Frameworks for Policy Analysis argues that, in order to bring relevance back to policy analysis, we need to approach policy situations as complex phenomena and employ multiple ways of looking at things in order to understand the essential elements of each policy case. The book is an exploration of distinct, sometimes radically different, models for analysis, but it is also a reference for these multiple methodologies that all come under the term ""analysis."" Along with classic and recent models, the book introduces some new concepts that serve to deepen our analysis and aspire to what G.
In a reversal of the historical role of territory in intergroup conflict, the article focuses on an emergent notion of territory as an instrument for peace. In this article, the author begins to theorize about the mechanisms by which so-called peace parks might act in resolving conflict and ushering in regional stability. Two models are utilized that differ in their portrayal of how these parks might work. The first model, built on a game-theoretic foundation, provides insight into incentive mechanisms by which parties might agree to a border park. Furthermore, the model sheds light on whether these parks might serve as vacant buffer zones or, alternatively, active zones of cooperation. However, the game-theoretic model should be complemented by another, qualitative model that focuses primarily on how these interactions are embedded in history, culture, tradition, and group identity. To this end, the author develops a second model, which portrays institutions as structures of care. In the model of care, relationships are constitutive of identity, and institutions and practices (including war and peace) evolve in coherence with the web of relationships. It is the employment of mutually complementing analytics that might afford a deeper understanding of how these peace parks might actually serve as effective bridges for peace.
Policy analysis is driven by a dominant normative stance that conflates the notion of social welfare with some notion of collective good or, even more restrictively, strictly utilitarian notions of aggregate benefit. In this paper, we suggest how this perspective leads to a strongly aggregative analysis that masks concerns of actors in their unique contexts. We examine the policies of the South Coast Air Quality Management District in Los Angeles, California, USA and argue that they have strongly furthered the status quo at the expense of communities. We illustrate alternative models for analysis in the hope that this type of dialectic might lead to a more inclusive model of rationality. We also hope to take the conversation deeper into notions of justice and not farther away from them, as some attempts to broaden the discussion by appealing to notions of democratization, civic governance, or modernization naively do.
