shulock and Hird

Shulock Article

A-B.
This piece of policy design analysis is muddled in somewhat incoherent verbiage. Shulock tries to demonstrate that policy analysis is not making a return on its investment (Shulock, 1999, pp. 226). Albeit that she presents a sound argument, her paradox is not fully developed and convincing. To explore her analysis she develops two perspectives of policy analysis. Shulock states, in regards to a tradionalist policy perspective, “…the rationalist foundation of traditional policy analysis unduly limits our understanding of policy analysis and its role in the policymaking process. Traditionalists view analysis as a tool for choosing among alternatives in an effort to solve problems,” (pp.226-227). Shulock argues that policy analysis has become more rooted in democracy as opposed to solving problems (pp. 227). Yet, she tries to also argue that analysis is used extensively, I think she creates a paradox in of itself in her argument. For example she states, “I have suggested that a resolution lies in a new understandingof policy analysis. From a nontraditional, interpretive perspective, I conclude thatanalysis is, in fact, used extensively,” (pp. 239). In her basic premise she presents us with two views of policy analysis, Shulock presents traditional and interpretive policy analysis (pp. 239). Traditional in the sense that we invest, but misuse and do not produce efficient based policy outcomes, and interpretive in re-inventing what she states are the deficiencies of traditional form, “Two types of deficiencies of traditional policy analysis are usually presented—an overreliance on a positivist framework and an antidemocratic tendency,” (pp. 239).

C.
A recent article on immigration, Court Rejects a City’s Efforts to Restrict Immigrants, in the New York Times, by Julia Preston, in ways helps outline what Shulock is explaining. The article examines recent laws that have been appealed that are clearly in violation of national immigration policy. The article furthermore explores the current debate over the U.S. suing Arizona over its recent immigration law. The way I view it as a correlative example is that states are beginning to become interpretative of policy based on their experiences and local scenarios, this is not a clear fault, but it leads to misguided policy outcomes.Preston states, "The Hazleton ordinances, which were passed in 2006 and 2007, have served as models for states and towns across the country seeking to crack down on illegal immigrants," (Preston, 2010). Thus the local governments are crreating policy based on their own interpetavive scenarios. A more traditional approach would serve to protect democratic values and pursue outcomes that embody the policy desired, if it’s necessary. It would follow a more normative approach and create a basis to extract what policy already exists and use it to project further outcomes, not just interpret what is felt is necessary at the moment and create more problems than resolutions.

article----

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/us/10immig.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=policy%20and%20immigration&st=cse

5. Hird article

A.
Hird concludes two important points in his analysis of policy analysis. One, he states, “...nonpartisan policy research still plays an important role in providing information for policymakers,” (Hird, 2005, pp. 101). Secondly, Hird states, “…future research on the use of research in policymaking should pay greater attention to the importance of institutions in policymaking…,” (pp. 101). He best can be characterized when he sums up his research referring that information sources due have significant impact on decision making (pp. 101).


To some extent Hird does have a very valid point. The sources of information used can cause severe impacts on the outcomes policy makers decide to integrate. I believe it validates the integrity of the outcome if the sources are of significant integrity and provide a reliable platform context. Although in some cases in his argument his support for policy institutions comes directly from the users (legislators etc.) so it would seem somewhat biased. It would seem intelligent to create varying degrees of sources to allocate the best possible scenarios to resolve issues, but it just seems very normative anyway, for example Hind states, “The fact that most state legislatures maintain one or more nonpartisan policy research organizations (NPROs) is prima facie evidence of the importance of policy analysis to state legislators,” (pp. 84).

References

Hird, John A. (2005). Policy Analysis for What? The Effectiveness of
Nonpartisan Policy Research Organizations. The Policy Studies Journal, 33(1), PP. 83-105. Retrieved from:https://myasucourses.asu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_group=courses&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fcontent%2FcontentWrapper.jsp%3Fattachment%3Dtrue%26navItem%3Dcontent%26content_id%3D_3907662_1%26course_id%3D_176064_1%26displayName%3Dhird%2B2005.pdf%26href%3D%2F%2540%2540%2FAF1A8FF51B4BAEDC4C9FF7FC7777E3EF%2Fcourses%2F1%2F2010Fall-X-PAF540-75317%2Fcontent%2F_3907662_1%2Fhird%2525202005.pdf

Preston, Julia (2010, September 9). Court Rejects a City’s Efforts to Restrict Immigrants. New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/us/10immig.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=policy%20and%20immigration&st=cse

Shulock, Nancy (1999). The Paradox of Policy Analysis: If It Is Not Used, Why Do We Produce So Much of It?. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(2), pp. 226–244. Retrieved from:https://myasucourses.asu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_group=courses&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fcontent%2FcontentWrapper.jsp%3Fattachment%3Dtrue%26navItem%3Dcontent%26content_id%3D_3907663_1%26course_id%3D_176064_1%26displayName%3Dshulock%2Bjpam%2B1999.pdf%26href%3D%2F%2540%2540%2FAF1A8FF51B4BAEDC4C9FF7FC7777E3EF%2Fcourses%2F1%2F2010Fall-X-PAF540-75317%2Fcontent%2F_3907663_1%2Fshulock%252520jpam%2525201999.pdf