This section of the deLeon/Longobardi paper makes a very cogent argument for the viability and promise of the good society, leaving the question “why” behind, and moving to the question “how.” The article explores the dichotomy present in academia whereby professors are expected to write theoretical, scholarly works in order to attain credibility with peers and secure professional space in the institution itself, yet society needs applied research in order to gain utility from the policy sciences. I must admit a certain amount of dangerous irony here (dangerous in that I am the student of the author!) as I read the article, which contains arcane terms such as “apodictic,” and “petard.” I completely agree with this section, however, and believe that to not only survive, but also to thrive and contribute, the academic wing of the policy sciences needs to take a more active, facilitative role. I also have seen this, to some extent in practice. We are in the middle of implementing a multi-year federally funded project to increase the employment of people with disabilities in Alaska. The lion’s share of proposed goals and objectives stem from applied research done in other states combined with survey research done in Alaska. By using this research to drive estimation and implementation, we believe we are achieving greater success.
The authors describe the policy sciences as having been created as a vehicle to improve the nature of information presented to governments, and as a means of improving decision making in same. Although the policy sciences were conceived as normative (in approach), they were purloined by the “quantitative disciplines.” These disciplines strove to use their common tools such as systems analysis, quantitative analysis, and later, cost-benefit analysis. Because of this approach, the authors aver that the policy sciences have not played a starring role in terms of stimulating change and influencing leaders. Without including a normative reference in their work, policy analysts were missing a critical link between politics, politicians, the bureaucracies and the people. The authors see this coupled with a widely accepted view that the policy sciences are protective of established policy inertia and have been assimilated and controlled by the bureaucracies. A positive to this, in the authors' view, is the large growth in the policy community, including graduate schools, as well as employment opportunities. I tend to be more skeptical - more does not necessarily mean better, and, in fact, a glut of "the same old" could be grievously injurious to the field, and the country it attempts to serve. The authors frame the next section by posing questions attempting to discern whether public policy analysts differ markedly from other public administrators, and focus on whether or not they are doing anything to bridge the gap between government and its people.
Weimer (2002) points out that one of the important duties a policy analyst completes is to raise issues that have not been raised by organized interests - in a sense, to speak for those who do not participate in the process. If analysts raise issues from this perspective they must be able to demonstrate that those issues are indeed plausible and in fact held by any members of the community. Without some evidence, this can relegate the analyst not to status of defender of the status quo, but to radical gadfly, intent on muddying the process. Is it up to the analyst, then, to "round up" citizens who will represent the diversity of outcomes for a given policy problem? I say no, but believe analysts are behooved to cast a wide net in seeking participation in forums to decide policies, and be prepared to demonstrate real, not theoretical, outcomes when attempting to speak for Weimer’s "silent losers."
This sets the stage for the primary discussion of the paper - participatory policy analysis, particularly discussed as a means to achieve greater participation in government and increased social unity, among other things. The authors trace at least part of the roots of today's participatory policy analysis to the Frankfurt school, noting especially the German Philosopher Jurgen Habermas. The idea that citizens felt their voices were not being heard in the program development process, and that the programs themselves were suffering from this, provided much of the stimulus for this postmodernization. As the authors state succinctly, "Citizens deserve a greater say in their governance, based upon the knowledge that they are best able to articulate their special "needs." Given this voice as a basis for action, government can be more informed and responsive ..., thus promoting a more involved, engaged, and, in many perceptions, a better citizenry. The result would be an enhanced (maybe even a good) society."
Ingram (2000) posits a hypothetical model that citizens "... should view their role as citizens as important, as involving obligations as well as rights, and they must be convinced that government has the interest and capacity to solve public problems." Ingram provides two examples, one involving water rights, and the other Superfund legislation. The water rights example provides an excellent concrete look at a poorly constructed policy arena that was reconstructed to follow a participatory model, and is now thought to be far more successful, both in its intended (water policy decisions) and unintended outcomes. The Superfund example paints a less positive picture, as the current situation is symptomatic of poor policy design and perpetuates citizen cynicism. She makes a fairly compelling case that citizen participation could have avoided these results in this case.
deLeon and Longobardi establish three primary obstacles to achieving the realization of the potential of the policy sciences in relation to democracy. These are citizen willingness to participate, educating them to participate, and constructing a feasible format. The authors represent the first as a "serious impediment." I agree; this is perhaps the most serious impediment, and is a recurring theme throughout this article and in countless others as well. An important consanguine issue that I see is one of lack of leadership. Leadership can be a magic ingredient such that it can motivate participation, while lack of leadership can fire cynicism. Without leadership, participation may be squandered. More than good facilitation, the intangible qualities that combine to create good leadership are necessary to reach the lofty goals of participatory policy analysis - achievement of the good society.
Education is clearly important to engaging citizens in the policy process. Without some sense of their place in the civil society, people do not even know where to begin. At the most basic level, people need to know how government functions, and where in the policy process they may insert themselves. Of course, citizens need to know some specifics about the issue(s) at hand, so they may participate thoughtfully. The authors reference Habermas in an argument for the need for a balanced presentation whereby "all sides are heard." Unfortunately, many citizens don't want to hear all sides; developing this ethos may be possible as young students work their way through primary and secondary schools. Positive experiences in participatory policy analysis could build this sense in adults who are out of school - this is another possible outcome of participatory policy analysis.
The authors approach the format question by describing Dahl's "citizen's jury." In my experience, this is one of the more formal along the continuum of possible formats. Others along the continuum include appointed advisory boards, councils, and ad hoc citizen work groups. Contrary to the opinion of many of my fellow students on this topic, I believe participatory policy analysis can be feasible even at the federal level, though certainly in a more dispersed mode, possibly through regional field offices or through itinerant teams of leaders/facilitators. Again, I believe leadership to be an essential element in this scheme.
I was particularly fascinated by the authors' assertion that citizen's jury decisions would be advisory only, so as not to undermine the representative democracy. I had not considered this issue to this degree before, and attempted to analogize this to my experience on a gubernatorial appointed board, where our work was not advisory. The differences I have noted include the fact that, while our decisions were not advisory, we needed signature agreement from members of the implementing/funding bureaucracy in order to implement the decisions. Likewise, as appointees, we reflected the electorate to the extent possible in a representative democracy. This type of bureaucracy - board - elected official scheme produces some unique tensions that can be very healthy in policy development, as long as they are kept from degrading to adversarial conflict. This section of the article was very useful to me personally as I had not considered before the logic that went into the design of these citizen councils, and what the result(s) could be, as asserted by the authors, if there was not balance between the citizen-representatives and the bureaucracy.
Weimer (2002) believes that participatory policy analysis may not increase participation beyond stakeholders, citing negotiated rulemaking as an example. He does propose, however, that the Internet may be a tool that could spur the desired increase in the policy process beyond stakeholders. I have seen shades of this implemented in my region, specifically in the city and state operated web sites as Weimer described. Much more information can be at the citizen’s disposal, from the comfort of their own home. I do not see this as participatory, but falling into another clearly different (but nevertheless desirable) arena of governmental open-ness. Open-ness may beget participation, but again, not without a sequential plan in place, and the necessary leadership to drive the plan.
A very promising, though fundamental use of the Internet to promote participation is the use of a survey site like www.zoomerang.com, which has been used to great advantage in Alaskan jurisdictions. Reaching beyond stakeholders is still a challenge with Zoomerang, as government is not in the habit of randomly emailing the citizenry. When citizens are included, then, it is because they have asked to be included, by checking a checkbox, or participating in a focus group, etc. I would argue that these nets are still cast wider than stakeholders alone and are worthy of continued use and study. This can be a very inexpensive, quick way to reach many people in order to get a sense of "what is out there." Failing to mention the digital divide when discussing the Internet as a tool for expanding participation in public policy leaves a gaping hole in the idea. Although statistics show the rise of computer use across all demographics, it is still not happening quickly enough, or pervasive enough, to be the only tool in the shed. Likewise, surveys of this nature tend leave off the important hurdle mentioned in the deLeon and Longobardi essay being reviewed, of educating the populace about their role(s) and responsibility(ies). Without this critical step, much less of the information gleaned will be actually usable for policy planning or decision making.
An interesting dissent to the participatory model comes from Mueller (1999) who cites several important works asserting the necessity of participation for a healthy democratic society, and then proceeds to argue against, by claiming " Since democracy exists, it simply can't be true that wide participation is a notable requirement, requisite, guarantee, need, or necessity for it to prosper or work." Mueller also takes to task the notion that lack of participation contributes to policy agenda that are out of step with the ordinary citizen. He fails to see what a "representative agenda" means or how it would seem. In Mueller's view, the "democratic malaise" gripping America is not a problem, but is a normal symptom of democracy, and we should all stop worrying about it.
Of interest is Mueller's belief that participatory/communitarian theorists have failed to proved that America's cynicism and political detachment "has actually had any tangible negative policy consequences" (Mueller, 1999). Mueller doesn't see participation as undesirable but he does not accept that change, which he believes to be magnitudinous, is possible. This strikes me almost as an expansion of deLeon's argument that, in some cases, academics and policy analysts may be worsening the democratic malaise by not advocating for change often enough. Like deLeon, I see a large amount of writing and research in this area aimed at other academics, which might hold more sway with the public if it served up more concrete examples of the deleterious effects of our civic dis-engagement.
I agree with Mueller to the extent that I believe the system is not broken - maybe the people are, but if the people want to participate, the system will receive them with alacrity. I, Like Mueller, see beauty in the fact that the system survives despite the dis-engagement. However, I believe that Mueller fails to look with creativity or even a shred of hopeful idealism at the possible outcomes of public participation. More than merely solving problems, those who believe in the furtherance of a public participation model see great positive benefits cutting across all sectors of society, over time, from this participation. Real civic engagement has the possibility to reduce crime, increase economic prosperity across classes, and increase national productivity across all sectors, such that we are more competitive globally.
The authors conclude by recognizing some additional hurdles to the full realization of participatory policy analysis. The authors note one, though assign less importance to it - the fact that today’s academic policy programs do not train future policy analysts in the participatory model. I tend to assign greater importance to this than the authors seem to. This relates to my belief that lack of leadership is a pervasive, prevailing problem in terms of engaging the citizenry in the policy process. In my view, universities should combine leadership excellence training with the policy sciences to turn out a new breed of policy analysts whose mission would be to inspire the masses and lead them through the policy processes. Certainly not a short order, but I believe one worthy of our aspirations. I absolutely agree with the authors in terms of the role of participatory policy analysis in achieving the good society. In fact, I see this type of exercise as necessary to the achievement of the ideal.
A final note which I have not seen discussed in this article or any others I reviewed is how the policy analyst “closes the loop” with citizens who do participate. In some ways, this is the other side of the coin of participation. Citizens do want to be heard, but more than that, they want to see their ideas in practice. A challenge to all policymakers is to feedback to participants what happened after the ad hoc group was disbanded. Where did their ideas end up; how were the recommendations narrowed down to policy? How will the policy be evaluated, and who will participate in the evaluation? This level of participation requires a whole knew open-ness to the process. This will require not just good policy skills, but also leadership and communication, and a real commitment on the part of the bureaucracies, as well as the academic institutions that train up and coming policy analysts.
References
Berry, Jeffrey M., Portnoy, Kent E., Thomson, Ken. The Rebirth of Urban Democracy. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1993
Ingram, Helen. " Research Agenda for Public Policy and Democracy" 2000. Center for the Study of Democracy, UC Irvine Research Papers. http://www.democ.uci.edu/democ/papers/ingram2.htm
Mueller, John. " Democracy: Optimal Illusions and Grim Realities" 1999. Center for the Study of Democracy, UC Irvine Research Papers. http://www.democ.uci.edu/democ/papers/mueller.htm#n42
Weimer, David L. " Enriching Public Discourse: Policy Analysis in Representative Democracies." The Good Society 11:1 (2002).
