Ben Kisby

ANALYSING POLICY NETWORKS

This article argues that an ideational variant of David Marsh and Martin Smiths (2000) ‘dialectical’ model of policy networks adds significant value to their analysis by taking certain kinds of ideas, which Berman (1998) labels ‘programmatic beliefs’, seriously as independent, causal factors. It further contends that Marsh and Smiths approach moves beyond Marsh and Rod Rhodess (1992) earlier structural model of interest group intermediation by focusing attention on both structure and agency and defends it against the rational choice critique advanced by Keith Dowding (2001). It observes, however, that Marsh and Smiths approach does not pay sufficient attention to the role of ideas in explaining policy-making, which should not be treated as mere rhetorical devices (Marsh & Smith, 2000), nor situated only at the macro, ideological level of paradigm shifts (Hay, 2004a). It argues instead for an approach to analysing policy-making that treats programmatic beliefs as independent variables, policy networks as intermediate variables, and policy outcomes as dependent variables. The article demonstrates the potential utility of such an approach by briefly examining David Toke and Marshs (2003) analysis of policy change on the issue of GM crops in the UK, and suggests that in order to answer the question of why as well as how a policy was developed, it is often necessary to examine the programmatic beliefs motivating members of a policy network.

REVITALISING POLITICS: THE ROLE OF CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Citizenship education is an appropriate demand‐side policy response to declining political participation among young people in the UK. There is evidence that its compulsory introduction in secondary schools in England in 2002 is having some success, but its implementation is not without problems. Citizenship classes can be made more effective if they are underpinned by the core principles of experiential and service learning, whereby knowledge, participation and deliberation are linked together in the promotion of active citizenship.

Interpreting Facts, Verifying Interpretations: Public Policy, Truth and Evidence:

This article reflects on the relationship between evidence and interpretation in policy-making and policy analysis. It proceeds by critically analysing both David Blunkett’s understanding (as articulated when holding office in the UK Labour government) of the concept of ‘evidence-based policy-making’ and three noteworthy, alternative approaches to understanding the links between facts, evidence, values and interpretive framework — Keith Dowding’s rational choice approach, Alan Finlayson’s rhetorical political analysis and Mark Bevir and Rod Rhodes’s narrative-based form of interpretivism. It argues that all four approaches are underpinned by generalised, fixed claims about the nature of these relationships, when in fact no such generalisable claims are possible. In so doing, it develops an alternative, distinctive understanding of these relationships as changeable and context-specific, bringing into focus more clearly the contested nature of the theoretical assumptions underpinning particular policy-related claims and to the continuous need for political argument — on the basis of facts, evidence, values and interpretation — by both policy makers and analysts.