Traditional vs Interpretive View of Policy Analysis

Shulock describes the traditional and interpretive views of policy analysis. The traditional view is client oriented with the clients being decision makers. It assumes that policy analysts can influence the decisions of clients through their analysis. She terms this as an “optimistic view that reflects the positivism of the social sciences.”


In Shulock’s interpretive view of policy analysis, she redefines “use”. She proposes three ways that policy analysis is used outside of the traditional view of analysis as a product or recommendation to be delivered to a client. These uses are “(a) as language for framing political discourse, (b) as legitimate rationalization for legislative action where prospective rationality is inhibited by “garbage can” decision environments, and (c) as a symbol of legitimate decision processes that can increase support for governance processes in a society that values rationality.”

While the traditional view of policy analysis relies on rational choice and objectivity, the interpretive view tends to be ambiguous and used to justify actions as a symbol of rationality. In my opinion, the interpretive view sacrifices objectivity and thus the validity of analysis to allow policy makers to hand pick analyses that support policy decisions rather than using rigorous analytical results to improve policies and programs.

The article I selected, “With elections looming, U.S. poverty hitting record levels” reports that,

"In 2008, the poverty level stood at $22,025 for a family of four, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income before tax deductions. It excludes capital gains or accumulated wealth. It does not factor in noncash government aid such as tax credits or food stamps, which have surged to record levels in recent years under the federal stimulus program.

Beginning next year, the government plans to publish new, supplemental poverty figures that are expected to show even higher numbers of people in poverty than previously known. The figures will take into account rising costs of medical care, transportation and child care, a change analysts believe will add to the ranks of both seniors and working-age people in poverty."

This is an example of the interpretive view of policy analysis. Clearly, data is being manipulated to show that poverty is greater than previously. When tax credits and food stamps have “have surged to record levels in recent years under the federal stimulus program”, but are not counted as income, it paints a deceptive picture of the resources people have at their disposal. The “new, supplemental poverty figures” that will take into account “rising costs of medical care, transportation and child care” once again change the parameters for defining poverty, not the actual number of people living under such circumstances. What was defined as lower middle class thirty years ago could easily be defined as living in poverty today. Policy analysis has, in this case, been carefully tailored to support expansion of existing programs and implementation of new ones to address a problem that has been inflated by changing the definition of poverty.


Link to article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39123485/ns/us_news/