GALVEZ, Jackie Lou P.

Introduction to Political Analysis and Research

What are the levels, forms, levels and kinds of political analysis? Explain each of them.

Political analysis entails the process of investigating issues or events, decisions and challenges by
systematically organizing this information into categories and then establishing a relationship between
these data for the basic objective of explanation and subsequently prediction (Osaghae,1988).

Forms

Four forms of political analysis: Normative Semantic Empirical Political

Normative
The normative analysis deals with the application of reason to human ends (Apter, 1977: 50). The
normative type of political analysis ask questions of values and Seeks to identify what is good or better
with a view of recommends what we ought to value. Statements usually use factual evidence as support,
but they are not by themselves factual. Instead, they incorporate the opinions and underlying morals and
standards of those people making the statements. (i.e. PLDT must take actions regarding their slow
connection.)

Stances which provide the criteria for evaluating the quality of normative analysis are;

1. Naturalism: The doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to
spiritual or supernatural explanations. It focuses on explanations that come from the laws of
nature (i.e. all minds, and all the contents and powers and effects of minds, are entirely
constructed from or caused by natural phenomena).
a. Materialism: the belief that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical
properties and that the only existing substance is physical. Thus, everything has ever been
observed is in actual fact the product of fundamentally mindless arrangements or
interactions of matter-energy in space-time.
b. Pluralism: the belief that reality consists of many different substance.

2. Intuition: The power of obtaining knowledge that cannot be acquired either by inference or
observation, by reason or experience. As such, intuition is thought of as an original, independent source
of knowledge, since it is designed to account for just those kinds of knowledge that other sources do not
provide (i.e. love at first sight).

3. Subjectivism: The doctrine that knowledge is merely subjective and that there is no external or
objective truth. It accords primacy to subjective experience as fundamental of all measure and law. It
accommodates the idea that moral claims are true or false, and that we can have moral beliefs and moral
knowledge (i.e In the Philippines, staying in province or rural area is better than urban area.).

Semantic
 Semantic analysis is also called conceptual analysis. It is concerned with clarifying the meaning
of concepts.

Two ways:

a. Nominal definition: appealing to an authority whose definitions is widely accepted (i.e.

Coffee helps us be more awake.)
b. Operationalization of concept: in the case of concepts colored by ideological consideration,
one can devise certain indices according to which it can be defined. (i.e. The concept of social
anxiety can’t be directly measured, but it can be operationalized in many different ways like
self-rating scores on a social anxiety scale, number of recent behavioral incidents of
avoidance of crowded places, and intensity of physical anxiety symptoms in social
situations.)

Empirical analysis seeks to identify observable phenomena in the real world with a view to
Empirical
establishing what is rather than what ought to be. The key element of empirical approach to the study of
politics is comparative analysis.

Types of empirical analysis:

a. Deductive reasoning: It is a basic form of valid reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or deduction,

starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a
specific, logical conclusion.
- It usually follows steps. First, there is a premise, then a second premise, and finally an
inference. A common form of deductive reasoning is the syllogism, in which two
statements — a major premise and a minor premise — reach a logical conclusion. For
example, the premise "Every A is B" could be followed by another premise, "This C is
A." Those statements would lead to the conclusion "This C is B." Syllogisms are
considered a good way to test deductive reasoning to make sure the argument is valid (i.e.
All women are mortal. Susan is a woman. Therefore, Susan is mortal).

b. Inductive reasoning: It is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes

broad generalizations from specific observations. Basically, there is data, and then
conclusions are drawn from the data. (i.e The coin I pulled from the bag is a penny. That coin
is a penny. A third coin from the bag is a penny. Therefore, all the coins in the bag are
pennies).

Political
It focuses on understanding an existing policy, analyzing its strengths and weaknesses and
recommending changes. Consequently, this involves an in-depth description and analysis of an existing
policy with a mind to improving that policy (policies themselves may have flaws in their design from day
one or current realities may make it necessary to reassess and revise what was otherwise a highly
successful policy when it was introduced).
Four sets:

1. Synthesizing Information – policy analysts must be able to gather, organize and communicate
information. Analysts need to be able to quickly understand the nature of problems and the range of
possible solutions.

2. Determining Cost and Benefit Calculus – policy analysts must be able to attach a cost/benefit value
(whether quantitative, qualitative or both) to courses of action or approach designed to improve existing
policies or to considering policy alternatives and weighting the comparative advantages and
disadvantages of each option.

3. Data Gathering and Analysis – policy analysts need to be able to obtain and manipulate data in a
manner that makes it useful in helping to determine the costs and benefits of ways and means of
improving existing policies or selecting alternative policy options.

4. Implementation Issues – policy analysts need to have an understanding of the political, organizational,
budgetary and legal environments that form the superstructure within which a given policy may need to
be implemented. Policies or policy changes that cannot be implemented due to these constraints are
clearly not useful and consequently the analyst must be able to evaluate the feasibility of implementing a
given policy and factor this in to the evaluation of alternative policies. Moreover, a good analyst will also
develop strategies for implementing his/her preferred policy (or modification of a policy) that take into
account these environments and leverage these factors. One of the most effective ways of accounting for
implementation challenges is through Forward Mapping – the specification of a chain of behaviors that
link a policy with the desired outcomes. This can be done through the mapping out of scenarios that will
help test the analysts assumptions and help make it clear as to who needs to do what when.

Levels Individual State System Global

1. Individual: The individual level of analysis locates the cause of events in individual leaders or the
immediate circle of decision makers within a particular country. It focuses on human actors on
the world stage identifying the characteristics of human decision making. The individual level is
directly connected to the interpersonal level as the process of socialization occurs from when we
were born from people around us. (i.e. aliens or the stateless persons, person, citizen, partnership
or marriage, families, household, and neighborhood).

2. State: It examines the foreign policy behavior of states in terms of state characteristics.

3. System: The systemic level of analysis explains outcomes from a system wide level that includes
all states. It seeks explanations for international phenomena by considering the nature or structure
of the international political system at the period under study. It takes into account both the
position of states in the international system and their interrelationships. The position of states
constitutes the systemic structural level of analysis. This involves the relative distribution of
power, such as which state; great, middle, or small power, and geopolitics; such as which state is
sea or land power. The interaction of states constitutes the systemic process level of analysis. 
 4. Global: Global level factors are much like Systemic level factors, however the core difference is
that global factors are not necessarily created by states, whereas systemic factors are. Global
factors can be the outcome of individuals, interest groups, states, nonstate actors or even natural
conditions – however they cannot be traced to the actions of any one state or even group of states.
An example can be how the internet can shape how policy is formed, through social media or
forums – where an idea is formed over time by a group of individuals, but the source is generally
hard to determine. An environmental natural example is how global warming can help shape how
society views certain policies, or help shape new policies themselves. 

Kinds Analysis-centric Policy Process Meta-policy

a. Analysis-centric: The analysis-centric (or "analycentric") approach focuses on individual

problems and their solutions. Its scope is the micro-scale and its problem interpretation or
problem resolution usually involves a technical solution. The primary aim is to identify
the most effective and efficient solution in technical and economic terms (e.g. the most
efficient allocation of resources).

b. Policy Process: The policy process approach puts its focal point onto political processes
and involved stakeholders; its scope is the broader meso-scale and it interprets problems
using a political lens (i.e., the interests and goals of elected officials). It aims at
determining what processes, means and policy instruments
(e.g., regulation, legislation, subsidy) are used. As well, it tries to explain the role and
influence of stakeholders within the policy process. In the 2010s, stakeholders is defined
broadly to include citizens, community groups, non-governmental organizations,
businesses and even opposing political parties. By changing the relative power and
influence of certain groups (e.g., enhancing public participation and consultation),
solutions to problems may be identified that have more "buy in" from a wider group. One
way of doing this follows a heuristic model called the policy cycle. In its simplest form,
the policy cycle, which is often depicted visually as a loop or circle, starts with the
identification of the problem, proceeds to an examination of the different policy tools that
could be used to respond to that problem, then goes on to the implementation stage, in
which one or more policies are put into practice (e.g., a new regulation or subsidy is set in
place), and then finally, once the policy has been implemented and run for a certain
period, the policy is evaluated. A number of different viewpoints can be used during
evaluation, including looking at a policy's effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, value for
money, outcomes or outputs.

c. Meta-policy: The meta-policy approach is a systems and context approach; i.e., its scope
is the macro-scale and its problem interpretation is usually of a structural nature. It aims
at explaining the contextual factors of the policy process; i.e., what the political,
economic and socio-cultural factors are that influence it. As problems may result because
of structural factors (e.g., a certain economic system or political institution), solutions
may entail changing the structure itself.