Editing Policy analysis (section)

==Evidence-based models==
Many models exist to analyze the development and implementation of [[public policy]]. Analysts use these models to identify important aspects of policy, as well as explain and predict policy and its consequences. Each of these models are based upon the types of policies.

===Types===
* Government (e.g. federal, provincial, municipal)
* Policies adopted within public institutions (e.g. hospitals, child care centers, schools)
* Workplace (e.g. policies that govern employees and employee-manager relations)<ref>Kim Bergeron, Florence Morestin et al.</ref>{{full citation needed|date=December 2023|reason=There is no such source citation in this article.}}

===Governments===

Public policy is determined by a range of political institutions, which give policy [[Legitimacy (political)|legitimacy]] to policy measures. In general, the government applies policy to all citizens and monopolizes the use of force in applying or implementing policy (through government control of [[law enforcement]], [[court]] systems, [[imprisonment]] and [[armed forces]]). The [[legislature]], [[Executive (government)|executive]] and [[judicial]] branches of government are examples of institutions that give policy legitimacy. Many countries also have independent, quasi-independent or [[arm's length]] bodies which, while funded by government, are independent from elected officials and political leaders. These organizations may include government [[commission (remuneration)|commission]]s, [[tribunal]]s, [[regulation|regulatory agencies]] and electoral commissions.

====Process model====
{{See also|Policy#Policy cycle|l1=Policy cycle}}

Policy creation is a process that typically follows a sequence of steps or stages:
* Identification of a problem (also called "problem definition") and demand for government action. Different stakeholders may define the same issue as different problems. For example, if [[Homelessness|homeless people]] are using [[illegal drug]]s such as [[heroin]] in a city park, some stakeholders may define this as a [[law enforcement]] issue (which, in their view, could be best solved if police presence in the park is stepped up and if the individuals using illegal drugs are arrested and punished); on the other hand, other stakeholders may view this as a [[poverty]] and [[public health]] issue (which, in their view, could be best solved if [[public health nurse]]s and government [[medical doctor]]s and [[substance abuse]] counsellors were sent to the park to do [[outreach]] with the drug-using individuals, and encourage them to voluntarily enter "[[detoxification]]" or [[Drug rehabilitation|rehabilitation]] programs).
* Agenda setting
* Formulation of policy proposals by various parties (e.g., citizen groups, congressional committees, [[think tank]]s, [[interest group]]s, [[lobby group]]s, [[non-governmental organization]]s).
* Policy selection/adoption and legal enactment of a selected policy by elected officials and/or houses of representatives. At this stage, '''policy legitimation''' is conferred upon the selected policy solution(s).
* Policy implementation, which involves [[civil servant]]s putting the selected policy option into practice. Depending on the choice made by the executive or legislative branch, this could involve creating new [[regulation]] (or [[Deregulation|removing existing regulations]]), creating new laws, creating a new government program or service, creating a new [[subsidy]] or [[grant (money)|grant]], etc.
* Policy [[evaluation]]. After the policy has been in place for a year or several years, [[civil servant]]s or an independent [[consulting firm]] assesses the policy, to see if the goals were achieved, if the policy was implemented effectively, etc.

This model, however, has been criticized for being overly linear and simplistic.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Young |first1=John |last2=Mendizabal |first2=Enrique |url= http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=1127&title=become-policy-entrepreneur-roma |title=Helping researchers become policy entrepreneurs |work=ODI.org.uk |publisher=[[Overseas Development Institute]] |location=London |date=September 2009 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120926223640/http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=1127&title=become-policy-entrepreneur-roma |archive-date=26 September 2012 |access-date=7 October 2009}}</ref> In reality, stages of the policy process may overlap or never happen. Also, this model fails to take into account the multiple factors attempting to influence the process itself as well as each other, and the complexity this entails.

===For public institutions===

One of the most widely used model for public institutions is one developed by [[Herbert A. Simon]], the "father of rational models"; tt is also used by private corporations.{{citation needed|date=December 2023}} However, many{{who?|date=December 2023}} criticise the model due to some of its characteristics being impractical and relying on unrealistic assumptions. For instance, it is a difficult model to apply in the public sector because social problems can be very complex, ill-defined, and inter-dependent. The problem lies in the thinking procedure implied by the model which is linear and can face difficulties in extraordinary problems or social problems which have no sequences of happenings.{{citation needed|date=December 2023}}

====Rational planning model====
{{main|Rational planning model}}

The rational planning model of decision-making is a process for making sound decisions in policy-making in the public sector. Rationality is defined as “a style of behavior that is appropriate to the achievement of given goals, within the limits imposed by given conditions and constraints”.<ref>{{cite book |last=Herbert |first=Simon |title=[[Administrative Behavior]] |publisher=The Free Press |location=New York |date=1976 |edition=3rd |isbn=0-684-83582-7}}</ref> The model makes a series of assumptions, such as: "The model must be applied in a system that is stable"; "The government is a rational and unitary actor and that its actions are perceived as rational choices"; "The policy problem is unambiguous"; "There are no limitations of time or cost".{{citation needed|date=December 2023}}

In the context of the public sector, policy models are intended to achieve maximum social gain, and may involved the following steps to achieve rational decisions:<ref name=Thomas07>{{cite book |editor-last=Thomas |editor-first=Ian |title=Environmental Policy: Australian Practice in the Context of Theory |publisher=Federation Press |location=Sydney |date=2007 |isbn=978-1-86287-603-3}}</ref>

#Intelligence gathering — A comprehensive organization of data; potential problems and opportunities are identified, collected and analyzed.
#Identifying problems — Accounting for relevant factors.
#Assessing the consequences of all options — Listing possible consequences and alternatives that could resolve the problem and ranking the probability that each potential factor could materialize in order to give a correct priority to said factor in the analysis.
#Relating consequences to values — With all policies there will be a set of relevant dimensional values (for example, economic feasibility and environmental protection) and a set of criteria for appropriateness, against which performance (or consequences) of each option being responsive can be judged.
#Choosing the preferred option — The policy is brought through from fully understanding the problems, opportunities, all the consequences & the criteria of the tentative options and by selecting an optimal alternative with consensus of involved actors.

The Rational planning model has also proven to be very useful to several decision making processes in industries outside the public sphere.{{citation needed|date=December 2023}} Nonetheless, there are some who criticize the rational model due to the major problems which can be faced & which tend to arise in practice because social and environmental values can be difficult to quantify and forge consensus around.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1023/A:1005469411776 |last1=Morgan |first1=M. G. |last2=Kandlikar |first2=M. |last3=Risbey |first3=J. |last4=Dowlatabadi |first4=H. |title=Why Conventional Tools for Policy Analysis Are Often Inadequate for Problems of Global Change |journal=Climatic Change |volume=41 |issue=3–4 |pages=271–281 |date=19 March 1999 |bibcode=1999ClCh...41..271M |s2cid=53603959}}</ref> Furthermore, the assumptions stated by Simon are never fully valid in a real-world context.{{citation needed|date=December 2023}}

Further criticism of the rational model include: leaving a gap between planning and implementation, ignoring of the role of people, entrepreneurs, leadership, etc., the insufficiency of technical competence (i.e. ignoring the human factor), reflecting too mechanical an approach (i.e. the organic nature of organizations), requiring of multidimensional and complex models, generation of predictions which are often wrong (i.e. simple solutions may be overlooked), and incurring of cost (i.e. costs of rational-comprehensive planning may outweigh the cost savings of the policy).{{citation needed|date=December 2023}}

However, Thomas R. Dye, the president of the Lincoln Center for Public Service, states the rational model provides a good perspective since in modern society rationality plays a central role and everything that is rational tends to be prized. Thus, it does not seem strange that "we ought to be trying for rational decision-making".<ref>{{cite book |last=Dye |first=Thomas R. |title=Understanding Public Policy |publisher=[[Prentice Hall]] |edition=12th |date=2007 |isbn=978-0-13-936948-3}}</ref>

====Incremental policy====
{{More|Incrementalism}}
{{Unreferenced section|date=December 2023}}
An incremental policy model relies on features of incremental decision-making such as: [[satisficing]], organizational drift, bounded rationality, and limited cognition, among others. Such policies are often called "muddling through" and represent a conservative tendency: new policies are only slightly different from old policies. Policy-makers are too short on time and other resources to make totally new policies; thus, past policies are accepted as having some legitimacy. When existing policies have sunk costs which discourage innovation, incrementalism is an easier approach than rationalism, and the policies are more politically expedient because they do not necessitate any radical redistribution of values. Such models necessarily struggle to, improve the acceptability of public policy.{{citation needed|date=December 2023}}

Criticisms of such a policy approach include: challenges to bargaining (i.e. not successful with limited resources), downplaying useful quantitative information, obscuring real relationships between political entities, an anti-intellectual approach to problems (i.e. the preclusion of imagination), and a bias towards conservatism (i.e. bias against far-reaching solutions).{{citation needed|date=December 2023}}

===For workplaces===
{{Unreferenced section|date=December 2023}}
There are many contemporary policies relevant to gender and workplace issues. Actors analyze contemporary gender-related employment issues ranging from parental leave and maternity programs, sexual harassment, and work/life balance to gender mainstreaming. It is by the juxtaposition of a variety of research methodologies focused on a common theme the richness of understanding is gained. This integrates what are usually separate bodies of evaluation on the role of gender in welfare state developments, employment transformations, workplace policies, and work experience.{{citation needed|date=December 2023}}

===Other===
There are several other major types of policy analysis, broadly groupable into competing approaches:{{citation needed|date=December 2023}}

*Empirical versus normative policy analyses
*Retrospective versus prospective analyses
*Prescriptive versus descriptive analyses.