Analysis and Public Policy

Analysis and Public Policy

Successes, Failures and Directions for Reform

New Horizons in Public Policy series

Stuart Shapiro

How do we incorporate analytical thinking into public policy decisions? Stuart Shapiro confronts this issue in Analysis and Public Policy by looking at various types of analysis, and discussing how they are used in regulatory policy-making in the US. By looking at the successes and failures of incorporating cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, and environmental impact assessment, he draws broader lessons on its use, focusing on the interactions between analysis and political factors, legal structures and bureaucratic organizations as possible areas for reform.

Chapter 9: Building better branches

Stuart Shapiro

Subjects: environment, valuation, politics and public policy, public policy, research methods in politics and public policy, research methods, research methods in politics and public policy

Extract

I began this project when I was struck by the similarities between debates over cost-benefit analysis and environmental impact statements (EISs). In both cases, the advocates of the analysis were frustrated with the failure of the analytical requirement to achieve its goals; lower cost of regulation in the case of cost-benefit analysis, and deterrence of projects with harmful effects on the environment in the case of EISs. And in both cases, the opponents of analysis were just as frustrated that decisions they favored (regulations protecting the environment in one case, and projects with economic gain in the other) were delayed because of the need to carry out the analysis. Making the similarities more striking was the fact that the same interests that favored EISs, opposed cost-benefit analysis, and vice versa. I find it easy to be sympathetic to both ends of the debate on the role of comprehensive forms of analysis in regulation (and in policy-making more broadly). I have often encountered individuals unfamiliar with the regulatory process who wonder why government can’t just analyze the impacts of its decisions before making them. This desire for a process that involves careful examination of consequences is quite intuitive. This is particularly true in cases where the impact of the decisions is likely to be large, and the decisions are (seemingly) made by unelected officials.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information