Fischer (1995) shapes the first chapter of his book, Evaluating public policy around this question: “Does the policy facilitate accepted or desired goals and values?”

He begins with basic working definitions of public policy and policy evaluation and then goes through the history of political and intellectual roots of public policy. He deals with why the discipline or field could not provide the promised payoffs. Also, he considers specific political and methodological problems in the context of public policy. Fischer concludes with an outline of an alternative logic of policy deliberation designed to return policy analysis to its original normative commitment.

He has identified public policy as a political agreement on a course of action (or inaction) designed to resolve or mitigate problems on the political agenda economic, social, environmental, and so on. The evaluation of public policy is usually conducted under the as­sumption that the decision-making process can be effectively rationalized. In this sense, rigorous analysis may produce information capable of improving the decisions of public organizations.

Fischer’s historical review reveals that the failure to incorporate analytically the fundamental dimension of ‘social reality’ led many decision makers to dismiss the discipline of policy science as socially irrelevant. However, a number of scholars sought to confront directly the discipline’s positivist orientation, in particular its problematic effort to separate facts and values.

There are three alternative orientations in Fischer’s mind for the lack of serious policy analysis: the usable knowledge approach, emphasizing the coordination of analysis and decision making; the enlightenment model, stressing the deliberative process itself; and the critique of the policy philosophers, focusing on the deeper methodological implications of integrating facts and values.

Fischer concludes with an outline of a logic of policy deliberation designed to integrate systematically both empirical and normative evaluation. His proposed model presented as four sep­arate but interrelated discourses, provides a multimethodological alternative to the narrow empirical methodology that had dominated policy analyses for a period of time.

We can understand that Fischer is going to show how conflicts between the principles of rights and the requirements of the social-economic systems can set off debates over the nature and functioning of public policy. He is also going to find a reasonable answer for the question of social choice that can be explored through clashing environmental policies about risky technologies derived from compet­ing ideologies, those of contemporary techno-industrial enthusiasts who sup­port the use of risk-benefit decision criteria.

Briefly saying, public policy is an interesting field of study full of thoughtful issues and debates that may be really understood by policy makers or their consultants. Can we really play the role of such consultants in addition to our foresight profession?    

Reference: