The Role of Theories in Policy Studies and Policy Work
in the social and political sciences in large indicator and “ big ” data sets — social science scholars in academia , think tanks , and advisory bodies use these data sets for comparative research to discover evidence-based causal pathways to better outcomes . For example , using the measurement of perceived corruption as pioneered by Transparency International and conventional , long-term measurement of growth in GDP by the IMF , WB or the OECD allow calculation of the statistical correlation between corruption and economic growth ; interpreted causally , this delivers an estimate of how harmful corruption is to economic development . Using such novel “ scientific ” insights , states compete on “ best practices ”, and transnational bodies like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund or the OECD apportion not only praise and blame , but also allocate huge amounts of financial resources among the deserving nations . These practices of evidence-based comparative research and policy analysis cannot but lead to a lots of “ govern like us ” advice ( Thomas 2015 ).
Obviously , the rational democracy and stages heuristic as sacred , front-stage and “ on-the-table ” story needs a profane , back-stage and “ under-the-table ” counter-narrative . Policy is less “ public ” than frequently assumed , and is not just the officially enunciated governmental plan it is often supposed to be ; it is also , “ what happens when neither the public nor elected policymakers have the ability to pay attention to what goes on in their name ” ( Cairney 2014 ). This is where other two policy process narratives come in .
Performation of Policy as Association Radin ( 2000 ; 2013 ) observed two co-evolving trends in public policymaking in the United States : on the one hand , policy analysis as an academic profession had come of age and even reached mid-life ; on the other hand , the now fully professionalized “ policy analysts ” more and more frequently experienced a “ disconnect ” between their training and skills required on the job , especially in nonfederal policy settings . Radin analyzes how policy analysis , originally created to counter bureaupolitics and politics as party-political and interest group conflict , was “ gobbled up ” by the structure and culture of American politics . And hence fragmented from one , clearly defined policy analytic unit in the top of federal government ( agencies ), to a “ field of many voices , approaches , and interests .” The most likely reason for Radin ’ s observation was that professionalacademic training , in terms of Gardner ’ s theory of multiple intelligences ( Gardner 1983 ), was biased toward linguistic and logical-mathematical skills . For example , even Dunn ( 2011 , 1 – 2 ), who uses one of the broadest concepts of “ rationality ” to be found in the policy scientific literature defines policy analysis as the trained skills to use multiple research methods to create , critically evaluate , and communicate policy relevant knowledge ( italics by rh & hc ). Yet , policy practice , in addition , requires highly developed noncognitive , interpersonal , visual , and intrapersonal ( motivational , emotional , and selfreflexive ) modes of practical intelligence for successfully completing practical policy tasks .
In fact , a long time ago founding fathers of the policy science field with lots of practical experience like Dror ( 1967 ), Halperin ( 1974 ), and Meltsner ( 1976 ; 1979 ; 1990 ) had already drawn
136