By Jason Rochford
In chapter two of Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems, Howlett, Ramesh, and Perl (2009) highlight the two main camps of public policy analysis: positivists and post-positivists. The positivist tradition employs analytical methodologies drawn from mainstream economics in order to separate facts and values and uncover “objective” knowledge. On the contrary, post-positivists maintain that “actual policy choice is a political, not a technical one,” and therefore rely on “political and social analysis of public problems and policymaking processes and outcomes” to generate policy analysis grounded in reality (p. 26).
Post-positivists contend that by exclusively emphasizing efficiency and effectiveness in policy design and evaluation, positivists neglect the contextual socio-political factors (e.g. institutions, political pressures, ideologies, among others) of the policy process which often results in “serious misleading, if not entirely incorrect” analyses (p. 27). However, post-positivists are not simply opposed to objectivity and empirical analysis, but instead believe that empirical analysis and normative analysis are inseparable and inform one another. In addition, post-positivists reject positivism on ethical grounds, arguing that it “promotes top-down bureaucratic policy management and stifles democracy and participation” (p. 27). Post-positivists believe the policy analyst should serve as a facilitator rather than a policymaker. Accordingly, they view open access to information, transparency, and meaningful public discourse as essential “to better policies and more effective implementation” (p. 28).
The Post-Positivist Approach in Practice
Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) is a key ingredient to NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio's housing plan to build and preserve 200,000 affordable units over the next ten years. MIH is a zoning tool that requires developers to include a share of permanent affordable units in areas that are rezoned for residential growth or new density and height. According to the Department of City Planning, the core mission of MIH is to ensure diverse incomes in areas where high housing costs might otherwise exclude lower income residents (Hurowitz, 2015). In order to apply MIH to a specific area, any project proposal must go through a rigorous multi-stage public land-use review process (known as ULURP), with final approval resting with the City Council (City of New York, 2016).
Last month, the first individual project proposed under MIH – Sherman Plaza in Inwood, Manhattan – was unanimously rejected by the City Council’s Land Use Committee. In exchange for increasing the zoning height limit, half of the Sherman Plaza project’s 355 apartments would have been permanently affordable for moderate-income families. While Inwood’s Council Member Ydanis Rodriguez “spoke openly about his concerns about rejecting the developers' offer of affordable housing out of hand, citing the lack of affordable housing in the area” (Pichardo, 2016), he ultimately decided to not support the project due to strong opposition from his constituents “who feared that its rents were too high for the neighborhood and that it would hasten gentrification” (NYT, 2016). On the following day, the Committee deferred to Rodriguez’s decision. As is their right, the Sherman Plaza’s developers may still build market-rate apartments with no affordable units on the same lot under existing height limits (NYT, 2016; Pichardo, 2016).
In this example of the post-positivist approach in practice, the ULURP process seemingly provided open access to information and discussions regarding the Sherman Plaza project, which empowered the general public and Inwood community to engage in a public dialogue and take action based on the facts and their shared values. Moreover, Council Member Rodriguez served as a policy facilitator as opposed to a policymaker, expressing his expert opinion about the project while listening and responding to the concerns of his constituents. According to Stiglitz (1998), these kinds of participatory and consensus formation practices are likely to lead to outcomes that “accord with the general interest” (p. 18). However, since the developers can still build market-rate luxury housing with no affordable units on the same site, was the Council’s decision to reject Sherman Plaza truly in the best interest of the Inwood community and the city as a whole? Did public participation in this instance prevent the city from adopting a near-Pareto improvement? Or could the rejection of this MIH project be a sign of an emerging and formidable movement in opposition to the city’s affordability crisis and the inadequacy of market-based policy strategies?
References
City of New York (2016). Mandatory Inclusionary Housing.
Howlett, M., Ramesh, M. and Perl, A. (2009). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Oxford University Press. (3rd Ed.)
Hurowitz, N. (2015, October 16). Mandatory Affordable Housing Policy Will Leave Middle Class in Cold: Locals. DNAinfo.
Pichardo, C. (2016, August 16). Sherman Plaza Rezoning Bid Unanimously Shot Down by City Council Committee. DNAinfo.
Stiglitz, J. (1998). Distinguished lecture on economics in government: the private uses of public interests: incentives and institutions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(2), 3-22.
The Editorial Board. (2016, August 29). High-Rise Anxiety in New York. The New York Times.
In chapter two of Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems, Howlett, Ramesh, and Perl (2009) highlight the two main camps of public policy analysis: positivists and post-positivists. The positivist tradition employs analytical methodologies drawn from mainstream economics in order to separate facts and values and uncover “objective” knowledge. On the contrary, post-positivists maintain that “actual policy choice is a political, not a technical one,” and therefore rely on “political and social analysis of public problems and policymaking processes and outcomes” to generate policy analysis grounded in reality (p. 26).
Post-positivists contend that by exclusively emphasizing efficiency and effectiveness in policy design and evaluation, positivists neglect the contextual socio-political factors (e.g. institutions, political pressures, ideologies, among others) of the policy process which often results in “serious misleading, if not entirely incorrect” analyses (p. 27). However, post-positivists are not simply opposed to objectivity and empirical analysis, but instead believe that empirical analysis and normative analysis are inseparable and inform one another. In addition, post-positivists reject positivism on ethical grounds, arguing that it “promotes top-down bureaucratic policy management and stifles democracy and participation” (p. 27). Post-positivists believe the policy analyst should serve as a facilitator rather than a policymaker. Accordingly, they view open access to information, transparency, and meaningful public discourse as essential “to better policies and more effective implementation” (p. 28).
The Post-Positivist Approach in Practice
Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) is a key ingredient to NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio's housing plan to build and preserve 200,000 affordable units over the next ten years. MIH is a zoning tool that requires developers to include a share of permanent affordable units in areas that are rezoned for residential growth or new density and height. According to the Department of City Planning, the core mission of MIH is to ensure diverse incomes in areas where high housing costs might otherwise exclude lower income residents (Hurowitz, 2015). In order to apply MIH to a specific area, any project proposal must go through a rigorous multi-stage public land-use review process (known as ULURP), with final approval resting with the City Council (City of New York, 2016).
Last month, the first individual project proposed under MIH – Sherman Plaza in Inwood, Manhattan – was unanimously rejected by the City Council’s Land Use Committee. In exchange for increasing the zoning height limit, half of the Sherman Plaza project’s 355 apartments would have been permanently affordable for moderate-income families. While Inwood’s Council Member Ydanis Rodriguez “spoke openly about his concerns about rejecting the developers' offer of affordable housing out of hand, citing the lack of affordable housing in the area” (Pichardo, 2016), he ultimately decided to not support the project due to strong opposition from his constituents “who feared that its rents were too high for the neighborhood and that it would hasten gentrification” (NYT, 2016). On the following day, the Committee deferred to Rodriguez’s decision. As is their right, the Sherman Plaza’s developers may still build market-rate apartments with no affordable units on the same lot under existing height limits (NYT, 2016; Pichardo, 2016).
In this example of the post-positivist approach in practice, the ULURP process seemingly provided open access to information and discussions regarding the Sherman Plaza project, which empowered the general public and Inwood community to engage in a public dialogue and take action based on the facts and their shared values. Moreover, Council Member Rodriguez served as a policy facilitator as opposed to a policymaker, expressing his expert opinion about the project while listening and responding to the concerns of his constituents. According to Stiglitz (1998), these kinds of participatory and consensus formation practices are likely to lead to outcomes that “accord with the general interest” (p. 18). However, since the developers can still build market-rate luxury housing with no affordable units on the same site, was the Council’s decision to reject Sherman Plaza truly in the best interest of the Inwood community and the city as a whole? Did public participation in this instance prevent the city from adopting a near-Pareto improvement? Or could the rejection of this MIH project be a sign of an emerging and formidable movement in opposition to the city’s affordability crisis and the inadequacy of market-based policy strategies?
References
City of New York (2016). Mandatory Inclusionary Housing.
Howlett, M., Ramesh, M. and Perl, A. (2009). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Oxford University Press. (3rd Ed.)
Hurowitz, N. (2015, October 16). Mandatory Affordable Housing Policy Will Leave Middle Class in Cold: Locals. DNAinfo.
Pichardo, C. (2016, August 16). Sherman Plaza Rezoning Bid Unanimously Shot Down by City Council Committee. DNAinfo.
Stiglitz, J. (1998). Distinguished lecture on economics in government: the private uses of public interests: incentives and institutions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(2), 3-22.
The Editorial Board. (2016, August 29). High-Rise Anxiety in New York. The New York Times.