Policy Analysis and Governance: Analytical and Policy Styles in Canada

Abstract

The policy analysis movement revolves around the idea that a generic analytic toolkit can be productively applied to substantive policy problems, but different patterns of policy analysis can be observed across organizations, sectors, and jurisdictions. This article identifies how policy analysis and governance contexts can each be differentiated at a theoretical level, and how the latter might affect the former. It is argued that successful modes of policy analysis are attributable both to the skills of policy analysts/managers, and congruence with broader institutional contexts. The case of Canada is used to probe the ability of investigators to identify distinctive policy styles over time and to encourage more systematic, finer-grained, comparative study. The article considers the implications for teaching policy analysis and for managers balancing the need to match policy analysis styles with institutional context and to challenge the perceptions of decision makers.

Political entrepreneurs and electoral capital: the case of the Israeli State Economy Arrangement Law

“…1 Policy analysis is a relatively recent movement representing the efforts of actors inside and outside the formal political decision-making processes to improve policy outcomes by applying systematic evaluative criteria (Geva-May and Wildavsky 1997;Wildavsky 1979). However, sometimes additional practical or pragmatic judgments are needed, especially those that are an appropriate fit with national governance and administrative traditions (Gunningham and Cagan 2005;Howlett and Lindquist 2004). Furthermore, the neo-institutional approach is reflected in new definitions, most of which are broad and involve social as well as political dimensions.…”

Exploring the Use of Nodality Based Information PolicyTools by Canadian Electoral Agencies

“…• Various taxonomies of instruments (Howlett 1991;Linder and Peters 1998;Lowi 1972;Salisbury 1968;Tupper and Doern 1981;Vedung 1998;Wilson 1980); • Theorizing on the political contexts of instrument use related to degrees of coercion (Doern and Phidd 1992;Howlett 2009;Pal 2006;Prince 2010;Tupper and Doern 1981); • The relationship of instrument mixes and national or sectoral policy tool styles (Howlett 1991;Howlett and Lindquist 2004;Richardson, Gustafsson and Jordan 1982); and • Theorizing and testing the impacts of a shift towards 'governance' on tools use, selection and mixes (Eliadis, Hill and Howlett 2005;Salamon 2002). …”

Governing the transition to a biofuels economy in the US and EU: Accommodating value conflicts, implementing uncertainty

“…An indicative selection includes the ability of governments to make intelligent policy choices (Painter and Pierre, 2005); to scan the horizon and set strategic policy 6 directions (Howlett and Lindquist, 2004); the faculty to weigh and assess the implications of policy alternatives (Bakvis, 2000), as well as aptitude in making the effective use of appropriate knowledge in policy-making (Parsons, 2004;Bakvis and Aucoin, 2005). Davis (2000) makes specific reference to the ability of governments to implement preferred choices of action as well as decide upon them.…”