Question

The Policy Paradox book author Stone  writes (pg 381) “What people care about and fight about are interpretations of personhood, identity, economic welfare, war, and the proper relationship between religion and government. What communities decide about when they make policy is meaning, not matter. And science can’t settle questions of meaning.”

Write an original contribution about what this paragraph means to you. What does it say about the role of “evidence” in the policy process? How might you address differing interpretations by various audiences of a societal problem when thinking about how you will describe your problem and the potential policy options to address it? Describe a situation that involves differing views on “what people care about” and what evidence might be used to support various interpretations of the problem or proposed solutions.

Answer 1

On a personal note, I believe and strongly agree with what the author states about policy in the paragraph. The cause for any conflict or difference of opinion is the background and identity of each individual. In other words, difference of opinions arises due to interpretations of personhood, identity, economic welfare, war, and the proper relationship between religion and government as stated by the author. Policy is made for a meaning and it is logical in every aspect of its creation. Science is a pre-defined concept. Hence, science cannot provide meaning to policies and there are no hard and fast rules for policy as it is created for a meaning. This conforms to the author’s statement that “What communities decide about when they make policy is meaning, not matter”.

When a community decides on a policy, it is usually made based on ‘evidence’ or a real-life incident. When observing how policies are made, it is noted that policies are based on evidence or any statistics in the practical world.

In reality, I would address the differing interpretations by various audiences of a societal problem when thinking about how I would describe my problem and the potential policy options to address it by highlighting the evidence. Though there may be many interpretations, if I have strong evidence, then the probability of making them to accept my point of view is quite high. The potential policy options would be defined and amendments or additions to the policy can be insisted based on evidence and acceptance of the society.

One of the classic examples is the interest group involved in health care policy. The main purpose of the interest groups is to influence the policies. An example is the Medicare program wherein the pharmaceutical lobbyists were united to insist on securing an expansion of their pharmacy benefits without any cost control as was previously. The evidence was based on special interest groups coming together for the pharmacy expansion. The pharmaceutical companies (giant corporate) companies also supported the cause which was the evidence that was required for proposed solutions.