problem solving in policy analysis

• Search Menu
• Advance Articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access Policy
• Self-Archiving Policy
• About Policy and Society
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

• < Previous

How Should We Theorise Public Policy? Problem Solving and Problematicity

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Nick Turnbull, How Should We Theorise Public Policy? Problem Solving and Problematicity, Policy and Society , Volume 25, Issue 2, January 2006, Pages 3–22, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1449-4035(06)70072-8

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The concept of policy problem informs the scholarly study of policymaking as well as policy practice. But the problem solving theory of policymaking has many conceptual shortcomings. The problem solving concept is flawed because it defines complex problems univocally, obscuring differences of opinion; focuses on problem solving at the expense of problem setting; and represents the policy process scientifically to disguise and/or suppress the contingent nature of political reasoning. The propositional basis of theories of the policy process excludes problematicity and produces a fragmented theory which misrepresents the political nature of policymaking. By building upon an epistemology of questioning we can address these shortcomings by revising and expanding the problem concept in policy theory. Such a conception implies that policy studies is not distinctive because it is applied and should therefore be integrated with political theory.

C.W.   Anderson . Political Philosophy, Practical Reason, and Policy Analysis. F.   Fischer , J.   Forester . Confronting Values in Policy Analysis: The Politics of Criteria . 1987 ; Sage : Newbury Park, CA   22 – 44 .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

T.J.   Anton . The Imagery of Policy Analysis: Stability, Determinism, and Reaction. P.M.   Gregg . Problems of Theory in Policy Analysis . 1976 ; Lexington Books : Lexington, MA   91 – 101 .

D.B.   Bobrow , J.S.   Dryzek . Policy Analysis by Design. 1987 ; Pittsburgh University Press : Pittsburgh, PA

P.   Bourdieu . Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. 1998 ; Polity Press : Cambridge, UK

D.   Braun , A.   Busch . Public Policy and Political Ideas . 1999 ; Edward Elgar : Cheltenham, UK

H.K.   Colebatch . Organizational Meanings of Program Evaluation . Policy Sciences . 28   1995 ; 149 – 164 .

H.K.   Colebatch . Policy. 2nd edition, 2002 ; Open University Press : Buckingham, UK

H.K.   Colebatch . Beyond the Policy Cycle: The Policy Process in Australia . 2006 ; Allen & Unwin : Crows Nest, NSW

P.   de Leon . The Stages Approach to the Policy Process: What Has It Done? Where Is It Going?. P.A.   Sabatier . Theories of the Policy Process . 1999 ; Westview Press : Boulder, CO   19 – 32 .

J.   Dewey . Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. 1938 ; Henry Holt : New York

J.   Dewey . How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. 2nd revised edition, 1971 ; Henry Regnery : Chicago, IL

J.S.   Dryzek . Policy Analysis as a Hermeneutic Activity . Policy Sciences . 14   1982 ; 309 – 329 .

F.   Eidlin . Ethical Problems of Imperfect Knowledge in the Policy Sciences. E.B.   Portis , M.B.   Levy . Handbook of Political Theory and Policy Science . 1988 ; Greenwood Press : Westport, CT   45 – 60 .

F.   Fischer . Politics, Values, and Public Policy: The Problem of Methodology. 1995 ; Westview Press : Boulder, CO

F.   Fischer . Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. 2003 ; Oxford University Press : Oxford

F.   Fischer , J.   Forester . The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. 1993 ; Duke University Press : Durham, NJ

J.   Forester . Critical Theory, Public Policy, and Planning Practice: Toward a Critical Pragmatism. 1993 ; State University of New York Press : Albany, NY

J.   Forester . The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. 1999 ; Cambridge University Press : Cambridge, UK

H.   Gottweis . forthcoming. ‘Rhetoric in Policy Making: Between Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. F.   Fischer , G.J.   Miller , M.S.   Sidney . Handbook of Public Policy Analysis . 2006 ; Taylor & Francis : Boca Raton, FL   237 – 250 .

M.E.   Hawkesworth . Theoretical Issues in Policy Analysis. 1988 ; State University of New York Press : Albany, NY

M.   Howlett , M.   Ramesh . Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. 2nd edition, 2003 ; Oxford University Press : Don Mill, ON

H.C.   Jenkins-Smith . Democratic Politics and Policy Analysis. 1990 ; Brooks/Cole : Pacific Grove, CA

B.   Jennings . Interpretation and the Practice of Policy Analysis. F.   Fischer , J.   Forester . Confronting Values in Policy Analysis: The Politics of Criteria . 1987 ; Sage : Newbury Park, CA   128 – 152 .

J.W.   Kingdon . Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 1984 ; Little Brown : Boston, MA

H.D.   Lasswell . The Policy Orientation. D.   Lerner , H.D.   Lasswell . The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method . 1951 ; Stanford University Press : Stanford, CA   3 – 15 .

H.D.   Lasswell . A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. 1971 ; American Elsevier : New York

C.E.   Lindblom . The Science of “Muddling Through” . Public Administration Review . 19 ( 2 Critical Perspectives in Policy Analysis: Discourse, Deliberation and Narration): 1959 ; 79 – 88 .

C.E.   Lindblom . The Intelligence of Democracy: Decision Making Through Mutual Adjustment. 1965 ; Free Press : New York

C.E.   Lindblom . Inquiry and Change: The Troubled Attempt to Understand and Shape Society. 1990 ; Yale University Press : New Haven, CT

C.E.   Lindblom , E.J.   Woodhouse . The Policy-Making Process. 3rd edition, 1993 ; Prentice Hall : Englewood Cliffs, NJ

G.   Majone . Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. 1989 ; Yale University Press : New Haven, CT

R.K.   Merton , D.   Lerner . Social Scientists and Research Policy. D.   Lerner , H.D.   Lasswell . The Policy Sciences . 1951 ; Stanford University Press : Stanford, CA   282 – 307 .

M.   Meyer . From Logic to Rhetoric. 1986 ; John Benjamins : Amsterdam

M.   Meyer , D.   Jamison with , A.   Hart . Of Problematology: Philosophy, Science and Language . 1995 ; University of Chicago Press : Chicago, IL

J.L.   Pressman , A.   Wildavsky . Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland. 1973 ; University of California Press : Berkeley, CA

M.   Rein , D.   Schön . Problem Setting in Policy Research. C.H.   Weiss . Using Social Research in Public Policy Making . 1977 ; Lexington Books : Lexington, MA   235 – 251 .

M.   Rein , S.   White . Policy Research: Belief and Doubt . Policy Analysis . 3   1977 ; 239 – 271 .

R.D.   Rose . Disciplined Research and Undisciplined Problems. C.H.   Weiss . Using Social Research in Public Policy Making . 1977 ; Lexington Books : Lexington, MA   23 – 35 .

P.A.   Sabatier . The Need for Better Theories. P.A.   Sabatier , H.   Jenkins-Smith . Theories of the Policy Process . 1999 ; Westview Press : Boulder, CO   2 – 17 .

D.   Schön . The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. 1996 ; Arena : Aldershot, UK

D.A.   Stone . Policy Paradox and Political Reason. 1988 ; Harper Collins : New York

C.   Tilly . To Explain Political Processes . American Journal of Sociology . 100 ( 6 ): 1995 ; 1594 – 1610 .

D.   Torgerson . Policy Analysis and Public Life: The Restoration of Phronesis?. J.   Farr , J.S.   Dryzek , S.T.   Leonard . Political Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions . 1995 ; Cambridge University Press : Cambridge, UK   225 – 252 .

N.   Turnbull . Rhetoric Questioning and Policy Theory . Melbourne Journal of Politics . 30   2005-06 ; 39 – 58 .

G.   Vickers . The Art of Judgment: A Study of Policy Making. 1965 ; Chapman & Hall : London

H.   Wagenaar , S.D.N.   Cook . Understanding Policy Practices: Action, Dialectic and Deliberation. M.   Hajer , H.   Wagenaar . Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society . 2003 ; Cambridge University Press : Cambridge, UK   139 – 171 .

D.   Yanow . How Does a Policy Mean? Interpreting Policy and Organizational Actions. 1996 ; Georgetown University Press : Washington D.C.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1839-3373
• Print ISSN 1449-4035
• Copyright © 2024 Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

You are here

A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving

• Eugene Bardach - University of California, Berkeley, USA
• Eric M. Patashnik - Brown University, USA
• Description

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

This is an excellent introductory text. It is accessible enough to use with my undergraduate students, but rigorous enough for graduate students. It does an excellent job walking students through the weeds of policy analysis. It is a good match for my course because it is able to teach students some of the practical challenges of policy analysis in a way that nicely complements the more theoretical approach of the rest of my course.

This is by far the best book of its kind. I have used it in my graduate courses on policy analysis for years. I will certainly continue to use it. It provides a great mix of practical advice on top of a solid academic foundation and explains to students how to conduct a professional policy analysis in a step-by-step way.

“Bardach and Patashnik provide a strong analytical framework to guide the novice student in exploring policy options. The text is substantive yet approachable, providing a bridge between theory and practice that is meaningful for both undergraduate and graduate students of public policy.”

"Professors Bardach and Patashnik's "Eightfold Path" provides a wise and engaging how-to guide that meets the central challenge of policy analysis: combining scientific evidence and social goals to craft practical, real-world solutions."

“Bardach and Patashnik’s  A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis has become a genuine classic of policy analysis because it offers a versatile framework for confronting policy issues of all types—from persistent, long-standing problems to new, emergent challenges. Like every classic work, it contains different layers of insight for different readers. Junior analysts can use the eight basic elements as a primer. Intermediate analysts can add the design principles. Experienced analysts can deepen their practice by applying the eightfold path to increasingly complex problems. I wouldn’t think of teaching policy analysis at any level without this elegant guide to our craft.”

"This book remains the gold standard for introducing students to key issues in policy analysis. I have used it many times in teaching Policy Analysis courses for both students and practicing policy analysts. The new edition adds a lot of helpful new material (e.g., discussions of Big Data) that will be helpful to students struggling to think systematically about how to assess policy alternatives. Other books cover economic and technical analytical skills that are essential to policy analysis, but no other source covers the process of policy analysis with the depth, insight and wisdom of Bardach and Patashnik."

“ A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis  is the essential text to introduce health policy students to the practice of policy analysis. The authors offer a persuasive argument for why defining the problem is the fundamental yet challenging first step of policy analysis; this lesson is critical for health policy, where issue rhetoric abounds. The book offers a step-by-step methodology that appeals to students’ need for structure, while reminding readers that the process of policy analysis—and politics—is inherently complex and non-linear. Students who master the book’s core lessons will learn to embrace an iterative mode of thinking and a storytelling mode of writing, skills that will serve policy professionals and policy researchers well throughout their careers.”

NEW TO THIS EDITION:  

• A new appendix that features timely " Tips for Doing Policy Analysis in a Polarized Age ."
• A new appendix with an example of a real-world policy analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, annotated with key insights.
• Expanded discussion of the steps of the policy process, including "last mile problems" around making policies work after their enactment.
• New case studies in Part I.

KEY FEATURES:  

• The Eightfold Path  guides readers through the problem-solving process by reminding them to:    
• Define the Problem   
• Assemble Some Evidence     
• Construct the Alternatives    
• Select the Criteria     
• Project the Outcomes    
• Confront the Trade-Offs     
• Stop, Focus, Narrow, Deepen, Decide! 
• Tell Your Story
• Dozens of tips for assembling evidence  provide readers with insights on how he/she can save time by gathering and interpreting data more efficiently.
• Strategies for analyzing design problems   guide readers through specific steps that can be taken to design “systems of action” that will generate desired outcomes when multiple elements are interdependent and need to work together.“
• Multiple appendices offer tips for policy analysts on important developments.

Preview this book

Sample materials & chapters.

Chapter 1. THE EIGHTFOLD PATH

Chapter 2. ASSEMBLING EVIDENCE

For instructors

Select a purchasing option, related products.

(Stanford users can avoid this Captcha by logging in.)

• Send to text email RefWorks EndNote printer

Policy analysis as problem solving : a flexible and evidence-based framework

Available online, at the library.

Law Library (Crown)

More options.

• Find it at other libraries via WorldCat
• Contributors

Description

Creators/contributors, contents/summary.

• Introduction
• What is policy analysis? : mainstream and alternative perspectives
• Defining the problem and setting the stage
• Devising alternative policy options
• Objectives and criteria
• Technical aspects of policy analysis : discounting, cost-benefit analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis
• Analysis and making recommendations
• Research and policy analysis
• Policy analysis in practice

Bibliographic information

Browse related items.

• Stanford Home
• Maps & Directions
• Search Stanford
• Emergency Info
• Terms of Use
• Non-Discrimination
• Accessibility

© Stanford University , Stanford , California 94305 .

Doing Policy Analysis

• First Online: 21 June 2022

Cite this chapter

• David Bromell   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5542-7648 2  

349 Accesses

1 Altmetric

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

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

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).

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).

On theoretical approaches to public policy, see Althaus et al., ( 2013 , pp. 32–37), Brans et al. ( 2017 ), Cairney ( 2016 , 2021 ), Fischer et al. ( 2019 ), Howlett et al., ( 2009 , Chaps. 2 and 6 ), Sabatier ( 1991 ), Scott & Baehler ( 2010 , pp. 26–41).

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.

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.

This model is sometimes called a Pragmatic-Enlightened Model, building on the philosophical tradition of American pragmatism (Kowarsch & Edenhofer, 2015 , p. 118).

See also Gluckman & Bardsley, ( 2021 ), Gluckman et al. ( 2021 ).

On policy implementation planning, see Weimer and Vining ( 2016 , Chap. 12).

On dynamic change and the adaptive state, see Cunliffe ( 2021 ). On better public policy via feedback thinking, see English ( 2021 ).

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 ).

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).

The application of behavioural insights to public administration is promising but requires careful reflection if it is not to lead back to a technocratic application of science to policy-making. See, for example, John et al. ( 2011 ), Strassheim and Korinek ( 2015 ), Thaler and Sunstein ( 2009 ).

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.

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).

On the idea of an overlapping consensus, see Rawls ( 1971 , pp. 387–88, 517, 580–81; 1987 ; 2001 , pp. 37, 26–38; 2005 ).

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.

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).

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).

On a capabilities approach to well-being and human development, see Dalziel et al. ( 2018 ), Nussbaum ( 2000 , 2011 ), Robeyns & Byskov ( 2021 ), Sen ( 1999 , 2005 , 2009a ).

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 ).

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.

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).

On equity, see further Stone ( 2012 , Chap. 2 ) .

On efficiency, see further Stone ( 2012 , Chap. 3).

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 .

See Mintrom ( 2003 , pp. 164–169) on brainstorming and analytical discussions.

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).

Criteria for assessment may include abstract principles or concrete effects (consequences). See Scott & Baehler ( 2010 , pp. 131–36).

On projecting outcomes, see Bardach & Patashnik, 2019 , pp. 49–70.

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).

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).

Althaus, C., Bridgman, P., & Davis, G. (2013). The Australian policy handbook (5th revised ed.). Allen & Unwin.

Google Scholar  

Anderson, E. (1999). What is the point of equality? Ethics, 109 (2), 287–337. https://doi.org/10.1086/233897

Article   Google Scholar  

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.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

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.

Book   Google Scholar  

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.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute for Governance and Policy Studies School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

David Bromell

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Bromell .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About 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 : 21 June 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-99561-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-99562-1

eBook Packages : Political Science and International Studies Political Science and International Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Policy Analysis

You have clearly defined your problem and created a problem statement. Now it’s time to consider the policies that could address it. If you haven’t defined your problem, visit the Problem Identification page.

What is policy analysis?

Policy Analysis is the process of identifying potential policy options that could address your problem and then comparing those options to choose the most effective, efficient, and feasible one.

Why is policy analysis important?

Conducting a policy analysis ensures you have gone through a systematic process to choose the policy option that may be best for your situation.

Who should you involve in your policy analysis?

People who can provide and/or interpret information about the policy

Who they are:

• Subject matter experts
• Community Partners

How they can contribute:

• Provide and interpret information you need for your policy analysis

People affected by the policy

People whose jobs or lives might be affected by the policy

• Community members
• Community partners
• Local decision makers
• Provide contextual knowledge, such as potential social, educational, and cultural perspectives

People who administer resources related to the policy

• Public officials and administrators
• Include these stakeholders during the policy analysis process to help you understand the potential economic and/or budgetary impacts of the policy options being considered. They can also help you understand the legal landscape around the potential policies

You may want assistance from an economist or researcher when complex calculations are needed to determine some impacts.

How do you conduct a policy analysis?

1. Research and identify possible policy options.

You can do this by reviewing research literature, conducting an environmental scan, and surveying best practices to understand what other communities are doing.

2. Describe the possible policy options.

As you conduct your policy analysis, pay attention to the health impact, cost of implementation, and feasibility of each option. To describe these three factors, you can ask yourself and your stakeholders questions such as:

• What population(s) will be affected by each policy option? By how much? And when?
• What is the context around the possible policy options, including political history, environment, and policy debate?
• What are the costs and benefits associated with each policy option from a budgetary perspective?

When you are assessing feasibility, it is important to identify any barriers that could prevent a policy from being developed, enacted, or implemented. A policy might be more feasible in one city or at a certain time, but not others. You might find that as circumstances change, what is considered affordable or publicly acceptable may change with them.

3. Rank the possible policy options and pick the one you think is best.

Compare the policy options for health impact, economic and budgetary impact, and feasibility. Next, rank each one based on those criteria. Stakeholders can provide guidance on how to do this. Your rankings will always be partially subjective, so it helps to systematically document your rationale. In some cases, your review may reveal a clear winner—a policy that is a) feasible, b) has a strong, positive impact on public health, and c) is economically and fiscally viable. In other cases, ranking the options may be more complicated and involve assessing trade-offs.

For example, when considering policies for reducing smoking, there are trade-offs related to feasibility and impact between options. (Feasibility and impact depends on your context, like your location.) You may have to have choose between a more feasible policy (like an indoor smoking ban for restaurants) and one with more widespread impact (like raising prices on tobacco products in your state).

LITERATURE REVIEW: an examination of the current body of research about your policy problem (and can include possible policy options). This kind of review may help you identify what is already known about the policy options as well as any gaps in the current research.

ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN : a proactive, systematic collection of information about events, trends, and expectations of what you might encounter during the policy process.

Learn more – See CDC’s Policy Analysis Worksheet  for more examples of questions you can use in your policy analysis.

• You researched and identified possible policy options with a literature review, environmental scans, and surveys of best practices
• You described possible policy options, including each one’s health impact, cost of implementation, and feasibility
• You ranked each policy option based on health impact, economic and budgetary impact, and feasibility—and then chose the one you think is best for your situation

Policy Analysis: Key Questions : This worksheet provides questions that form a framework for your policy analysis.

Policy Analysis Table : This organizational table can help you assess each policy option against set criteria and then to compare policy options.

Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
• You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
• CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.

The government's plan for a future 'made in Australia' has failed to win over the productivity commissioner — and that's a problem

Analysis The government's plan for a future 'made in Australia' has failed to win over the productivity commissioner — and that's a problem

Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers have a pre-budget problem. They haven't yet won over one of the most important voices in the economic debate on their bold plan for a "Future Made in Australia".

Productivity Commissioner Danielle Wood still has concerns, despite a concerted effort over the past two weeks by the prime minister and treasurer to win this debate. They've spent a fortnight insisting "the world has changed" and "substantial" government investments are needed to drive chosen industries forward in the net-zero future.

Wood is not convinced.

The commissioner's concerns create far more difficulty for Labor than other critics, including former prime minister John Howard, who tried to hit Labor where it hurts by suggesting Albanese's big idea was akin to the sort of industry protectionism Bob Hawke dismantled more than 30 years ago.

"I respect John Howard," an untroubled Chalmers said in response, "but those comments belong to another era".

'We need to be very cautious'

Wood, by contrast, is very much from this era. She was hand-picked by the treasurer for this job. He even gave the productivity commission a new "statement of expectations" which specifically included a greater focus on "climate change and the net zero transformation".

And yet, Commissioner Wood doubts more government intervention is the best pathway to achieve that net zero future.

"I think we need to be very cautious about stepping into this space," Wood told the Insiders On Background podcast, where she responded to each of the government's main arguments.

While Albanese says we're in a "race for jobs" with other countries offering big government subsidies and can't afford to be "left behind", Wood isn't sure this is a race we should even be in.

"One view of the world is when other countries subsidise their production, we say thank you very much," Wood says. "That means lower prices for Australian consumers [and] where that relates to green products that's actually going to help us with our own green transition."

What about the "economic security" argument, that we're too reliant on China for critical goods? "That's not necessarily an argument for producing here," Wood says, "it can be an argument just for making sure that we're sourcing more broadly from friends and allies". 

And as for the suggestion taxpayer money is needed to help get "infant" green technology off the ground, Wood warns: "Your infants grow up, they turn into very hungry teenagers and it's kind of hard to turn off the tap." Exhibit A: the local car-making industry.

Are we fetishising manufacturing?

While governments continue to feed these hungry industries, they're diverting jobs and investment away from other, more productive parts of the economy.

The productivity commissioner even echoes the concerns of others about the "danger to fetishise" about manufacturing. Services are also very valid things to produce and trade, she says.

Wood isn't completely closed to the idea of some greater government intervention if there's a clearly defined security or economic reason and taxpayers know what they're getting into. "There may be these policy rationales, but we need to be super clear that this comes with costs."

The productivity commissioner also makes a powerful point about the need for independent oversight. "We need some kind of process for independent assessment otherwise we risk sort of a giant pork-barrelling scheme or lobbying dictating where these big pots of government money are going to go."

Jim Chalmers says he listens very closely to Danielle Wood. The Treasurer says she has "raised some important points, but also some obvious and self-evident points". Appearing on Insiders last week, the Treasurer agreed, for example, on the need for "exit ramps" from government subsidies.

Chalmers insists the plan here "is not replacing private investment but attracting more private investment in areas where we have obvious advantages and compelling imperatives".

Is the program backing winners?

The problem for the government is the areas it's already identified aren't areas the productivity commissioner thinks are winners.

We already know the Future Made in Australia plan will include previously announced subsidy schemes, including the $1 billion "Solar Sunshot" program , unveiled by the prime minister last month to "help ensure more solar panels are made in Australia".

Wood is not a fan of government-subsidised solar panels, to put it mildly. A month on from that announcement, she says the case has not been made for this billion-dollar taxpayer spend.

Indeed, the commissioner says there's "nothing wrong" with buying cheaper solar panels from China or anywhere else. "That's what trade looks like".

This view is also backed by former ACCC boss Rod Sims, now chair of the Superpower Institute, who worries subsidising local solar panels will only slow down the net-zero transition. "How can we have low-cost renewable energy if we are saddled with high-cost solar panels, wind farms and electrolysers through a 'buy local' imperative?," Sims says.

The government remains quietly confident it's on a winner with its Future Made in Australia plan, both economically and politically. It genuinely believes the global game has changed and is betting voters will strongly back more local manufacturing.

But Labor has found itself more on the defensive than the offensive so far with this big-picture, pre-Budget announcement. And while Wood may not be the most vocal critic, her concerns carry more weight — and political pain for Labor — than most.

David Speers is National Political Lead and host of Insiders, which airs on ABC TV at 9am on Sunday or on iview.

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

'can't write off the possibility' of a rate hike, economist warns, as inflation comes in higher than expected.

The PM is heralding the dawn of a new manufacturing era, but it may not be so simple

'Sun King' says Australia can build its own solar panel industry, with a little help from China

• Federal Government
• Federal Parliament
• Government and Politics
• Manufacturing
• Solar Energy
• Unemployment (Community and Society)