Hird found that non-partisan research organizations (NPROs) have substantial influence on legislatures due to their physical institutional proximity. However, most of this influence tends to be in providing information in the form of summaries and fiscal analysis of policy. Compared to other constituencies, NPROs have little real influence on policymaking. Legislators tend to favor larger NPROs and believe they have more influence on policymaking than do smaller NPROs. When legislators view NPROs as primarily information gathering and synthesizing organizations, rather than as information analyzers, they rate the strength of the NPRO less favorably. In addition, legislators view their constituents as the most important source of information for understanding and formulating policy decisions.
I agree with Hird in his assessment of how data from NPROs is used in policymaking. In my opinion, NPROs could serve a much more useful function if legislators incorporated their findings in to policy decisions. When the views of constituents, who by their nature have self-serving interests, trump careful analysis of programs and policies, the true effectiveness of these programs and policies is not examined. Legislators must keep constituents happy to preserve their own well-being and longevity in office. Unfortunately, this may lead to the creation or perpetuation of pet programs that are popular, but not necessarily able to stand up to the unblinking scrutiny of well-designed, unbiased policy analysis. If tax dollars are dedicated to maintaining NPROs, the policy analyses they generate should play a significant role in determining which policies have the best cost-benefit ratios and highest levels of effectiveness. They should not simply be used to summarize information for legislators who are too busy to read entire program reports.
No comments:
Post a Comment