PA715 Book Review

Summer 2011

Shari Morfin
Due 7/23/11

Citation:
Majone, G. (1992). Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven,
Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Reviewed by Shari Morfin
Abstract:
This book is a classic of the study of public policy. The author emphasizes that
persuasion, along with presenting the appropriate evidence at the appropriate time in the policy
argument, are the keys to success in policy adoption and implementation. Engagement of a
variety of stakeholders in democratic discourse at all stages of the policy process will improve
policy making. The author argues that public policy analysis is closer in style and substance to
the legal process than the scientific. This implies that gathering evidence, preparing arguments,
and using persuasion are the most important skills to acquire as a policy analyst or other player
in the public policy process.
Overall, Evidence, Argument, & Persuasion in the Policy Process provides some quality
suggestions for the public policy system. Majone presents a useful perspective that was needed at
a time when government was transitioning into considering more intricate social problems. The
perspective is still relevant today. Majone illuminates a healthier way to create, implement, and
revise policy. The dialectic method of discourse should be interweaved into policy making
whenever possible. Consensus building can produce innovative ideas, clarify understanding of
complex social issues, and create wide-ranging policy for a pluralistic nation. Persuasion,
argument, and suitable evidence are indispensable to the democratic policy process.
Key Concepts:
Democracy is a system of government by discussion. Therefore, persuasion or rhetoric, along
with presenting the appropriate evidence (information introduced at the optimal point in the
argument to persuade an audience of the correctness of a statement) and arguments are central to
the policy process. Engagement of a variety of stakeholders in democratic discourse or debate at
all stages of the policy process will improve policy making.

PA715 Book Review

Summer 2011

Shari Morfin
Due 7/23/11

Book Summary for Evidence, Argument, & Persuasion in the Policy Process:
The author, Giandomenico Majone, starts with a definition of democracy as a system of
government by dialogue. Because discussion is the key to the system, he stresses that rhetoric by
a wide variety of stakeholders, along with presenting substantiation at the appropriate time in the
policy discourse, are imperative to successful policy adoption and implementation. Majone
builds a case for more emphasis on the elements of persuasion, argument, and evidence in the
policy process of democracies. He believes that mutual persuasion by an assortment of
knowledgeable people, who hold varying viewpoints, assumptions, values, interpretations, and
experiences, is needed to resolve todays complex issues. He frames his discussion around the
role of policy analysts in democratic governments, who are working to resolve multifaceted
social problems. He makes suggestions on how the policy analyst can help improve the quality of
the public policy process. The additional discourse, persuasion, and evidence has the potential to:
clarify complex societal problems (in agenda setting, policy formation, and evaluation);
propose and argue for government as part of the remedy (in agenda setting and adoption);
develop potential objectives and solutions (in policy formation and implementation);
make assumptions about consequences of alternatives (in policy formation);
choose a solution which maximizes the net benefit to society (in policy formation,
adoption, implementation, and evaluation);
implement and evaluate results (in implementation and evaluation); and
improve the next round of solutions (in evaluation, agenda setting, and policy formation).
As the belief that governments can be expanded to resolve more intricate social issues has

become prevalent, the need for new methods of decision-making and policy development has
emerged. Majone analyzes this need and proposes some remedies for policy analysts and the
political system to use.
Many of the policy realms issues are now trans-scientific, or issues which are neither
purely technical, nor purely political in nature. The hard scientific evidence standard cannot be
used to develop a perfect solution to todays complicated problems, such as family violence.
The scientific method would require an impossibly high level of resources including time,
money, relevant data, test subjects, and applicable theory. Social concerns often do not ethically
lend themselves to empirical, scientific experimentation on human subjects. The intricacy of the
laws, policies, and experiences surrounding these issues are significant. There are no perfect
scientific measures, statistics, tools, or mathematic equations that can make sense of most of
todays policy issues. The limitations on social science studies, such as re-arrest rate reduction,
are numerous and most academic studies of societal issues are considered exceptional if they can
2

PA715 Book Review

Summer 2011

Shari Morfin
Due 7/23/11

explain a mere 30% or more of the problem. Given these facts, the more appropriate public
policy process would resemble the legal process. Evidence, various viewpoints, persuasion, and
argument should be used to come up with a satisficing, fair resolution. The solutions will by
nature need to be evaluated and iteratively refined as society changes with the contributions of a
variety of expert and generalist stakeholders.
Majone uses logic, theory, and argument, with case study examples, to illustrate some
essential fundamentals needed in the public policy process. The process should continuously be
developed with the goal of reaching wide-ranging conclusions and adjustable solutions. A
modern democracys policy discourse system needs careful organization with rules and
procedures to limit disruption, filibustering, and disputes that could lead to violent uprisings.
Majone argues that public policy analysis today does not need more objectivity, as many
involved in the policy realm assert. Majone proposes looking to the Greek dialectic process as a
starting point for humanizing democratic discourse. Dialectic begins from the social context of
the community and works to develop a shared understanding of the issue under discussion. It can
be used by experts and non-experts, citizens, media, administrators, judges, and legislators alike
to propose ideas, clarify arguments and terms, and defend their perspectives. Dialectic is meant
to illuminate assumptions and theories, clarify and argue positions, and educate everyone in the
process by defining technical elements in laymens terms and providing arguments based on
personal experience. Dialectic promotes public deliberation, criticism, advocacy, and education.
Therefore, it helps to realistically push the boundaries of what can be accomplished in a
pluralistic society with persuasion and consensus building. Even though popular opinion
prioritizes modeling, objectivity, option development, or data analysis techniques, Majone
regards boundary expansion and education as the most vital goals of policy analysis.
Majone notes that politicians have a strong tendency to equate their desired option as a
feasible option. This is where the policy analyst needs to clarify, justify, and advise on the
reality of boundaries. While expansion of boundaries is beneficial in the long run, political
realities and public opinion may need to be expanded first for this expansion to be feasible. The
policy analyst will be required to use the art of persuasion; to find relevant evidence and strong
arguments; to analyze current constraints, oversimplifications, and pitfalls; and to choose the
appropriate policy instrument for use at each stage of the conversation. Major breakthroughs in
core or fundamental policies will require the above, but may also require a pivotal event (such as
9-11 or an energy crisis), which changes players opinions as well. Periphery portions (flexible
3

PA715 Book Review

Summer 2011

Shari Morfin
Due 7/23/11

details) of a policy may not require this level of persuasion. Majone observes that periphery
policies may even exist (emission standards) well before the core policy (energy, climate change)
is completely formed by government. Whether the policy being analyzed is a core or periphery
policy will be a key factor in applying the appropriate decision model. Decision models, such as
the rationale-comprehensive and incremental models, will be discussed further in the assessment
section below.
At the time the book was written, decisionism, was the most popular methodology in
public policy analysis. Majone defines decisionism as the process of making a rational,
calculated choice between clear alternatives. The decision is made by one decision maker or a
number of decision makers acting as one unit. In contrast to dialectic, the number of actors is far
fewer in decisionism. This is not the case in a political system for the people made up of
competing political actors (executive, legislative, judicial) and informal players. Decisionism
does not explain how to resolve the conflict of values between the different players involved in
the real work of public policy. Having clear alternatives to select from also does not seem
realistic to the social problems that government is tasked with improving today. The criteria used
for choice in decisionism are a combination of economic efficiency, equity, and political
feasibility. This may work for tactical situations, such as war, but it is not well suited for
strategic, social issues. Decisionism focuses on short-term outcomes with little concern for
process and long-term effects. The process by which a policy is implemented (example: job
training, education) can have enormous effects on the participants. Decisionism intellectualizes
the decision and lacks depth in the area of justification. In the reality of politics, all members of
the political process require well thought out, detailed justifications for use throughout the entire
policy process to persuade actors to do what should be done. The need for persuasion does not
end at the adoption point in the policy cycle. Persuasion and dialogue need to be infused
throughout the cycle and subsequent iterations of the cycle. Credible data, relevant information,
strong evidence, persuasive argument, and feasible conclusions can lead constituents and players
to develop highly regarded policies, which are implemented well and accepted by citizens.
These dialectic criteria and components are instrumental to the exchange of ideas in the
democratic process-see Appendix A-Chart 1 for more criteria. The dialectic approach, therefore,
seems more compatible and beneficial for policy analysis than the decisionism approach.
Assessment of Evidence, Argument, & Persuasion in the Policy Process:
Majones book critiqued and logically expanded on many of the theories and models
4

PA715 Book Review

Summer 2011

Shari Morfin
Due 7/23/11

presented in the class readings on decision-making and evaluation. The authors were in
agreement that the rational-comprehensive model is an unrealistic ideal when applied to the
policy process for social problems. With the considerable number of conflicting values of the
decision makers and pressuring interest groups, these types of policy decisions do not fit into a
model, which assumes one decisional point of view. Lindblom and Majone note that time and
money constraints do not lend themselves to the rational-comprehensive models exhaustive
search for all potential solutions. This is confirmed by the facts that legislators must review over
10,000 bills per two-year, Congressional session and by looking at the current budget deficit.
Political bargaining, dilemmas, fiscal responsibility, promises, and consequences to other
countries often require decision-making and solutions that are considered suboptimal using the
rational model. Previous bills, court rulings, and bureau procedures also set precedence that
needs to be followed for most policy issues. This precedence limits the policy solution process
and points toward the incremental (muddling-through) decision model as a more valuable choice
for policy decisions. Majone notes that even the U.S. President, a highly powerful position, has
substantial limitations on his politically feasible alternatives. As Einstein notes, reality restricts
the wealth of possibilities, and Majone rightfully spends a chapter expanding on constraints,
pitfalls, and feasibility. The general consensus among the authors of the class readings and
Majone is that the rational-comprehensive model and the incremental model describe two ends
of a spectrum; one which is too detailed and requires high levels of control and one which is not
thorough enough, but can be used when control is limited. The authors of the book and class
readings propose various middle of the road methods between these two extremes, such as
second-best solutions, mixed scanning, and bounded rationality. While knowledge of the
fundamentals behind these decision theories is useful for decision making, the middle of the road
approaches are more useful in core, intricate, and new policy making situations.
Majone and Anderson mention and discuss the importance of legitimacy. If a policy
deviates too far from the expectations and values of society, it may be thought of as illegitimate.
Then the policy could be overturned by judicial review, go unimplemented by administration,
and/or go unenforced by street level bureaucrats. All authors of the readings on decision-making
and evaluation mention a need for the compatibility of policy with stakeholder values and public
opinion. This compatibility can be developed through polling and listening to constituents. The
authors recommended persuasion, discourse, publicity, and advocacy to inform formal and
informal players about the evidence and arguments needed to win support and legitimacy.
5

PA715 Book Review

Summer 2011

Shari Morfin
Due 7/23/11

Many of the authors of the readings also strongly warned about the use or abuse of the
scientific method and requirements for an empirical level of evidence. Politicians may argue for
scientific proof in order to bully opponents and manipulate public opinion. Examples of this
bullying strategy in politics are currently high in number (Obamas birth certificate, Bin Ladens
body, etc.). Because members of the general public may not understand the limitations of
scientific applications and methods, this level of proof can at times seem reasonable to some.
This demonstrates another reason why solid evidence, enlightening dialogue, and persuasion are
critical in the public policy process.
Anderson mentions numerous institutional procedures that a policy analyst must
understand, such as bill attachments, cloture, executive orders, bills killed by committees, and
pocket vetoes. In the last few days, the U.S. has seen the House Speaker wield his power to
postpone voting on the federal budget bill. Majone recommends that policy analysts have a
thorough understanding of the institutions procedures in which they will be proposing solutions.
Stone clarifies the need to understand the political game and to have a number of countermoves
at your disposal. This understanding will allow the analyst to provide the appropriate argument at
the appropriate time for the appropriate audience in the appropriate method.
Anderson and Majone also advise caution in choosing a policy impact method of
evaluation for social policy. The policy impact method is driven by the type of policy and the
amount of uncertainty of the cause and effect relationship to be evaluated. Majone supplements
Andersons, Eastons, and Shafritz, Layne, and Boricks discussion of policy impact evaluation
with a chart that clarifies how to determine when input, process, output, or outcome review is the
most suitable method for evaluation-See Appendix A, Chart 2. Again, political strategies may be
used to gain advantages based on evaluation results. Program managers are aware of this reality
and are, therefore, often hesitant to assist with evaluation analysis. But evaluations are important
to a variety of stakeholders. These facts complicate the selection of an evaluation strategy,
method, and style even further. All authors agree that evaluation is a vital step to improve the
next increment(s) of policy development. Majone spends his last chapter discussing evaluation
theories and the need to use multiple measures to avoid distorting performance.
Majones messages on the policy process are meant to be generalizable to any democratic
system, which is tasked with the goal of writing policy to reduce societal problems. The
arguments apply to all levels of government policy making and are meant to be used at all stages
of the public policy process. All branches of government should use persuasion, evidence, and
6

PA715 Book Review

Summer 2011

Shari Morfin
Due 7/23/11

evaluation if they want to maintain legitimacy with their constituents. The books message is
especially important in the realm of new policies proposed to solve complex, social dilemmas
that require strategic thought and design for the long-term. The U.S. Constitution intends to keep
the power of government dispersed and decisions shared by a wide variety of actors as noted in
the Anderson and Stone readings and Majones book. It necessitates checks and balances of
each branch of government and puts power with the general population via the voting process,
hoping that citizens will create an active society (Etzioni), which can decipher and attempt to
correct its problems. Majones main request, of soliciting a variety of opinions, is only slightly
less desirable when issues are of an immediate, tactical nature, such as the specifics of military
action. While personal experience allows me to agree that involving constituents with a wide
range of viewpoints is essential for complex decision-making, it is critical to narrow the pool of
people involved down to a manageable number of total participants, so that every perspective
can be heard in a reasonable amount of time.
To apply Majones messages, Ill use the real world example of coalition building. My
initial research topic in Research Methods class was the effectiveness of coalitions in reducing
family violence. Nonprofit staff and clients, judges, legal counsel, police, probation officers,
Child Protective Services (CPS) counselors, medical personnel, and government policy leaders
were all part of successful local coalitions. Once a common goal was established, each member
of the coalition described their skills and how they could help the process. Each person
advocated for the cooperation they needed from the other players, and educated the group on
their perspective. The complexity of the family violence issue creates the need for each partys
point of view to be represented to help fill in gaps and misunderstandings in policy and
procedure that can wreak havoc on a victims chance for a violence free family. If police or
medical staff do not collect enough evidence, then a lawyer may not be able to complete
prosecution. If policy makers and implementers have less access to different viewpoints, the next
appropriate step in policy making or a loophole in current policy might go undetected. Adverse
consequences of certain policies and procedures might not be discovered as quickly without
dialogue between the multiple participants of the system. The literature on family violence
coalitions pointed out that the involvement of key policy makers from each type of organization
(judicial, nonprofit, government agency, legislature, criminal justice, medical) were crucial to
effectiveness, progression, and continuity of the coalitions results. Application of Majones
suggestions on persuasion, fallacy identification, institutional constraints, and evaluation are all
7

PA715 Book Review

Summer 2011

Shari Morfin
Due 7/23/11

constructive elements for the policy analyst working on family violence prevention.
I thought Majone presented a useful perspective that was needed at a time when
government was transitioning into considering more intricate social problems. The perspective
is still relevant today. Persuasion, argument, and suitable evidence are indispensable to the
democratic policy process. While we are taught in school that journalism is meant to provide an
objective source of information, the reality of news is often different. In American media and
politics, there is often a line crossed between persuasion and argument presentation versus
propaganda and force-feeding the public one side of the story. As the Kull, Ramsay and Lewis
article proved in the case of the Iraq war, where you get your news can mean hearing only one
side of the story or missing some facts completely. Likewise, in the policy processes, I do not
believe that enough viewpoints are taken into consideration when decisions are made. This is
one reason that I donate to advocacy groups and nonprofits that have a voice in the governmental
process. I believe nonprofits do not let their persuasive voice and knowledge be heard loudly
enough by government policy makers. Their voice is needed to balance the loud voice of private
company lobbyists and to provide input from the middle class and underserved constituents.
Overall, Evidence, Argument, & Persuasion in the Policy Process provides some quality
suggestions for policy analysts and other players in the public policy system. Majone illuminates
a healthier way to create, implement, and revise policy. He confirms my positive experience
with involving users and various perspectives in the process of adjusting and strengthening
policy and procedures. Consensus building can produce innovative ideas, clarify understanding
of complex social issues, and create respectable policy for a pluralistic democratic nation. The
dialectic method of discourse should be interweaved into policy making whenever possible.

PA715 Book Review

Summer 2011

Shari Morfin
Due 7/23/11
Appendix A

Chart 1 - Analytic Criteria

by Component
Component
Data

Criteria
Reliable
Reproducible
Credible

Information

Relevant
Sufficient
Good Fit
Robustness

Evidence

Reliable
Admissible
Strong

Argument

Cogent
Persuasive
Clear

Conclusion

Plausible
Feasible
Acceptable

Chart 2- Recommended Evaluation

by Policy Impact Type