How do you make a policy experiment?
That is the question that was raised by the publication of the following two articles.
In the first, Andrew McCarthy, director of the National Review Institute, discusses the challenges and opportunities of the process of making real-time policy decisions.
In his second, Ira Katznelson, a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, provides a helpful guide to what a policy “experiment” is, and how to get started.
In both articles, McCarthy and Katzn, the principal researchers at the National Center for Policy Analysis, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to policy research, and offer recommendations for the researchers and policymakers who would be most likely to use them.
The purpose of this series is to discuss some of the issues raised in these articles, and to outline the possibilities and challenges of a policy-based policy experiment.
First, I want to offer some preliminary remarks about what an experiment is.
To be clear, I do not want to imply that these articles are necessarily about policy research.
Rather, I am arguing that we can use them as an opportunity to discuss important issues in the field of political science.
Second, I will try to offer a more precise definition of the term “policy experiment,” and the concepts and methods involved in making it happen.
The word experiment, when applied to a new political idea or policy idea, can have a number of different meanings, depending on the context.
In my view, it is best to focus on the idea and its impact in terms of the goals it seeks to achieve.
The goal of an experiment should be to understand the consequences of the proposal in order to inform policy decisions in the future.
It is not enough to simply study the consequences, however.
The objective should be what is actually happening in the real world.
And if that means examining the effects of a proposal on actual policy outcomes, then it is the experimenter’s job to see if those effects really exist.
The experiments described in the first two articles are a good starting point, and I hope they will be helpful in clarifying the terminology used to describe the process involved in the formulation of policy proposals.
First is the concept of “policy experiments.”
This is a very broad term.
The following definition, taken from Katznison, can be found in the National Research Council’s Handbook of Political Research: A policy experiment is a research project that involves several phases in which participants (typically, policymakers and others in the public) provide input on a policy proposal, either by giving informed opinions about it, by presenting information about their concerns, or by using a variety of methods to provide feedback.
The idea is that by having participants respond to these policies or proposals, the public will learn what the proposals are about, and thus make better policy choices.
A key question in a policy experiments is how well the proposals actually accomplish their stated objectives.
This is important because in a political system, policymakers often make decisions based on public opinion, not on their own best judgment.
An important example is how Americans in 2010 responded to the “Medicare for All” proposal, which was then in the early stages of public debate.
Many Americans, even those who did not support the proposal, believed that the program would provide a large increase in health care coverage and lower costs for Americans.
It was widely assumed that the proposal would help the uninsured, and that the number of uninsured would be reduced by the expansion of health coverage.
However, there were also reports of unintended consequences.
For example, some people who were not currently uninsured had been told that they were eligible for coverage if they would only pay a portion of the cost of the coverage, and they were then given the option to enroll in private insurance or go without coverage.
As a result, some of these people lost their coverage.
If this had happened in the absence of a comprehensive health care program, it might have led to a substantial increase in the number and severity of hospitalizations, the number inpatient stays, and deaths.
These unintended consequences are what make a proposed policy experiment problematic.
Policy experiments are particularly challenging in the context of political polarization, as many Americans view the policies proposed by politicians as part of a larger conspiracy.
Even when policymakers are transparent about their intentions, they are likely to be subject to intense scrutiny and public criticism.
This has important consequences for their public credibility and for their ability to persuade their colleagues.
In addition, many policy proposals that have been proposed in the past are likely not likely to become reality.
For this reason, policymakers should consider using this new scientific terminology, the “policy-based” concept.
As we have seen, it can help us to define what a political experiment is and how it can be made, both in theory and in practice.
Next, we will look at some of how to make such an experiment.
A Policy Experiment should be a “real-world” experiment, but the term does not imply that it should be confined to the confines of a political campaign