Waka Kotahi.
- 17.
Hubert Heinelt (2019, p. 102) reflects that in governing democratically, time resources are increasingly constrained (due to the increasing speed of technical and social innovations, pressure to make an increasing number of necessary decisions and a shrinking horizon of predictability), while the time horizon is expanding (the range of decision-making effects is growing, planning per decision is increasing as a result of growing contingencies, and the cultural and social basis of decision-making is increasing the time required for making decisions that are accepted by majorities).
- 18.
Appeal to public reason does not restrict us to logos (evidence and reasoned argument), to the exclusion of pathos and ethos from the public sphere (cf. Section 4.2.2). The important contrast, Barry notes, is with authority, prescription, revelation or coercion: “In this context, ‘reason’ means reasoned argument, from premises that are in principle open to everyone to accept. We can add a contemporary gloss to this by saying that these are premises which reasonable people, seeking to reach free, uncoerced agreement with others, would accept” (Barry, 1995, p. 7). Sen (2009a) has similarly noted that: “Rationality is in fact a rather permissive discipline, which demands the test of reasoning, but allows reasoned scrutiny to take quite different forms, without necessarily imposing any great uniformity of criteria. If rationality were a church, it would be a rather broad church” (p. 195).
- 19.
- 20.
The Living Standards Framework Dashboard (N.Z. Treasury, 2021b) is a measurement tool to inform the Treasury’s advice to Government and its production of a Well-being Report that the Treasury is required to publish before the end of 2022 and then at intervals not exceeding four years (Public Finance Act 1989, Subsect. 26NB). See also Karacaoglu et al. (2019).
- 21.
The 12 domains of individual and collective well-being are health; knowledge and skills; cultural capability and belonging; work, care and volunteering; engagement and voice; income, consumption and wealth; housing; environmental amenity; leisure and play; family and friends; safety; and subjective wellbeing.
- 22.
In arguing contra Rawls (1971, pp. 65, 101–04) that “justice itself requires us to reward superior performance in a suitable manner”, Harsanyi nevertheless concurs with Rawls that “we must not create needless economic and social inequalities”. He maintains that “such a policy would be fully compatible with significantly smaller economic and social inequalities than we have today” (Harsanyi, 2008, p. 76).
- 23.
On equity, see further Stone (2012, Chap. 2).
- 24.
On efficiency, see further Stone (2012, Chap. 3).
- 25.
Majone (1989) notes that because analysis cannot produce conclusive proofs, only more or less convincing arguments, analysis should be done in two stages: “the first stage to find out what the analyst wants to recommend, and a second stage to make the recommendation convincing even to a hostile and disbelieving audience” (pp. 40–41). See further Chap. 5.
- 26.
See Mintrom (2003, pp. 164–169) on brainstorming and analytical discussions.
- 27.
Bardach & Patashnik (2019) encourage us not to characterise the status quo as “do nothing”, although we could think of it as “do nothing different”. They comment: “It is not possible to do nothing or to ‘not decide’. Most of the trends in motion will probably persist and alter the problem, whether for better or for worse” (p. 23).
- 28.
Criteria for assessment may include abstract principles or concrete effects (consequences). See Scott & Baehler (2010, pp. 131–36).
- 29.
On projecting outcomes, see Bardach & Patashnik, 2019, pp. 49–70.
- 30.
Anneliese Parkin (2021) reflects that ministers are “often much more aware of how problems play out in the real world than officials are. Ministers tend to come from a more diverse range of backgrounds than officials, and electorate MPs in particular do get regular insights into problems faced by communities through their electorate-office work” (p. 194).
- 31.
Kibblewhite (2015, pp. 5–6) specifically referenced the 2013 amendments to the State Sector Act 1988 (Sect. 32) which elevated “free and frank” from a convention to a legislative obligation, as well as the State Services Commission’s Standards of Integrity and Conduct, the Cabinet Manual and the Official Information Act 1982. See also the N.Z. State Services Commission’s (2017) guidance on free and frank advice and policy stewardship. The Public Service Act 2020 repealed and replaced the State Sector Act 1988, and re-named the State Services Commission as Te Kawa Mataaho | the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Act para. 12(1)(b) stipulates as a public service principle: “when giving advice to Ministers, to do so in a free and frank manner”. New Zealand’s Local Government Act 2002 does not use the term “free and frank” but does require local authority decision-making to: (a) seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and (b) assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and (c) if any of the options identified involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water, sites, waahi tapu [places or things that are sacred or spiritually endowed and held in the highest regard], valued flora and fauna, and other taonga [treasured possessions] (Sect. 77).
References
Althaus, C., Bridgman, P., & Davis, G. (2013). The Australian policy handbook (5th revised ed.). Allen & Unwin.
Anderson, E. (1999). What is the point of equality? Ethics, 109(2), 287–337. https://doi.org/10.1086/233897
Aristotle. (1893). The Nichomachean ethics of Aristotle (F. Peters, Trans.), (5th ed.). Kegan Paul, Trench, Truebner & Co. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/903
Aristotle. (1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (G. Kennedy, Trans./Ed.). Oxford University Press (Original composed 367–347, and 335–322 BCE).
Australian Public Service Commission. (2012). Tackling wicked problems: A public policy perspective. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://legacy.apsc.gov.au/tackling-wicked-problems-public-policy-perspective
Bachner, J., Ginsberg, B., & Hill, K. (Eds.). (2017). Analytics, policy, and governance. Yale University Press.
Bardach, E., & Patashnik, E. (2019). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving (6th ed.). Sage.
Barry, B. (1995). Justice as impartiality. Clarendon Press.
Barry, B. (2005). Why social justice matters. Polity.
Binmore, K. (2008). Naturalizing Harsanyi and Rawls. In M. Fleurbaey, M. Salles, & J. Weymark (Eds.), Justice, political liberalism, and utilitarianism: Themes from Harsanyi and Rawls (pp. 303–333). Cambridge University Press.
Birkland, T. (2016). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making (4th ed.). Routledge.
Brans, M., Geva-May, I., & Howlett, M. (Eds.). (2017). Routledge handbook of comparative policy analysis. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315660561
Bräuer, J., & Hanus, D. (2012). Fairness in non-human primates? Social Justice Research, 25(3), 256–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-012-0159-6
Bromell, D. (2008). Ethnicity, identity and public policy: Critical perspectives on multiculturalism. Institute of Policy Studies, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington.
Bromell, D. (2014). “A fair go” in public policy. Policy Quarterly, 10(2), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.26686/pq.v10i2.4490
Bromell, D. (2019). Ethical competencies for public leadership: Pluralist democratic politics in practice. Springer.
Bromell, D. (2022). Regulating free speech in a digital age: Hate, harm and the limits of censorship. Springer.
Cairney, P. (2016). The politics of evidence-based policy making. Palgrave Macmillan.
Cairney, P. (2021). The politics of policy analysis. Palgrave Macmillan.
Callahan, D., & Jennings, B. (Eds.). (1983). Ethics, the social sciences, and policy analysis. Plenum Press.
Chavas, J.-P., & Coggins, J. (2003). On fairness and welfare analysis under uncertainty. Social Choice and Welfare, 20(2), 203–228. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41106516
Cohen, R. (1999, August 13). Why? New Eichmann notes try to explain. New York Times. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/13/world/why-new-eichmann-notes-try-to-explain.html
Committee on the Use of Social Science Knowledge in Public Policy. (2012). In K. Prewitt, T. Schwandt, & M. Straf, (Eds.), Using science as evidence in public policy. National Academies Press. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://www.nap.edu/download/13460
Conrad, J. (1981). Where there’s hope there’s life. In D. Fogel & J. Hudson (Eds.), Justice as fairness: Perspectives on the justice model (pp. 3–21). Anderson Publishing Co.
Corning, P. (2011). The fair society: The science of human nature and the pursuit of social justice. University of Chicago Press.
Cunliffe, D. (2021). Dynamic change and the adaptive state. In S. Mazey & J. Richardson (Eds.), Policy-making under pressure: Rethinking the policy process in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 82–98). Canterbury University Press.
Dalziel, P., Saunders, C., & Saunders, J. (2018). Wellbeing economics: The capabilities approach to prosperity. Palgrave Macmillan.
Damasio, A. (2005). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. Penguin.
Dobes, L., Leung, J., & Argyrous, G. (2016). Social cost-benefit analysis in Australia and New Zealand: The state of current practice and what needs to be done. ANU Press. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://press.anu.edu.au/publications/series/anzsog/social-cost-benefit-analysis-australia-and-new-zealand
Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press.
English, B. (2021). Better public policy via feedback thinking. In S. Mazey & J. Richardson (Eds.), Policy-making under pressure: Rethinking the policy process in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 134–146). Canterbury University Press.
Etzioni, A. (2014). Humble decision-making theory. Public Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.875392
Fischer, D. (2012). Fairness and freedom: A history of two open societies—New Zealand and the United States. Oxford University Press.
Fischer, F., Miller, G., & Sidney, M. (Eds.). (2019). Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods. Routledge. 1st publ. 2007.
Fleurbaey, M., & Maniquet, F. (2011). A theory of fairness and social welfare. Cambridge University Press.
Flynn, J. (2000). How to defend humane ideals: Substitutes for objectivity. University of Nebraska Press.
Freiberg, A. (2001). Affective versus effective justice: Instrumentalism and emotionalism in criminal justice. Punishment and Society, 3(2), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/14624740122228320
Freiberg, A., & Carson, W. (2010). The limits to evidence-based policy: Evidence, emotion and criminal justice. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69(2), 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2010.00674.x
Fukuyama, F. (2018, August 1). What’s wrong with public policy education. The American Interest. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/08/01/whats-wrong-with-public-policy-education/
Gauss, G. (2010). The demands of impartiality and the evolution of morality. In B. Feltham & J. Cottingham (Eds.), Partiality and impartiality: Morality, special relationships, and the wider world (pp. 42–64). Oxford University Press.
Gluckman, P. (2011). Towards better use of evidence in policy formation: A discussion paper. Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2021-10/pmcsa-Towards-better-use-of-evidence-in-policy-formation.pdf
Gluckman, P. (2013a). The role of evidence in policy formation and implementation: A report from the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor. Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://cpb-ap-se2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.auckland.ac.nz/dist/f/688/files/2020/02/The-role-of-evidence-in-policy-formation-and-implementation-report.pdf
Gluckman, P. (2013b). Interpreting science: Implications for public understanding, advocacy and policy formation. Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2021-10/pmcsa-Interpreting-Science-April-2013b.pdf
Gluckman, P. (2013c, February 21). Communicating and using evidence in policy formation: The use and misuse of science. Speech to the Institute of Public Administration New Zealand. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://informedfutures.org/wp-content/uploads/13-02-21-Communicating-and-using-evidence-in-policy-formation.pdf
Gluckman, P. (2014a, March 12). The art of science advice to government. Nature, 507(7491), 163–165. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://www.nature.com/news/policy-the-art-of-science-advice-to-government-1.14838
Gluckman, P. (2014b, June). Analysing linkages between science and politics. Stiftung Mercator conference: Interfaces of science and policy and the role of foundations, Berlin. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://informedfutures.org/wp-content/uploads/ESOF-2014b-Science-and-Diplomacy-1-1.pdf
Gluckman, P. (2021a). Both outside and inside: Reflections on the Wellington policy farm. In S. Mazey & J. Richardson (Eds.), Policy-making under pressure: Rethinking the policy process in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 147–160). Canterbury University Press.
Gluckman, P. (2021b, September 17). Sir Peter Gluckman: Beyond science, there are hard questions ahead. Newsroom, Comment, updated October 11, 2021. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://www.newsroom.co.nz/peter-gluckman-beyond-science
Gluckman, P., & Bardsley, A. (2021). Uncertain but inevitable: The expert-policy-political nexus and high-impact risks. Koi Tū | The Centre for Informed Futures. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://informedfutures.org/wp-content/uploads/High-impact-risks.pdf
Gluckman, P., Bardsley, A., & Kaiser, M. (2021). Brokerage at the science-policy interface: From conceptual framework to practical guidance. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(84), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00756-3
Graduate School of Journalism, UC Berkeley. (2016). Storyboarding. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://multimedia.journalism.berkeley.edu/tutorials/starttofinish-storyboarding/
Grisez, G., Boyle, J., & Finnis, J. (1987). Practical principles, moral truth, and ultimate ends. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 32, 99–151. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajj/32.1.99
Gruen, D., Kelly, J., & Gorecki, S. (2011, September 9). Wellbeing, living standards, and their distribution. Address by David Gruen to the New Zealand Treasury Academic Guest Lecture series. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/media-speeches/guestlectures/gruen-sep11
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books.
Harmsworth, G. (2005). Roading case study: Transit NZ and Ngati Naho, Meremere–Spring Hill Road. Contract to Opus International Consultants New Zealand Ltd. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/publications/researchpubs/FinalMeremere_Roadingcasestudy.pdf
Harsanyi, J. (2008). John Rawls’s Theory of Justice: Some critical comments. In M. Fleurbaey, M. Salles, & J. Weymark (Eds.), Justice, political liberalism, and utilitarianism: Themes from Harsanyi and Rawls (pp. 71–79). Cambridge University Press.
Head, B. (2010). Reconsidering evidence-based policy: Key issues and challenges. Policy and Society, 29(2), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.03.001
Head, B. (2015). Toward more “evidence-informed” policy making? Public Administration Review, 76(3), 472–484. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12475
Heinelt, H. (2019). Challenges to political decision-making: Dealing with information overload, ignorance and contested knowledge. Routledge.
Henry, K. (2007, March 14). Treasury’s effectiveness in the current environment. Address to staff at the Hyatt Canberra. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://australianpolitics.com/2007/03/14/ken-henry-speech-to-treasury-staff.html
Hibbing, J., Smith, K., & Alford, J. (2014). Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(3), 297–350. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X13001192
Hooker, B. (2005). Fairness. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 8(4), 329–352. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27504361
Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems (3rd rev. ed.). Oxford University Press.
Hume, D. (1777). An inquiry concerning the principles of morals. (Originally publ. 1751). 1912 reprint of the edition of 1777. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4320/4320-h/4320-h.htm
Hume, D. (2007). A treatise of human nature: A critical edition. In D. Norton & M. Norton (Eds.). Clarendon Press. (Originally publ. 1738–40).
Inbar, Y., & Pizarro, D. (2014). Disgust, politics, and responses to threat. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(3), 315–316. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X13002598
Isbister, J. (2001). Capitalism and justice: Envisioning social and economic fairness. Kumarian Press.
Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisors as policymakers. Harvard University Press.
John, P., Cotterill, S., Moseley, A., Richardson, L., Smith, G., Stoker, G., & Wales, C. (2011). Nudge, nudge, think, think. Bloomsbury Academic.
Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age (D. Herr, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
Kaplow, L., & Shavell, S. (2002). Fairness versus welfare. Harvard University Press.
Karacaoglu, G., Krawczyk, J., & King, A. (2019). Intergenerational wellbeing and public policy. Springer.
Keane, B. (2015). Taniwha: Taniwha today. Te Ara: the encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 8 Jan 2015. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/video/10898/protecting-karutahis-lair
Kibblewhite, A. (2015, August 12). Free, frank and other f-words: Learning the policy road code. Address to Institute of Public Administration New Zealand. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://dpmc.govt.nz/publications/hopp-speech-free-frank-and-other-f-words-ipanz
King, A., (2006, July 28). Opening of SH1 Mercer to Longswamp. Speech as Minister of Transport. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/opening-sh1-mercer-longswamp
Klosko, G. (1992). The principle of fairness and political obligation. Rowman & Littlefield.
Kowarsch, M., & Edenhofer, O. (2015). Experts as cartographers of policy pathways for Europe. In J. Wilsdon & R. Doubleday (Eds.), Future directions for scientific advice in Europe (pp. 115–124). Centre for Science and Policy.
Kukathas, C. (2003). The liberal archipelago: A theory of diversity and freedom. Oxford University Press.
Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of “muddling through.” Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/973677
Lindblom, C. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39(6), 517–526. https://doi.org/10.2307/976178
Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. Yale University Press.
Marquez, X. (2011). Is income inequality unjust? Perspectives from political philosophy. Policy Quarterly, 7(2), 61–67. https://doi.org/10.26686/pq.v7i2.4378
McAuliffe, K. (2016). How disgust made humans cooperate to build civilisations. Aeon Essays. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://aeon.co/essays/how-disgust-made-humans-cooperate-to-build-civilisations
Minister for Social Development and Employment. (2004). Opportunity for all New Zealanders. Wellington, NZ: Office of the Minister for Social Development and Employment. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/planning-strategy/opportunity-for-all/
Mintrom, M. (2003). People skills for policy analysts. Georgetown University Press.
Mintrom, M. (2012). Contemporary policy analysis. Oxford University Press.
Nielsen, K. (1983). Emancipatory social science and social critique. In D. Callahan & B. Jennings (Eds.), Ethics, the social science, and policy analysis (pp. 113–157). Plenum Press.
Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Belknap Press.
N.Z. State Services Commission. (2017). Free and frank advice and policy stewardship. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/resources/free-and-frank-advice-and-policy-stewardship/
N.Z. Treasury. (2011). Working towards higher living standards for New Zealanders. Treasury paper 11/02. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/tp/higherlivingstandards
N.Z. Treasury. (2018, December 4). Living Standards Framework: Background and future work. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/tp/living-standards-framework-background-and-future-work
N.Z. Treasury. (2021a, October 28). The Living Standards Framework 2021a. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/nz-economy/higher-living-standards/our-living-standards-framework
N.Z. Treasury. (2021b, November 24). Measuring wellbeing: The LSF Dashboard. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/nz-economy/higher-living-standards/measuring-wellbeing-lsf-dashboard
OECD. (2020, March 9). How’s life? 2020: Measuring well-being. https://doi.org/10.1787/9870c393-en
Parkin, A. (2021). “Why didn’t it work?” What goes wrong between ministers and officials in making public policy. In S. Mazey & J. Richardson (Eds.), Policy-making under pressure: Rethinking the policy process in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 192–201). Canterbury University Press.
Parsons, W. (1995). Public policy: An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. Edward Elgar.
Pearce, N. (2007). Fair rules: Rethinking fairness. Public Policy Research, 14(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-540X.2007.00458.x
Pettit, P. (1997). Republicanism: A theory of freedom and government. Clarendon Press.
Pielke, R. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press.
Putnam, H. (2004). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Harvard University Press.
Rapp, C. (2010) Artistotle’s rhetoric. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Spring 2010 ed., E. Zalta (Ed.). Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Oxford University Press.
Rawls, J. (1987). The idea of an overlapping consensus. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 7(1), 1–25. http://www.jstor.org/stable/764257
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (2005). Political liberalism (Expanded ed.). Columbia University Press.
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in the general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4531523
Robeyns, I., & Byskov, M. (2021). The capability approach. In E. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2021 ed. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/capability-approach/
Rowland-Campbell, A., & Thompson, P. (2011). Aristotle goes strategic. Old media meets new. Occasional paper, Australia and New Zealand School of Government. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from http://intersticia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ANZSOGNovember2011.pdf
Royal Commission on Social Policy. (1988). The April report. Volume II, Future directions. Report of the Royal Commission on Social Policy. Te Kōmihana a te Karauna mō ngā Āhuatanga-ā-Iwi. Wellington, NZ: Royal Commission on Social Policy.
Sabatier, P. (1991). Toward better theories of the policy process. Politics Science and Politics, 24(2), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/419923
Scott, C., & Baehler, K. (2010). Adding value to policy analysis and advice. University of New South Wales Press.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Anchor Books.
Sen, A. (2004). Incompleteness and reasoned choice. Synthese, 140(1/2), 43–59. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20118441
Sen, A. (2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 6(2), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880500120491
Sen, A. (2009a). The idea of justice. Belknap Press.
Sen, A. (2009b). Introduction to Adam Smith, The theory of moral sentiments (vii–xxvi). 250th anniversary ed. with notes by R. Hanley. Penguin.
St John, S., & Dale, M. (2012). Evidence-based evaluation: Working for Families. Policy Quarterly, 8(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.26686/pq.v8i1.4407
Stiftung Mercator. (2015). Grand challenges: A common concept for science and policy? Interfaces of science and policy and the role of foundations. Introduction to panel discussion, Stiftung Mercator conference, Berlin, June 2014. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://kipdf.com/interfaces-of-science-and-policy-and-the-role-of-foundations_5adb98ff7f8b9a72718b4605.html
Stone, D. (2012). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (3rd ed.). W.W. Norton & Co.
Strassheim, H., & Korinek, R.-L. (2015). Behavioural governance in Europe. In J. Wilsdon & R. Doubleday (Eds.), Future directions for scientific advice in Europe (pp. 156–162). Centre for Science and Policy.
Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness (rev. and expanded ed.). Penguin.
Toulmin, S. (2001). Return to reason. Harvard University Press.
Van Zwanenberg, P., & Millstone, E. (2005). Analysing the role of science in public policy making. In P. Van Zwanenberg & E. Millstone (Eds.), BSE: Risk, science, and governance (pp. 10–38). Oxford University Press.
Waldron, J. (2016). Political political theory: Essays on institutions. Harvard University Press.
Weber, M. (1949). “Objectivity” in social science and social policy. In E. Shils & H. Finch (Trans. and Eds.). The methodology of the social sciences: Max Weber (pp. 50–112). The Free Press.
Weber, M. (1968). Science as a vocation. In S. Eisenstadt (Ed.), Max Weber on charisma and institution building (pp. 294–309). University of Chicago Press.
Weimer, D., & Vining, A. (2016). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice (5th ed.). Routledge.
Weingart, P. (1999). Scientific expertise and political accountability: Paradoxes of science in politics. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154399781782437
Westen, D. (2008). The political brain: How we make up our minds without using our heads. Public Affairs.
Wildavsky, A. (1987). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis (2nd ed.). Transaction Publishers.
Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2010). The spirit level: Why equality is better for everyone. Penguin.
Wu, X., Ramesh, M., Howlett, M., & Fritzen, S. (2017). The public policy primer: Managing the policy process (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Zajac, E. (1995). Political economy of fairness. MIT Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bromell, D. (2022). Doing Policy Analysis. In: The Art and Craft of Policy Advising. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99562-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99562-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-99561-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-99562-1
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)