Assignment 2 - Part 2

Shulock Article:

a) Briefly describe the two views of policy-making that Shulock outlines in her article

Shulock outlines traditional and interpretive views of policy analysis. In the traditional view, policy analysis is a tool for solving problems. Its usefulness is determined on its contributions to the decision making process. The interpretive view of policy analysis presents policy analysis as a tool of the greater democratic process. Its usefulness can be determined by how it frames the political discourse and informs citizens in order to build support for a particular policy.

b) In your opinion, which of these views of policy-making is most accurate? Why?

I believe the interpretive view of policy making is most accurate. As Hird (2005) demonstrated in his survey, the analysis provided by non-partisan research organizations rated low according to state lawmakers on what impacts their decision making the most. This supports the idea that policy analysis is not a dominant factor in decision making. The interpretive view can be seen in Congress as members often cite studies from outside think tanks and institutes that are heavily tied to a particular interest or ideology. Studies from organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute, National Rifle Association, Heartland Institute, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, etc. are often submitted by members to be added to the Congressional record as relevant studies concerning the debate over a bill. These aforementioned institutes and interest groups use their policy analysis in a more broad manner than the traditional view. Policy analysis is used to frame an issue and build potentially attentive and capable citizens into a mobilized constituency. These constituents then vote for and influence elected officials. At the same time, these groups are still attempting to influence lawmakers directly with their anaylsis.

c) Post a link to a newspaper article that demonstrates an example of policy-making that supports your opinions expressed in part (b) above. Briefly explain why this supports your views from part (b)

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Implementing-Obamacare-A-New-Exercise-in-Old-Fashioned-Central-Planning

The link above leads to an analysis of the recently passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (popularly known as the Healthcare bill or Obamacare). The analysis was prepared by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. The analysis is already setting a frame at the beginning of the article that PPACA is a flawed piece of legislation and is not supported by a segment of the public. While the Heritage Foundation strives to influence decision makers, it is their hope that this information reaches a broader audience. This is evidence by the social media sharing functions at the beginning and end of the article. In fact, at the top of the foundation’s website there is a link to contribute and become a member of this 696,000 person organization. Heritage also states that it is its goal to effectively market their ideas to the nation’s news media. This supports my idea shared in part b that the interpretive view is more realistic, Heritage is diversifying its influence by building an informed constituency who will influence decision makers.

Hird Article:

a) What does Hird conclude about the use of policy analysis in decision-making?

Hird concludes based on his findings that decision makers have respect for policy analysis, and value the information provided. However, Hird also concludes that this valuation does not translate when it comes to whether this high-quality information is valued in actual decision making.

b) Are you convinced by his research and his argument? Why or why not?

I find Hird’s (2005) research and argument quite convincing. Beyond the data presented by Hird (2005), it makes sense that elected lawmakers are more likely to consider the opinions of their constituents than a policy analysis. Public opinion is a powerful tool, and when it captures the attitudes of a voting bloc, elected officials can be expected to follow suit, regardless of policy analysis. This helps explain how NPROs can be useful. Hird (2005) has demonstrated that non-partisan research and analysis has a high value, and when this information can be used to inform others beyond decision makers, it has the potential to indirectly influence decision makers.