Policy Analysis

"Policy Analysis" sounds like complicated stuff, but it is not.

"Policy Analysis" is about putting analytical information in front of decision makers so they can make informed policies or decisions.

There are four elements to policy analysis.

First, there are options. If there are no options, there are no choices and consequently no decisions to be made.

Second, there are issues against which the options should be considered. Most public policies are pursued in relation to one or more objectives, so all options need to be assessed in terms of effectiveness in achieving the one or more objectives. For most Canadians, economic development is a key priority, so this should be an issue for most decisions. In Canada, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act requires public decisions to take into account their environmental impact. Public cost is an example of an issue. Some options cost more than other options and that fact must be taken into consideration.

Third, there is the analysis. This is the rigorous process of weighing each option by each issue.

Fourth, and finally, there is the handling of values. Values are relevant in assessing the importance of issues. Different decision makers have different values. As a consequence, given identical information on options, issues and the analysis of options in terms of issues, different decision-makers can arrive at different decisions because they hold different values. While the policy analyst should not impose his or her views on a decision-maker, the analyst can provide factual information to help the decision-maker determine which issues are more important than others.

The "policy analysis" process can normally be reduced to a table, with options listed across the top, issues listed down the left side, issue assessment information listed in the second column, and each option assessed in terms of the issues. It is up to decision makers to assign priority to issues. The table below illustrates what the "policy analysis" table might look like.

This all seems obvious. The ideas would normally be covered in the first year program of business management or administration.

What is not so obvious is why the obvious is done so infrequently. One would think that Cabinet processes of the government of Canada would, for example, require public servants to present issues within this type of framework. Unless there have been recent changes, Cabinet processes do not require this. Print, television and radio journalists spend hours trying to explain public policy issues to the Canadian public. Unfortunately, one never sees issues presented in this way.

What are the consequences?

• Important options are not taken into consideration. In many instances, initial options can be modified to mitigate or eliminate concerns that arise with initial options. These modifications become, in effect, sub-options or new options, but they are easily overlooked.
• Issues are often not taken into consideration, and often not even clearly articulated. Listen to two “so-called” experts debate an issue. It is often apparent that they are talking about different issues, and not understanding each other in the process. Try to reframe their various comments into issues through which to analyze options. Typically, one can identify a number of issues that are not clearly framed or expressed.
• There is little sifting through issues to determine relative importance. As a consequence, important issues can get lost and trivial issues can take on disproportionate importance.
• There is often no rigorous assessment of options against issues.  Important information from scientific and other studies frequently gets lost.
• It is difficult to get multiple parties to come to a reasonable accommodation on issues when there is no framework available for the parties to discuss an issue. Debate seems to become a process in which one party comments on one issue (namely, their issue), and the next party comments on another issue (namely, their issue). It is really difficult to reach an agreement when different issues are being discussed. When the parties are presented with a list of issues, and all parties can see that their issues have been identified, it becomes significantly easier for the parties to have a dialogue that takes into account all interests.
• In a decision making system where the role of values is not explicitly addressed, it becomes easy for ideology to take over. It is okay for people to hold different values, to think that different things are important.  For example, it is okay for the well-to-do to want to dislike expensive government programs that will ultimately put up their taxes.  The less well-to-do can certainly understand why the well-to-do feel the way they do about expensive government programs. In this context, it is possible to design and administer whatever government programs are undertaken in a way that controls costs and achieves maximum efficiency.  What is not okay is decision making based on ideology (=a body of ideas used in support of an economic, political, or social theory).  Ideology is primarily for those lacking the capacity or time to assess issues against options to produce the best decisions.

Top of Page