European Policy Analysis Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2016 | Page 4

European Policy Analysis - Volume 2, Number 1 - Spring 2016

Simon Hegelich (TUo Munich/Bavarian School of Public Policy) “introduces machine
learning algorithms for political scientists.” His argu¬ment is that machine learning should
be seen as a new approach, where computers are used to analyze data “without theoretical
assumptions about possible causalities” and optimize models “according to their accuracy
and robustness.” His contribution aims at providing “an example, how these methods can be
used in political science and to highlight possible pitfalls as well as advantages of machine
learning.”
A regular feature of EPA is the Special Focus. In this issue, we present four articles that
focus on “The Role of Theory in Policy Analysis.”
Robert Hoppe (UoTwente) and Hal Colebatch (Uo New South Wales) address the gap
between academic and practical work. They argue that academics use the policy process
in a representative mode and differentiate between “three major branches: policy as
reasoned authoritative choice, policy as association in policy networks, and policy as
problematization and joint meaning making.” But in practice—the authors argue—these
approaches “also serve performative functions,” that is, “they are also mental maps and
discursive vehicles for shaping and sometimes changing policy practices.” “The purpose of
this article is to contribute to policy theorists’ and policy workers’ awareness of these often
tacit and ‘underground’ selective affinities between the representative and performative
roles of policy process theorizing.”
The contribution of Holger Straßheim (HUo Berlin) “focuses on theories of time in
policy analysis.” It “gives a brief overview on concepts of time in policy analysis and, more
specifically, the concept of ‘political time’ as a common denominator in current debates.”
It is based on two central assumptions: the various ways time is conceptualized are closely
related to underlying understandings of politics and political action.” And, “theories of time
are also always political theories. Debating time is thus not only of analytic value. It also
has large implications on how power, rationality, and collectivity are related to each other.
Moreover and probably less obvious, theories of time as political theories can be highly
influential in practice. When they find their way into policy making … they may realign the
time horizons of political action.”
Basil Bornemann (Uo Basel) directs our attention towards a “type of policymaking
that practitioners regularly qualify as ‘integrative’ and ‘strategic’” where “policymaking
transgresses the boundaries of established policy fields and integrates differentiated policy
areas.” He argues “that existing … studies of ‘integrative political strategies’ … rest on
problematic functional presumptions and do not consider the analytical implications of
“integration” and “strategy” as practical cornerstones.” Therefore, he puts forward “a ‘new’
type of policy field that emerges from countermovements to two dominant trends that have
shaped contemporary policy systems: integration as a countermovement to the continuing
differentiation of policies … and strategy as a flexible form of boundary work that contrasts
with the pattern of institutionalization.”
4