Shahab Sabahi
Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group
One may describe, the policy analysis procedure involves a series of objectives and logical steps such as goal setting; based on world-view and cultural values, cost-benefit outcome (logic, abeit to some degree depends on analyst's perspective), compliance with the governed law both cultural bases and natural law and etc.
There is one element so-called "PRIORITY setting" that comes so often to fore that is influenced by SUBJECTIVITY. It may radically shift and influence the policy design and its implementation.
From different perspectives, priorities may be in different colours.
From different perspectives, priorities may be in different colours.
Like all existing techniques, dotmocracy has its limitations. It still accomodates, to some degree subjective priority setting processes. It is effectively implemented in situations when the personal or professional judgment opinions of participants are an acceptable decision-making standards.
Giving all a/m points, is there any way to get ride of this "SUBJECTIVITY"?
you are assuming that a) subjectivity is bad in policy terms and that b) it is limited to goal setting. Instrumental rationality (cost-benefit analyses) also has a subjective element - how many resources an actor will risk in a given move etc.
ReplyDeleteSubjectivity is not bad, it COULD BE a key perception in evaluating objective realities. This property requires to confine the "subjectivity domain" within contexts.(As James highlights: cost-benefit analysis).......Some says "priority" is the instrument that defines the scope of subjectivity.......this could be picked as a realist, philosophical explanation.......i look for alternative explanations
ReplyDeleteIf you offer a privileged position to policy analysts - 'we know better than everyone else', 'only we can see the bigger picture', there is a risk of imposing policy solutions on the rest of society based on the subjective position of the analyst. It is only through a process of reflection, which is then pro-actively applied to the analysis porcess (reflexivity), that the 'filter', which is naturaly applied to the world by all social actors, can be identified and accounted for in the development of new policies. (much of this is drawn from Bourdieu).
ReplyDeleteIn analysing the responses of informants, as well as other sources, such as official documents, it is vital that the relationship between the social positions of the researcher and their informant is understood. This allows for a subjectively positioned policy, to which mutliple parties can subscribe by reference to 'objectivity'.
So in sum (what James suggests) "the process of policy analysis is a pathway through which policy's assumptions, scope and values lose SUBJECTIVITY in favour of getting close enough to their OBJECTIVE shapes"......An evolutionary process through democratic debates where "rule of law" exists, can grantee TRANSITION from subjective-based to objective-based policy
ReplyDeleteOne of the best descriptions of policy analysis and social policy generally came from the late Professor Eithne McLaughlin at QUB - 'Its sociology with an agenda.' The agenda aspect is the key to understanding the discipline and this rules out the overall 'objectivity' goal which is essentially a sterile argument and or debate. Objectivity is one of a number of tools that can allow for the gathering of evidence for a particular position or policy prescription, but value judgements colour the issues we investigate, prioritise and action. If the core is to identify problems in societies and develop approaches to address them, then obviously value judgemments, moral compass etc play a huge role in setting the agenda. I'm very comfortable exercising my judgements and bringing my baggage to the table, but the positivist/interpretavist debate still seems to smoulder on. Evidence based policy making can be (if it is not necessarily) totally unscientific in the pure sense. (my research colleagues call it 'magic policy'!)
ReplyDeletelet me borrow words from Dan "....then obviously value judgments, moral compass etc play a huge role in setting the agenda......" It makes sense as in real world, policy is influenced by value judgments, whether analysts wish or not. It now raises a QUESTION:
ReplyDeleteIN A CROSS-CULTURAL context, think of regional or global level, how should a social policy agenda be effectively set up? Imagine where there is no common ground for value judgments.....it reminds T. Hobbes's state of nature idea in his "Leviathan"
To be harsh Shahab, it might be called cultural colonialism, or consensus based, as for example with the ICHR. Large bits of the planet (including the USA) havent ratified it, but it is seen as fundamentally norm creating foundation for international law. Thankfully I only have to worrry about domestic policy and I'm not sure what the answer to the question will look like.. Hobbes had an awfully negative view of human nature and hopefully we have learned to compromise in multicultural settings, where there are conflicting demands on 'orthodoxy' of policy and practice. As communities, regions and countries become more heterogenous, adaption and compromise are essential in prevention social fracture/conflict. Even in Northern Ireland we appear to be learning how to do this!
ReplyDeleteHowever, international law and diplomacy existed prior to the ICHR - so is it actually a foundation for international law, or does it represent a symbolic form of the same cultural colonialism? It is invested by liberal democracies - based in no small part on Hobbes' ideas - with a symbolic capital that allows for a transformation in those countries (and their cultures) that do sign up to it. Thus, these countries can claim that they have reconstructed their identity as legitimate, ready for recognition by other states (although it did not involve the ICHR, I might draw a parallel with the peace process in NI, though the former Yugoslav states would probably be a better example).
ReplyDeleteThis may well be motivated by the possibility of converting both cultural and symbolic capitals into economic capital on the international market - either through trade or aid. The USA, as the nation-state emperor of this cultural imperialism, appear to have percieved no need to sign up to the ICHR as they already have significant influence on the exchange of international forms of capital.
It will be interesting as the international financial problems continue and are resolved, what impact this might have on the USA if they percieve they have transgressed enough that they feel their cultural and symbolic capital - their ability to claim to be the primary repository of liberal ideals - has been endangered.
Regarding the initial question heading this discussion, indeed, Shahab, policy makers facing the task of setting priorities - whether subjective or objective, and regardless their skillfulness - may unforeseen the pitfalls of crisis of public trust in governance. Is there a better example of this type of crisis than the global #OCCUPY movement? (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=213853636424650111561.0004af7eeab062c4ee7a1&msa=0&ll=17.644022,-86.132812&spn=128.111682,274.21875)
ReplyDeleteBut then, we have a very substantial body of literature from the 25 year exploring public participation in priority setting and resource allocation. Regardless the debate whether public participation is a political principle or a policy-making tool, more and more scholar and policy-makers are agreeing that public participation may increase public trust, public engagement/responsibility, and government accountability/transparency, all of which could increase "stability" within the society, according to some professionals and academics.
Although, there are some practices for public engagement in priority setting which appear promising (e.g. multiple methods), it seems that there is a a lack of evaluation
studies to back any particular approach to public engagement in priority setting. Perhaps, this is a sign that we need more public participation exercises in order to be able to formal evaluate their real contribution to public policy making.
fascinating....let me wrap up (preliminary) our discussion in the following way:
ReplyDelete(please correct me where my interpretation goes wrong)
Discussion in brief:
James highlights the process of policy analysis is, in fact, a convergence from subjectivity to objectivity........Suei adds, the priority setting convergence guarantees its success if it takes place in a democratic environment, where rule of law and accountability exists......Dan goes further and bring bravely "value judgment" (implicitly means the importance of space and time = cultures) in the calculus and backs "objectivity" as a means for collecting evidence.
preliminary conclusion:
priority setting is influenced by "value judgment" (space and time variables) and has an element of "subjectivity". To moderate the dgree of its influence, it must be hammered and controlled by makng publicly debate (control variable)
QUESTION (just observation)
in the current EU financial crisis, EU policymakers (Brussel) set priority. They believe it would benefit all within the EU. It seems that they dismiss the national level opinions and the democratic right of national elections. IS IT NOT a SUBJECTIVE priority setting?
The subjectivity problematic in policy decisions within democratic systems of government, is due to the cyclic or self perpetuating nature of the narrow personal focus by elected leaders and the selection of their advisors.
ReplyDeleteA predominantly subjective personality is, by definition, limited and unable or unwilling to appreciate either the content or the manner in which an individual with character and objective capacity discusses broad concepts.
Those who are qualified to assess the merits of policy analysis and implementation are less inclined to self promotion and are not necessarily 'qualified' in terms of the narrow subjective definitions determined by those with limited life experience.
A recent example of a poorly thought-out subjective policy decision in Australia was the introduction of a subsidised home insulation scheme as a reaction to the GFC. Although the general principal was sound in terms of economic stimulus and energy efficiency/sustainability it is clear that no-one with any hands-on experience in the building industry or who had ever been in the ceiling of a home was consulted about the details of elementary safety standards. The consequence was a dangerous and costly debacle that cost lives and money.
The objective individual understands context, implications and the deficiencies of their own knowledge and will therefore be inclined to research before making a decision. The objective individual is not bound by ego and will be consultative in the broadest sense without deference to superficial considerations in relation to expertise or prestige. The subjective personality is, in general, self satisfied and therefore their context is limited to their specific experience and they have no inclination to investigate or expand.
A clear and lucid explanation by Anna……it is a normative statement….is not it?
ReplyDeleteAs Anna characterizes the objective and subjective personality in her conclusion, the objective individual understands context and implications of its own knowledge and will therefore be inclined to research before making a decision. (0bjectively collects information as Dan discussed earlier)
No matter what we subscribe to D. Hume or E. Kant’s school of thoughts, norms and their meanings, are an integral part of human life and fundamental for PRIORITIZING goals and organizing idea, belief, emotion, action and ethical and political discourse.
BUT In reality, the way something ought to be DONE according to a value position, can be conflicting, insofar as different values can be inconsistent with one another. Normatives along with questions of what sort of policies should be pursued, in order to achieve desired outcomes, will certainly trap one in SUBJECTIVITY at specific point of the policy design process
Please read my post “Environmental issue through realism lens – policy” either on http://shahabks.blogspot.com/ or environmental social science group discussion.....it is short and discusses a policy debate
Long, all civilizations have struggled to erase the subjectivity and its influencial mindsets, at least from administration perspective, they have gained no effective success. (From the catholic church (with no married priest doctrine) to China (Daoism and Legalist) and the Middle East (Eunuch doctrine in Ottoman and Abbasid)
CONCLUSION 2
* correctly connects the problem as a fact to “human nature” (Weber and Axelrod) and posits the wonderful NORMATIVE statement as a guideline.
* underlines more research contributions needed in the social science
* emphasises the position of “value judgments” and it may require, sometimes, POLICY design does not live up the needs of NORMS
4.James and Anna advocate the idea that “Policy analysis and debate process in a democratic environment” is necessary and it would reduce the subjectivity influences
If governments want to make efficient and effective public policies the public must be engaged in the decision making in a meaningful manner. It is the best way to eliminate subjective decision making. It is also a tool to guage which policies are priorities in the minds of those who will be effected by any given policy. It is time for collaboration with all stakeholders. Here are the benchmarks that I noted in my SFU Master of Public Policy thesis:
ReplyDeleteGunton et al. 2003 Benchmarks for Successful Implementation of Collaborative Planning
- clear and consistent objectives,
- strong commitment of implementing officials,
- monitoring framework with appropriate indicators to track change in each objective,
- strong provincial government support,
- sufficient information available to make appropriate decisions for land use plan implementation,
- high level of cooperation and information sharing between implementing agencies,
- strong stakeholder support,
- collaborative planning process,
- implementing officials skilled in working collaboratively with stakeholders,
- clear delineation of agency responsibilities,
- land use plan objectives well integrated within individual agency work plans,
- strong local government agencies support,
- implementation monitoring committee with public reporting requirements,
- adequate natural science data available to make implementation decisions,
- adequate financial and staff resource commitments for plan implementation,
- participation of stakeholders in monitoring,
- participation of stakeholders in land use plan development through a collaborative planning process
- power differences between stakeholders equalized through the process,
- participation of implementing officials in plan preparation,
- clear understanding of causal relationship between implementation strategies and desired outcomes,
- no conflicting government policies,
- socioeconomic data available,
- strong public support,
- favorable socioeconomic conditions in the land use plan area.
(Gunton et al. 2003 p. 9)
Many developing nations are in debt and poverty partly due to the policies of international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Poor countries were forced to use foreign policies (Subjectivity)
ReplyDeleteTheir programs have been heavily criticized for many years for resulting in poverty. In addition, for developing or third world countries, there has been an increased dependency on the richer nations. This is despite the IMF and World Bank’s claim that they will reduce poverty.
Following an ideology known as neoliberalism, and spearheaded by these and other institutions known as the “Washington Consensus” (for being based in Washington D.C.), Structural Adjustment Policies (SAPs) have been imposed to ensure debt repayment and economic restructuring. But the way it has happened has required poor countries to reduce spending on things like health, education and development, while debt repayment and other economic policies have been made the priority. In effect, the IMF and World Bank have demanded that poor nations lower the standard of living of their people.
in the example there is no normal procedure of policy formulation which consider objective and logical steps , cost-benefit outcome (logic), e.t.c. Now we are very poor than in 1970,s ( Sub Saharan Africa). Is it paying debts a priority for Africa? Is it restricting people to access social service such as water, education and water a priority for Africa. In real sense this is not the objective of the policy. Now how can we abandon this subjectivity? Can we make it?
in my eductation we disucssed that ´endurance´ for a problem with the private sector and citizens is an important ´objectively´ condition for priority setting. The situations that muster a feeling of discomfort for a longer period go higher on the priority list. This is in line with the first conclusion of Sabahi.
ReplyDeleteMore and more fascinating points have been contributed...the topic is well hammered.
ReplyDeletei've been looking into Lynn's remarks...interesting......one may argue that in one hand more stakeholders involved may help "subjectivity fades away"...... However there is still evenly risk of failure for achieving policy targets...... as more interest groups push and pull to maximize their influences, policy priority setting may be derailed and become less EFFECTIVE (evidence from ASIA)........So public participation, OF course, is necessity but the question would be "to what extend".
Anganile's standpoint sheds light on a number of shortcomings in the existing traditions and methodologies which are deployed by international organizations.....Before globalization, the methodologies had been worked, relatively sound, WHEN the world was not this much complex and integrated......He is right that REVISIONS must be undertaken in the international governance structures and methodologies.....POLICY PRIORITY SETTING is quite hard task in the world scale with many players
Discomfort in long period, is pivotal for Sander......yes it's quite thoughtful.....to me the question is HOW can one measure discomfort (it's abstract) in te context of long-term uncertainties?......It may put the priority setting debate in a bottomless pit.
no
ReplyDeleteany bias in favour of either subjective or objective is essentially buying into false (or at least deeply flawed notions) on what knowledge is, and how it is shared
the only what random noise in the environment ever gets coded into meaningful signals is because humans apply rational (in the cognitive sense not the narrow logic-driven sense) pattern seeking processes to the noise
you can't have knowledge without the intervention/interaction of the human mind for sense making: I experience something, I assess it against previous experiences, I infer this experience in the minds of others, I project into the future related to this experience etc.
This is the very human process of judgment/decision making...And nothing, not getting to work in the morning, picking your clothes or career out, or assessing policy options and determining on one over the other, can happen without judgment.
It is a disservice to the public policy process to continue to frame options as either/or: either is it subjective or it is objective; either it is qualitative or it is quantitative.
The driver should be: either this decision has been informed/arrived at through an empirical, evidence-based process, or we pulled a decision out of our *ss
We know that it's usually the second - which is flawed judgment, but judgment nonetheless based on inadequate information. Subjective/objective notions are irrelevant.
mmmm.....inevitably judgment is the evaluation of evidence and facts and it could be a case that one expresses its opinions as facts. Opinions are based on what people believe. (some degree of subjective notions) This can include probable facts and even probable lies,
ReplyDeleteA fact is a statement that can be proven by direct experience or objective verification. An opinion is a statement of belief or judgment that cannot be objectively proven true or false. Opinions usually express the feelings, preferences or biases that a person has about a subject. (This is the case of policy debate). Subjective or Objective notions seem to be relevant.