Samenvatting Policy Analysis (slides + lesnotities) | Prof. Brans | KU Leuven | 2024/25

Policy Analysis
Prof. Dr. Marleen Brans
Session 1: The development of public policy analysis and the policy sciences...............................1
Session 2: Theoretical approaches of public policy analysis...........................................................7
Session 3: Policy context, actors and institutions...........................................................................10
Session 4: Policy Instruments........................................................................................................17
Session 5: Agenda-setting..............................................................................................................25
Session 6: Policy formulation.........................................................................................................35
Session 7: Decision-making...........................................................................................................40
Session 8: Implementation.............................................................................................................45
Session 9: Evaluation.....................................................................................................................51
Session 10: Feedback and Learning..............................................................................................53
Exam info........................................................................................................................................55


Part 1: Meta-analysis of Policy (Makring): Methods and Approaches (Macro-approach)


Session 1: The development of public policy analysis
and the policy sciences
Public policy
 Governments make public policy ≠ politics and polity
o Those who make policy are the government
o Policy is different from politics and polity
 Polity = equivalent to political system
 Politics = refers maily to the input but also inside government-decision
making
o Ex:
 Education Have influence on daily life
 Healthcare
 Studying public policy
o Why are certain decisions taken at certain times and not others?
 Ex. Why was domestic violence seen as something private and now within
responsibility of the government?
o How do policy decisions add up into policy regimes or mixes? Are those decisions
in contrast incompatible or contradictory?
o Do decisions result in recognizable patterns, or can we merely discern
(quasi)random accumulations of multiple decisions in the past?
o What actors are involved in public policies, what do these policy actors do, why
and what difference do they make?




Public policy analysis…
Analysis of policy: Analysis for policy:

, Looking at policies and analysing them, trying Not theoretical but a profession, policy
to understand, looking at a failure of policy, making, wanting to advise policy makers by
explaining what went wrong etc studying policy problems and solutions
 Recommending
 Theory and testing  Applied
 Descriptive  Prescriptive
 Theoretical  Applied Policy analysis
 Policy sciences
 Academic policy analysis

Real life situations which we analyse

But types cannot live without each other: a pure academic public analyst can say that he is only
interested in understanding policy and wants to develop frameworks,… but an applies public
analyst can’t make good proposals when they don’t know how policy works
=> so academic policy analysis can exist on itself but that is not the case for applied public policy
(exam question: does an applied public analysis not have to be concerned about academic public
policy?)

The class is about analysis OF policy; looking at policy problems and trying to understand and
explain. To be a good policy advisor you need to be a good analyst.

Agenda
setting/identificatio
n of issues or
problems



Policy
assesment/evaluati Policy formulation
on




Policy
Policy
adoption/legitimizat
implementation
ion


 Public policy analysis = a relatively new discipline in society
o In general; both academically and professionally
 Academic discipline
o Multi-disciplinary
o Multi-method
o Problem-oriented
o Mapping (= in kaart brengen van) of contexts, alternatives and effects
 Harold Lasswel = considered as the founder of the academic policy analysis
 Lerner & Lasswell: The Policy Sciences (1951)
o The "policy sciences" are defined as "the disciplines concerned with explaining
the policy making and policy executing process, and with locating data and
providing interpretations which are relevant to the policy problems of a given
period" (p. 14)
o The term "policy” is used "to designate the most important choices made either in
organized or private life" (p. 5)
 Rather new profession  grown after WOII, to rebuild the society
 Policy = the actions a government takes

,Definitions of policy
o Dye (1972): Public policy is “anything a government chooses to do or not to do.”
o Best known
o Too broad criticism
o Focus on decision-making: choosing to do something or not and consciously
thinking about it
o A “negative” or “non-decision,” that is, a government’s decision to do nothing and
simply maintain the current course of action or status quo is just as much a policy
decision as a choice to attempt to alter some part of the status quo.
o Focus on government (primary agent of decision making)
o Private decisions by businesses, social groups, or individuals are not in
themselves public policies  only governments can make authoritative decisions
on behalf of citizens
o An unintended consequence of policy ≠ public policy but rather an unexpected by-
product
o Sometimes beneficial (such as when regulation spurs innovation in alternative
products)
o Sometimes not (as in the smuggling case above)

o Jenkins (1978): Public policy as “a set of interrelated decisions taken by a political
actor or group of actors concerning the selection of goals and the means of
achieving them within a specified situation where those decisions should, in
principle, be within the power of those actors to achieve.”
o Inherently dynamic and complex process
o Governments rarely address problems with a single decision
o  policies usually involve a series of decisions that cumulatively contribute to an
outcome
o Decisions are taken in the power of actors ~ power!!
o !! Capacity: not everything is possible; government is limited by rules and financial
situations  choices are limited
o Public policy-making as goal-oriented behaviour
o  public policies are decisions taken by governments that define a goal and set
out a means to achieve it
o Content of a policy decision is composed by a selection of goals and means
o Two dimensions:
1) Technical: optimal relationship between goals and tools
2) Political: there is rarely agreement on what constitutes a policy problem or
an appropriate “solution,” which also makes the “design” process in the
policy realm unavoidably political

o Anderson (1975): A purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of
actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern for the population.
o Divide between problem and matter of concern
o Anderson has summarized Jenkins definition with “purposive course of action”
o Very clear positivist vision
o ! prof

Analyse in les:
How are these definitions different? What are the main parts of the definitions and how do they
compare? Why do you prefer a certain definition?
 Alle drie definities zijn nuttig
 Dye focusses on decision-making
 Anderson has summarized Jenkins definition with “purposive course of action”

,  A problem has an objective ring to it but political actors have to define it as a problem that
a government has to deal with. A positivistic approach vs. Constructivist approach.
o Post-positivist approach: emphasizes subjective and interpretive methods to
analyze policy goals and government decisions. Focuses on the influence of
social assumptions, biases, and power structures in policymaking. Aims to identify
and reduce biases.
o Positivist approach: prioritizes objective, measurable facts and evidence-based
policy analysis. Seeks accurate and uncontested data.

Geen definities reproduceren maar specifieke vragen beantwoorden over de gegeven definities:
 Ex. Anderson insists on making a distinction. What is the distinction and why is it
important?
 Ex. Dye has a short definition, is he not blind for some parts of policy making and what
are they?
 Ex. How does Anderson‘s definition fits well within the constructivist definition of policy
making?

Actors & Institutions

1. Organisation of the
international system
Ex. European Parliament

2. Organisation of society
Ex. Boerenbond

3. Organisation of the state
Bv. De Lijn, MIVB, TEC




 Also intersection between the diagrams
 Individual + complex actors
o Individual: ministers
o Complex: public institutions
Actors
Power to make policy Role as policy advisor/analyst/worker
 Elected politicians  As stakeholder
 Administrative officials  As target group
 Political parties, and their study  Capable/not to influence pm
centers
 Interest groups, NGOs
 Research organisations, academic
institutes, think tanks
 Mass media
 (Voters/Citizens/individuals…)

The policy cycle model
Policy cycle = a simplified framework of the public policy process, involving steps from agenda-
setting to evaluation
 Public policy is a process
o A complex phenomenon consisting of numerous decisions made by many
individuals and organizations inside government, while these decisions are
influenced by others operating within and outside of the state.

, o Policy outcomes are seen as being shaped both by the structures within which
these actors operate and the ideas they hold—forces that also have affected
earlier policies and related decisions in previous iterations of policy-making.

Policy
formulation



Decision
Agenda setting
making




Policy
Monitoring and
implementatio
evaluation
n

1. Agenda-setting: The process by which problems come to the attention of the
government.
2. Policy formulation: The process of developing policy options within the government.
3. Decision-making: The process by which the government selects a policy option or
decides on inaction.
4. Policy implementation: The process of putting policies into effect.
5. Policy evaluation: The process of monitoring and assessing policy outcomes, which may
lead to the reconceptualization of problems and solutions.

o Helps to reduce complexity; something to work with ~ Jenkins.
o Is a cycle of phases who follow up on each other  interrelated stages
o Something that needs attention is brought to the agenda, there are multiple
solutions but one is chosen
o (The previous phases are theoretical; after this they become reality)
o Reduction of reality
o Very context-related

o Advantages
1) Helps reduce complexity
2) Maps and clarifies the roles of actors, institutions and ideas/interests
o Disadvantages
1) Policy is non-systematic, non-lineair in reality
2) Idiosyncratic problem solving (= eigenzinnige probleemoplossing)
3) Stages compressed or skipped
4) Causes and effects are unclear

Stages of the policy cycle
 Disseminating = verspreiden of bekendmaken, vooral in de context van info, kennis of
nieuws
 Estimation = inschatting
Lasswell Brewer
1. Intelligence: collecting + disseminating 1. Invention/initiation
knowledge 2. Estimation
2. Promotion: supporting selected 3. Selection
alternatives 4. Implementation
3. Prescription: decision for an 5. Evaluation
alternative 6. Termination

, 4. Invocation: decision of rules of
selected alternative = reversed order as compared to Lasswell’s
5. Application: implementation through model
the administration
6. Termination: ending the process
7. Appraisal: evaluation according to the
initial goals

Brewers version improved on Lasswell’s pioneering work by expanding beyond the confines of
government in exploring how problems are recognized + policy process as an ongoing cycle.

Studying the public policy process




o Decision-making is a stage: small stage with few actors/people involved
o Agenda-setting: everyone can play a role, anyone can influence the agenda-
setting stage
o Ex. A little girl can have an influence on the approach of climate-change

The need for public policy capacity
 Refers to the requirement for adequate resources and capabilities at individual,
organizational and systemic levels. Along with essential skills (analytical, operationald
and political) to effectively formulate and implement public policies
 Levels of resources and capabilities: individual, organizational and systematic
 Skills and competences: analytical, operational and political

Conclusion
1) Common Ideas in Public Policymaking: Shared ideas include recognizing that only
governments can make authoritative decisions on behalf of citizens, and public policy
involves a conscious choice by the government to either act or not on a particular
problem, with potential unintended consequences.

2) Policy Studies vs. Policy Analysis: Policy studies focus on theoretical and philosophical
approaches, while policy analysis is more applied and prescriptive. Positivist and post-
positivist assumptions color these activities, influencing the methodologies employed.

3) Usefulness of Policy Cycle Model: The policy cycle model is useful for reducing
complexity and mapping roles but has limitations, including non-systematic and non-linear

, policy processes, idiosyncratic problem-solving, and stages being compressed or
skipped.

4) Three Components of Public Capacity: Governments, organizations, and policy managers
need individual, organizational, and systemic resources and capabilities. These are
related to analytical, operational, and political skills and competences.

5) Policy Style and Policy Regime: A policy style refers to the way decisions are made and
implemented, while a policy regime is a pattern of related policies. They are related as
styles contribute to regime formation and understanding them is crucial for effective
policymaking.


Session 2: Theoretical approaches of public policy
analysis
o Different from the models we covered before
o Macro-level theories; want to explain a broader view
o  before they were meso-level theories

Theories as lenses
“To someone with a hammer everything looks like a nail” (Mark Twain)
 Theories all look through a different lense; an explain the same thing but with a different
answer

Approaches of public policy analysis
Macro-level theories
 Dimensions:
1) Unit of analysis
 Actor(s) or institutions
2) Method/school of thought
 How it is constructed; the thought behind the theory
 Deductive vs. inductive
 Deductive = abstract way of thought and then tested in reality
o Understanding is developed largely based on applying
general presuppositions, concepts, or principles to specific
phenomena
 Inductive = reality and then abstract notions
o Develop generalizations based on careful observation of
empirical phenomena and subsequent testing of these
generalizations against other cases
 Bottom-up vs. top-down

Individual Collectivity Structure
Deductive Public choice Social structure or Neo-institutionalism
class analysis
Inductive Welfare economics Pluralism/neo- Statism
corporatism

1. Public choice
 What?
o Application of neo-classical economics: rational action and individual utility
maximization
o Self-interests of voters, politicians and administrative officials lead to increasing
state intervention, provision of goods and services

,  So when you study public policy you need to keep in mind the self-interest
of actors
o Normative: less state and benefits of the market
o Advocates limiting government intervention and protecting market forces by
enforcing property rights
 Problems
o Over-simplifying: policy is more complex than utility maximisation
o Poor predictive capacity
o Underestimated impact of institutions on action
o Neo-liberal, not value-free perspective
o No empirical evidence that government spending always increases due to
electoral competition

2. Welfare economics
 Market failures – need for government action
o Public goods (e.g. street lights)
o Natural monopolies (e.g. railway, electricity)
o Imperfect/limited information (e.g. pharmaceutics)
o Externalities (e.g. air pollution)
o “Tragedy of the commons” (e.g. fish stock depletion)
o Destructive competition (e.g. child labour in textile industry)
o Most formal policy analyses draw from economics, with proponents calling
themselves "policy analysts," while critics label them "positivists" or "rationalists"
due to their claims of objectivity.
 Avoid Government failure
o Principal-agent theory
o Organisational displacement – shift of goals
o Rising costs
o Derived externalities
o Government action can lead to inefficiencies and unintended consequences.
Exhaustiveness

High Low
Exclusivit Hig Private good Toll good
y h Ex. Food Ex. Highways
Low Common-pool good Public good
Ex. Fish, wildlife Ex. Street lighting,
clean air
 Cost-benefit analysis
o Financial estimation of negative/positive effects of an option
o Evaluation of social outcomes
 Pareto optimum
o Difficult to achieve in policy
o Kaldor-criterion
o Non-financial costs
3. Social structure and class theory
 What?
o Focus on collective entities like organized interests and associations
o Class theory (especially Marxist) assigns class based on social characteristics,
not self-perception
 Historical materialism: economic conditions determine social and political
structures
o Society evolves through economic systems, each with its own class structure
(e.g., worker vs. capitalist)

, o Class struggle drives societal and economic transformation
o In capitalism, the dominant class controls the economy and influences state
policies to maintain profits
o Welfare state development is seen as a response to working-class pressures
while maintaining capitalist foundations
 Problems
o Over-simplification and strongly deductive
o No clear definition of class
o Problems with differentiation between base and superstructure
o Economic determinism
o Newer class studies but no longer Marxist; famous e.g. Esping-Andersen’s (1990)
The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism
o Cannot fully explain policies enacted against capitalist interests (e.g., social
welfare policies, Keynesian economics)
o Led to the development of relative state autonomy to account for policies
opposing capitalist interests
o Shift towards institutional and structural factors in neo-Marxist analyses
4. Pluralism and Neo-corporatism
 (interest)groups as basic unit of analysis
 Observation US-EU
 Pluralism
o Central role of many interest groups
o Overlapping, fluid membership
o Little attention for power differences (neo-pluralism)
o Competition between interest groups
o Influence depends on resources and acces
o But: Limited application, role of state unclear
 Neo-corporatism
o Small number of influential interest groups
o Representative monopoly
o Specific interaction(s) state-interest groups
o Institutionalized, structured cooperation
o Influence based on formalized negotiation rather than competition
o But: Limited application, reductionist, unclear about influence
5. Neo-institutionalism
o Neo: different to legalist/descriptive approaches
o Historical institutionalism importance of
o Rules, norms, culture, habits, configuration of governmental institutions
o ‘Critical junctures’ determine ‘path-dependencies’
o Historical determinants of policies and differences
o Other variants:
o Rational choice institutionalism = individuals act rationally within institutional
constraints, which incentivize some actions and deter others
o Sociological institutionalism = norms and values shape behavior through
socialization, actors follow them because they seem natural, rightful, legitimate
o Actor-centered institutionalism = focus on individuals shaped by socio-
economic environment
o Transaction cost analysis = institutions reduce barriers to efficient exchange in
society
o Institutions influence political behavior
o Affect interpretation of problems and solutions
o Constrain choices and implementation capacity
o Legitimize and shape expectations of political actors
o BUT

, o Chicken or egg? (causality dilemma: what comes first?)
o Points out limitations of policy but no info on purposeful actions of policymakers
o Not for agenda-setting
6. (Statism)
 Weber, Hintze, Skocpol, Hall & Soskice
 State-centred vs. society-centred
 State as autonomous actor
 BUT
o Too little attention to social factors and civil society – but can also be
complementary


Session 3: Policy context, actors and institutions
Recap of last week:
- Diaz provided a very broad definition of what public policies are, including what they are
not, pointing out that governments are central actors in the policy process, but
sometimes, they also fail to make decisions
- On the other hand, Jenkins’ definition was much more technical, and I hope you
remember that it was an elaborate and stepwise approach to public policy. His definition
suggests that public policies are made in a very goal-oriented, rational way, where
problems are analyzed, solutions are considered, and optimal decisions are made based
on these factors. This stepwise, rational process, which includes stages like defining
problems and evaluating solutions, is very much tied to a positivist view of policy making.
- Post-positivist perspectives are better seen in Anderson's definition, which distinguished
between a problem and a matter of concern. Anderson highlighted that not all problems
are objectively manifest. Some issues are socially constructed and do not necessarily
have factual support.

Policy actors: three main spheres:
1) Societal
2) Governmental
3) International
 have power resources that can influence the policy process
 the roles they have + their influence depend on the political system and context

Policy-making  focus on democratic, liberal states in Western Europe or other highly
industrialized, democratic countries  important to keep in mind that the political context in many
countries differs from what we know in Western democracies  can affect the roles of politicians,
parliaments, media, and other societal organizations in policy-making.

Governmental and administrative power distribution in
political systems
 Federal or unitary
 Presidential or parliamentary system
 Two-party system or multi-party system
o Two-party systems  one-party government
o Multi-party system  coalition government
 Proportional or majority voting system
 Single party in government or coalition
 Role of the courts
 Structure of the administration
 Effectiveness, tempo, procedures, roles,…
+ democratic, industrialized, liberal states

The Political-Economic Context