Center for Scientific Analysis of Policy, LLC http://www.scipolicy.org
White Paper Series: Case Studies Using IPA to Evaluate Policies of 2016 Presidential Candidates
Lindsey Graham’s Graham’s Economic Policy: Policy: A Structural Case Study Steven E. Wallis, PhD; Bernadette Wright, PhD
Due to the large number of candidates running for president and the complexity of their policy statements, we present this analysis to help voters understand, evaluate, and compare those policies to support decision-making and our democratic process.
Our goal here is to conduct a scientific, nonpartisan evaluation to suggest the potential for success, along with opportunities for improvement, of that policy. It is not our intent to suggest that the policy might be right or wrong, good or bad (as partisan analyses might claim). Instead, our focus is on whether the policy will have the effects anticipated according to the text provided by the candidate.
Lindsey Graham is a 2016 Republican Candidate for U.S. President. In this white paper, we present the results of an Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA) study of his economic policy as presented on his website:
Another way to explain this is that we are looking at the policy as a sense-making device or as a kind of map. Higher scores indicate greater ability to make effective policy decisions. This indicates the policy’s ability to reach its stated goals in much the same was as a road map with more roads and destinations provides a more Successful policies useful tool for planning a business trip should be located or a vacation. in this quadrant
http://www.lindseygraham.com/issue/reform -entitlements/ http://www.lindseygraham.com/issue/restore -fiscal-discipline/
Comparison of Policies 1
Depth
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0
10
20
30
40
50
Breadth Graham’s economic policy
1
Although there were some statements in the text that might be seen as fuzzy or ambiguous, we made a good-faith effort to reflect the candidate’s position accurately. We are open to additional information and to revised analyses with the goal of creating the most accurate representation possible.
Method of Analysis
Results of Analysis
This evaluation is primarily an analysis of the internal logic-structures of the policy. Those provide useful indicators of the policy’s sense-making ability and predictors for its potential success or failure. Two important assumptions may present additional challenges to the effectiveness of any policy. First, the extent to which the claims of the policy are based on good empirical data. Second, the extent to which the policy may be implemented as proposed. Those two issues may present additional challenges to the effectiveness of this policy. However, they are not part of our present analysis.
We used IPA to identify relevant propositions from the text of Lindsey Graham’s economic policy and developed the following causal map (continued on the following page):
IPA (Integrative Propositional Analysis) is an emerging methodology used to analyze the internal structure of conceptual systems such as theories, strategic plans, and policies. It is a rigorous, objective, and non-partisan approach. Many scholarly publications have shown the effectiveness of IPA. You may find these in the fields of policy, organizational learning, management, philosophy, and others. For an overview and background information, please see our white papers: http://scipolicy.org/principles-of-ipa--white-papers.html
2
IPA is a rigorous, scientific, non-partisan approach to analyzing the structure of policy maps to indicate their potential for success
While many of the concepts have some connection to other concepts, many have none at all. The lack of causal connections between concepts in the map creates problems for navigation. It is like trying to use a road map for navigation – but the map shows only cities – with no connecting roads. This leaves the map open to illogical interpretations, illegitimate claims, spurious criticism, and confusing rhetoric.
As seen, there are 39 concepts (one per box). Therefore, the “Breadth” of the policy map is equal to 39. The Breadth of this policy is much better than most. This indicates a strength of the policy because we need policies of great Breadth to address the great complexity of the economy. Despite the large number of parts, there is only one “Transformative” concept. (box with two or more causal arrows pointing at it). Therefore, the Depth of the map is equal to 0.03. “Zero” indicates the least level of Depth while a score of “one” indicates the greatest Depth. Depth is a strong indicator for policy success. With a Depth of 0.03, we do not expect that this policy will achieve many of its stated goals. Indeed, we expect far more unanticipated outcomes than anticipated ones.
3
be “good” or “true.” Our sole concern is to understand the extent to which the author of the policy seems to understand our economic situation (as reflected in the text of the policy) and how that understanding relates to the potential for the policy to achieve its stated goals. That is to say, the overall usefulness of the map as a tool for navigation.
It also means that there is a lack of transparency. If a candidate claims that the map is a guide, but there are missing elements, it is difficult to accept that claim as valid. For example, looking at the map, we see LG4- has no causal connections. This box states, “Current and near retirees must be held harmless as we implement common-sense and necessary reforms for future retirees.” Yet, it does not explain the multiple efforts needed to accomplish this goal. Nor does it explain what the potential outcomes might be – or how those outcomes will effect other concepts on the map.
•
Chance of achieving stated goals: About 3%
•
Chance of unanticipated consequences: About 97%
Without such analysis, it is more difficult for interested citizens to make informed decisions. IPA provides a scientific, nonpartisan source of policy analyses. The objective insights presented here will help to inform policy discussions and national level decision-making. There is a deep need for this kind of analysis as a new approach to resolving the frequent and divisive arguments that plague our decision making process. Our analysis shows that this is a mediocre policy. Despite its good level of Breadth, its low level of Depth indicates that implementing this policy would produce many unanticipated consequences while providing few of the expected benefits. Further, because there are so few causal connections, an individual might make spurious claims about the efficacy or justification for policy action.
The same is true of every concept on the map that is not in a yellow box. Without those kinds of deeper understandings that are visualized in multiple connections, the map cannot provide a useful understanding of a complex situation, or serve as a useful guide for resolving those issues. In short, while it is possible to navigate knowing only a few roads, we increase our chance of a successful trip when we have more roads – when we have more options.
To improve its chance for successful implementation, the map should be expanded to include additional concepts and causal connections (to show how changes in each will cause changes in others) based on expert insight and empirical study. Policy maps with more Breadth and Depth will be more useful for elected officials to make successful policy decisions. By understanding the structure of maps, the American people are empowered to make more informed voting decisions.
Conclusion In this case study, we have presented a structural analysis of an economic policy. In this study, we have avoided partisan arguments around whether the policy might
4
Here, IPA also provides value as a path for voters and interest groups to combine multiple maps – to see what is missing from a map and add it in. The newer, integrated, map will help us all to understand more of the potential outcomes from the policy. And, importantly, such a process of collaborative mapping help to reduce divisive argumentation and support the greater collaboration needed to understand and resolve the great difficulties of our time.
The Center for Scientific Analysis of Policy, LLC, is an independent research group of scholars and practitioners working in the Policy Analysis field and the STEM specialties (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics). We use our expertise in evaluating documents to determine if they are based on current knowledge and methodologies of those disciplines along with a deep understanding of how the law and policy intersects with social and cultural networks.
Better maps will also improve transparency and accountability by clarifying the candidate’s understanding and anticipated actions to achieve success according to the policy.
We present the results of our analyses in a clear, concise, and deliberately nonpartisan manner. By doing so, we hope to promote the adoption of sustainable and generative policies that have the greatest potential benefit to the people of America and the world, avoiding laws and policies that are profligate and injudicious. For more information, contact:
[email protected]
5
