Construction of alternatives is in some ways the most creative step of the policy analysis process.
After a policy analyst has defined the problem the policymakers are trying to solve and assembled evidence to inform the policy analysis, the analyst needs to then decide which policy alternatives she will analyze to solve that problem.
“Alternative” is an annoying word, but it is prevalent in policy analysis literature. I prefer the phrase “policy option” because it makes it more clear what we are searching for when constructing alternatives. Basically these are the policies that we are analyzing when doing a policy analysis.
In Eugene Bardach’s A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving, Bardach has some useful tips for analysts who are constructing these policy options to analyze.
His first tip is to beware a linguistic pitfall: just because we call policy options “alternatives” does not mean they are mutually exclusive. Any government by necessity has more than one policy they are putting into practice, so think of alternatives as options that could be compared against one another, but more for prioritization rather than exclusive choice.
I ran into this mistake in an early policy analysis, saying that one policy was the “best” at bringing about a certain outcome. A client was confused, saying that all the policies should be implemented. By admitting that all policies could be useful and worth implementing, I could have made the client understand better that one policy was particularly good at carrying this out without implying the other policies were not worthwhile.
After this aside, Bardach then goes into strategies for constructing alternatives, providing the general advice to start comprehensive, end up focused. This means first listing as many policy options as possible, then whittling them down as you go along.
Bardach suggests starting with policy options policymakers are putting forth, which is a great place to start, especially if your client is giving you policy options to analyze. Another is to look at the suite of tools governments have to bring about change. These include taxation, regulation, subsidization, service provision, budgeting, information provision, structuring of rights, setting standards for markets, education, financing and contracting, and administration.
Another path is to try more creative approaches. Bardach suggests asking yourself certain questions: “how would you solve a problem if cost were no object?” “Where else will one idea work?” “Why not?”
Bardach also pays special attention to two particular alternatives. The first is the status quo, or “let present trends continue.” Any policy analysis should first consider what the baseline is, otherwise it will not have a good comparison for new policies. Second is “learn more.” There is a cost for waiting and learning more, but sometimes present information is sufficiently murky that taking time to learn could be preferable to a more active policy option, especially if that policy option is particularly costly.
Another way to construct alternatives is by modeling the system in which the problem is located. This can be done by modeling the market a problem is located in, modeling government production processes, modeling sociological and psychological behavior, or using institutional models to understand how processes change over time.
As the policy analysis progresses, an analyst will need to conceptualize and simplify the list of alternatives. This means taking a more abstract view of policy options and making it easier for a lay reader to understand what policy options there are at the disposal of policymakers. Keep in mind that this comports well with the advice to beware the linguistic pitfall: policymakers can always adopt multiple policies and they generally do.
Sometimes, points on a continuum are alternatives. If you are making a recommendation for a tax, subsidy, charge, or budget item, there are often many different alternatives that can be chosen. Focusing on reasonable bounds for setting a dollar amount and then choosing based on recommendations out there or goals can be a good way to narrow the scope and make options more digestible.
Bardach also says that alternatives should be detailed. Of course a policymaker can choose to adopt a policy she wishes to, but more detailed alternatives that explain who will be doing what and how much they will do them makes the conversation clearer and makes it easier for people to understand what policies will actually do and be able to evaluate them.
Lastly, Bardach addresses the inevitability of evolving policy through multistage analysis. This could be simply waiting and seeing how conditions on the ground develop, contingency planning in case of facts on the ground changing over time, making adjustments for political reasons, or intentional learning by doing.
Policy analysts have a role to play in constructing better policy. I saw this happen with the California Legislative Analyst Office’s analysis of earned income tax credit alternatives. The Office put forth an analysis that included a new design of the state earned income tax credit targeting those in deep poverty—a policy design never adopted by a state before. This ended up being what the state adopted. Only through good construction of alternatives by creative policy analysts did this new antipoverty policy come about.