Abstract
Doing policy analysis in practice is not as rational and systematic as textbooks make it sound. 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 the art of 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, pp. 10–11) 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.”
- 2.
“The concept of Grand Challenges has been applied for some years in both science and policy, and refers to challenges that are complex in at least three dimensions: the technical, temporal and societal dimensions. These are major long-term challenges faced by society (climate change mitigation, overpopulation, good security, water supply, infectious diseases etc.) whose costs will increase over time and which (globally) influence the lives of people in very different ways.” (Stiftung Mercator, 2015).
- 3.
- 4.
Van Zwanenberg and Millstone 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.
On policy implementation planning (see Weimer and Vining 2016, Chap. 12).
- 8.
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 and 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.
- 9.
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, Boyle, and Finnis (1987, p. 102) provide an example: “Thus, from ‘This is the act an honest person would do’ one can deduce ‘This act ought to be done’.” See also Jonas (1984), esp. pp. 130–35.
- 10.
- 11.
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 is subject to GPS monitoring and supervision if he leaves the house.
- 12.
Pluralist societies also host “unreasonable doctrines” that generate different and more difficult questions about the limits of liberal tolerance. See further Bromell (2008).
- 13.
- 14.
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. Sect. 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, p. 195) 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.”
- 15.
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).
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
Majone (1989, pp. 40–41) 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.” See further Chap. 5.
- 19.
See Mintrom (2003, pp. 164–169) on brainstorming and analytical discussions.
- 20.
Bardach & Patashnik (2016, p. 21) 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.”
- 21.
Criteria for assessment may include abstract principles, or concrete effects (consequences). See Scott and Baehler (2010, pp. 131–36).
- 22.
On projecting outcomes (see Bardach & Patashnik, 2016, pp. 46–65).
- 23.
Kibblewhite (2015, pp. 5–6) specifically references 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.
References
Althaus, C., Bridgman, P., & Davis, G. (2013). The Australian policy handbook (5th revised ed.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Anderson, E. (1999). What is the point of equality? Ethics, 109(2), 287–337.
Aristotle. (1893). The Nichomachean ethics of Aristotle (F. Peters, Trans.), (5th ed.). London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Truebner & Co. Accessed 1 November 2016, from http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/903
Aristotle. (1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (G. Kennedy, Trans./Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press (Original composed 367–347, and 335–322 BCE).
Australian Public Service Commission. (2012). Tackling wicked problems: A public policy perspective. Accessed 1 November 2016, from http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/archive/publications-archive/tackling-wicked-problems
Bardach, E., & Patashnik, E. (2016). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Barry, B. (1995). Justice as impartiality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Barry, B. (2005). Why social justice matters. Cambridge, UK: 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, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Birkland, T. (2016). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making (4th ed.). New York: London.
Bräuer, J., & Hanus, D. (2012). Fairness in non-human primates? Social Justice Research, 25(3), 256–276. doi:10.1007/s11211-012-0159-6.
Bromell, D. (2008). Ethnicity, identity and public policy: Critical perspectives on multiculturalism. Wellington, NZ: Institute of Policy Studies, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/publications/publications/show/247
Bromell, D. (2012). Evidence, values and public policy. Occasional paper, Australia and New Zealand School of Government. Accessed November 1, 2016, from https://www.anzsog.edu.au/media/upload/publication/84_Bromell-Evidence-values-and-public-policy-for-ANZSoG-FINAL.pdf
Bromell, D. (2014). ‘A fair go’ in public policy. Policy Quarterly, 10(2), 12–21. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/publications/files/4597c9519ba.pdf
Callahan, D., & Jennings, B. (Eds.). (1983). Ethics, the social sciences, and policy analysis. New York: Plenum Press.
Chavas, J.-P., & Coggins, J. (2003). On fairness and welfare analysis under uncertainty. Social Choice and Welfare, 20, 203–228.
Cohen, R. (1999). Why? New Eichmann notes try to explain. New York Times, 13 August 1999. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://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. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://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. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co..
Corning, P. (2011). The fair society: The science of human nature and the pursuit of social justice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Damasio, A. (2005). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. London: 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. Acton, ACT: ANU Press. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://press.anu.edu.au/node/1832/download
Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Etzioni, A. (2014). Humble decision-making theory. Public Management Review. doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.875392.
Fischer, D. (2012). Fairness and freedom: A history of two open societies—New Zealand and the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fleurbaey, M., & Maniquet, F. (2011). A theory of fairness and social welfare. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Flynn, J. (2000). How to defend humane ideals: Substitutes for objectivity. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Freiberg, A. (2001). Affective versus effective justice: Instrumentalism and emotionalism in criminal justice. Punishment and Society, 3(2), 265–278. doi: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. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.2010.00674.x.
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: Oxford University Press.
Gleisner, B., Llewellyn-Fowler, M., & McAlister, F. (2011). Working towards higher living standards for New Zealanders. Treasury paper 11/02. Wellington, NZ: The Treasury. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/tp/higherlivingstandards
Gluckman, P. (2011). Towards better use of evidence in policy formation: A discussion paper. Auckland, NZ: Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Towards-better-use-of-evidence-in-policy-formation.pdf
Gluckman, P. (2013a). Interpreting science: Implications for public understanding, advocacy and policy formation. Auckland, NZ: Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Interpreting-Science-April-2013.pdf
Gluckman, P. (2013b). Communicating and using evidence in policy formation: The use and misuse of science. Speech to the Institute of Public Administration New Zealand, 21 February 2013. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/13-02-21-Communicating-and-using-evidence-in-policy-formation.pdf
Gluckman, P. (2014a). The art of science advice to government. Nature, 507(7491), 163–165. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://www.nature.com/news/policy-the-art-of-science-advice-to-government-1.14838
Gluckman, P. (2014b). Analysing linkages between science and politics. Stiftung Mercator conference: Interfaces of science and policy and the role of foundations. Berlin, June 2014. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Analysing-linkages-between-science-and-politics.pdf
Graduate School of Journalism, UC Berkeley. (2016). Storyboarding. Accessed November 1, 2016, 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.
Gruen, D., Kelly, J., & Gorecki, S. (2011). Wellbeing, living standards, and their distribution. Address by David Gruen to the New Zealand Treasury Academic Guest Lecture series, 9 September 2011. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://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. New York: 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. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://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, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Head, B. (2010). Reconsidering evidence-based policy: Key issues and challenges. Policy and Society, 29(2), 77–94.
Head, B. (2015). Toward more ‘evidence-informed’ policy making? Public Administration Review, 76(3), 472–484. doi:10.1111/puar.12475.
Hendy, S. (2014). Scientists need to hold policy-makers to account. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://sciblogs.co.nz/a-measure-of-science/2014/09/30/scientists-need-to-hold-policy-makers-to-account/
Hendy, S. (2016). Silencing science. Wellington, NZ: Bridget Williams Books.
Henry, K. (2007). Treasury’s effectiveness in the current environment: Address to staff at the Hyatt Canberra, 14 March 2007. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://archive.treasury.gov.au/documents/1249/PDF/speech_14_march_2007.pdf
Hibbing, J., Smith, K., & Alford, J. (2014). Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(3), 297–350. doi:10.1017/S0140525X13001192.
Hooker, B. (2005). Fairness. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 8, 329–352.
Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems (3rd rev. ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hume, D. (1777). An inquiry concerning the principles of morals. (Originally publ. 1751). 1912 reprint of the edition of 1777. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://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.). Oxford: 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. doi:10.1017/S0140525X13002598.
Isbister, J. (2001). Capitalism and justice: Envisioning social and economic fairness. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.
Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisors as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
John, P., Cotterill, S., Moseley, A., Richardson, L., Smith, G., Stoker, G., & Wales, C. (2011). Nudge, nudge, think, think. London: Bloomsbury Academic. doi:10.5040/9781849662284.
Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age (D. Herr, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kaplow, L., & Shavell, S. (2002). Fairness versus welfare. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Keane, B. (2015). Taniwha: Taniwha today. Te Ara: the encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 8 Jan 2015. Accessed 1 November 2016, from http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/video/10898/protecting-karutahis-lair
Kibblewhite, A. (2015). Free, frank and other f-words: Learning the policy road code. Address to Institute of Public Administration New Zealand, 12 Aug 2015. Accessed November 1, 2016, from https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/ipanz-speech-14aug15.pdf
King, A., (2006). Opening of SH1 Mercer to Longswamp. Speech as Minister of Transport, 28 July 2006. Accessed November 1, 2016, from https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/opening-sh1-mercer-longswamp
Klosko, G. (1992). The principle of fairness and political obligation. Langham, MD: 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). Cambridge, UK: Centre for Science and Policy.
Kukathas, C. (2003). The liberal archipelago: A theory of diversity and freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88. doi:10.2307/973677.
Lindblom, C. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39(6), 517–526. doi:10.2307/976178.
Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Marquez, X. (2011). Is income inequality unjust? Perspectives from political philosophy. Policy Quarterly, 7(2), 61–67. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/publications/files/28ca3580530.pdf
McAuliffe, K. (2016). How disgust made humans cooperate to build civilisations. Aeon Essays. Accessed November 1, 2016, 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. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/planning-strategy/opportunity-for-all/
Mintrom, M. (2003). People skills for policy analysts. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Mintrom, M. (2012). Contemporary policy analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
New Zealand Treasury. (2016). Higher living standards. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://www.treasury.govt.nz/abouttreasury/higherlivingstandards
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). New York: Plenum Press.
Parsons, W. (1995). Public policy: An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar.
Pearce, N. (2007). Fair rules: Rethinking fairness. Public Policy Research, 14(1), 11–22.
Pielke, R. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Putnam, H. (2004). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rapp, C. (2010) Artistotle’s rhetoric. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Spring 2010 ed., E. Zalta (Ed.). Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. London: Oxford University Press.
Rawls, J. (1987). The idea of an overlapping consensus. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 7(1), 1–25.
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (2005). Political liberalism (Expanded ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in the general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
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. doi:10.2307/419923.
Scott, C., & Baehler, K. (2010). Adding value to policy analysis and advice. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
Sen, A. (2004). Incompleteness and reasoned choice. Synthese, 140(1/2), 43–59.
Sen, A. (2009a). The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Sen, A. (2009b). Introduction to Adam Smith, The theory of moral sentiments (vii–xxvi). 250th anniversary ed. with notes by R. Hanley. New York: Penguin.
St John, S. and Dale, M. (2012). Evidence-based evaluation: Working for Families. Policy Quarterly, 8(1), 39–51. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/publications/files/85630ff0208.pdf
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, p. 32. Essen: Stiftung Mercator.
Stone, D. (2012). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (3rd ed.). New York: 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). Cambridge, UK: Centre for Science and Policy.
Thaler, R., and Sunstein, C. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness (rev. and expanded ed.). New York: Penguin Books.
Thompson, P. (n.d.). Aristotle goes strategy. Influencing: Communication, strategy and leadership. Occasional paper, Australia and New Zealand School of Government. Accessed November 1, 2016, from https://www.anzsog.edu.au/media/upload/publication/157_Occasional-Paper-ANZSOG-SSA-050615.pdf
Toulmin, S. (2001). Return to reason. Cambridge, MA: 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: Oxford 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). Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Weber, M. (1968). Science as a vocation. In S. Eisenstadt (Ed.), Max Weber on charisma and institution building (pp. 294–309). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Weimer, D., & Vining, A. (2016). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice (5th ed.). London: Routledge.
Weingart, P. (1999). Scientific expertise and political accountability: Paradoxes of science in politics. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 151–161.
Westen, D. (2008). The political brain: How we make up our minds without using our heads. New York: Public Affairs.
Wildavsky, A. (1987). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis (2nd ed.). Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2010). The spirit level: Why equality is better for everyone. London: Penguin.
Zajac, E. (1995). Political economy of fairness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bromell, D. (2017). Doing Policy Analysis. In: The Art and Craft of Policy Advising. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52494-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52494-8_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52493-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52494-8
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)