Center for Scientific Analysis of Policy, LLC
http://www.scipolicy.org
White Paper Series: Case Studies
Using IPA to Evaluate Policies of
2016 Presidential Candidates
Mike Huckabee’s
Huckabee’s Economic Policy:
Policy: A Structural Case Study
Steven E. Wallis, PhD; Bernadette Wright, PhD
indicate greater ability to make effective
policy decisions. This indicates the policy’s
ability to reach its stated goals in much the
same was as a road map with more roads and
destinations provides a more useful tool for
planning a business trip or a vacation.
Due to the large number of candidates
running for president and the complexity of
their policy statements, we present this
analysis to help voters understand, evaluate,
and compare those policies to support
decision-making and our democratic process.
Successful policies
should be located
in this quadrant
Depth
Mike Huckabee is a 2016 Republican Comparison of Policies
Candidate for U.S. President. In this white
1
paper, we present the results of an
0.8
Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA)
study of his economic policy as presented
0.6
on his website. Because he did not have a
0.4
single, specific economic policy, we drew
on the related policy statements found here:
0.2
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/tax-reform
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/spending0
0
10
20
debt
30
40
50
Breadth
Our goal here is to conduct a scientific,
non-partisan evaluation to suggest the
potential for success, along with
opportunities for improvement, of that
policy. It is not our intent to suggest that the
policy might be right or wrong, good or bad
(as partisan analyses might claim). Instead,
our focus is on whether the policy will have
the effects anticipated according to the text
provided by the candidate.
Huckabee’s
economic policy
Although there were some statements in the
text that might be seen as fuzzy or
ambiguous, we made a good-faith effort to
reflect the candidate’s position accurately.
We are open to additional information and to
revised analyses with the goal of creating the
most accurate representation possible.
Another way to explain this is that we are
looking at the policy as a sense-making
device or as a kind of map. Higher scores
1
background information, please see our white
papers:
Method of Analysis
This evaluation is primarily an analysis of the
internal logic-structures of the policy. Those
provide useful indicators of the policy’s
sense-making ability and predictors for its
potential success or failure. Two important
assumptions may present additional
challenges to the effectiveness of any policy.
First, the extent to which the claims of the
policy are based on good empirical data.
Second, the extent to which the policy may
be implemented as proposed. Those two
issues may present
additional challenges
to the effectiveness of
this policy. However,
they are not part of our
present analysis.
http://scipolicy.org/principles-of-ipa--white-papers.html
Results of Analysis
We used IPA to identify relevant
propositions from the text of Mike
Huckabee’s economic policy and developed
the following causal map:
IPA
(Integrative
Propositional
Analysis)
is
an
emerging
methodology used to
analyze the internal
structure
of
conceptual
systems
such as theories,
strategic plans, and
policies. It is a
rigorous,
objective,
and
non-partisan
approach.
Many
scholarly publications
have
shown
the
effectiveness of IPA.
You may find these in
the fields of policy,
organizational
learning,
management,
philosophy,
and
others.
For
an
overview
and
2
significant changes that would be caused by
such a revolution, we might reasonably
expect opposition to such a move. That
opposition is not accounted for on this map.
Therefore, it is not a highly useful map.
As seen, there are 16 concepts (one per box).
Therefore, the “Breadth” of the policy map is
equal to 16. The Breadth of this policy is low.
This indicates a weakness of the policy
because the economy is a very large and
complex thing. A small understanding (from
looking at a small part of the picture) is not
likely to be useful in comprehending or
managing a large and complex thing.
Second, this map suggests that the one and
only approach to all those benefits is through
a tax revolution. We know when we use a
map for a vacation that there are usually
many different roads to reach each
destination. The better map will show more
roads. Those roads provide options. Options
that are not shown on this map.
IPA is a rigorous, scientific,
non-partisan approach to
analyzing the structure of
policy maps to indicate their
potential for success
The low level of connections leaves the map
open to illogical interpretations, illegitimate
claims, spurious criticism, and confusing
rhetoric. It also means that there is a lack of
transparency. If a candidate claims that the
map is a guide, but there are missing
elements, it is difficult to accept that claim as
valid.
The low number of concepts indicates
“missing ingredients” that may be necessary
for success. Indeed, for every missing
ingredient, there is another opportunity for
unanticipated consequences.
There are no “Transformative” concepts
(boxes with two causal arrows pointing at it).
Therefore, the Depth of the map is equal to
zero. “Zero” indicates the least level of Depth
while a score of “one” indicates the greatest
Depth.Depth is a strong indicator for policy
success. With a Depth of zero, we do not
expect that this policy will achieve its stated
goals. Indeed, we expect far more
unanticipated outcomes than anticipated
ones.
•
Chance of achieving stated
goals: Approaching zero
•
Chance of unanticipated
consequences: Approaching
100%
Without
those
kinds
of
deeper
understandings, the map cannot provide a
useful understanding of a complex situation,
or serve as a useful guide for resolving those
issues.
The most striking feature about this map is its
use of “silver bullet” thinking. Here,
achieving one thing (Tax Revolution: MH-7)
will lead to many seemingly positive results.
There are multiple problems associated with
this structure of logic. First, (according to this
map) there is no clear way to cause such a
revolution to occur. Indeed, due to the
Conclusion
In this case study, we have presented a
structural analysis of an economic policy. In
this study, we have avoided partisan
arguments around whether the policy might
3
be “good” or “true.” Our sole concern is to
understand the extent to which the author of
the policy seems to understand our
economic situation (as reflected in the text
of the policy) and how that understanding
relates to the potential for the policy to
achieve its stated goals. That is to say, the
overall usefulness of the map as a tool for
navigation.
Here, IPA also provides value as a path for
voters and interest groups to combine
multiple maps – to see what is missing from
a map and add it in. The newer, integrated,
map will help us all to understand more of
the potential outcomes from the policy. And,
importantly, such a process of collaborative
mapping help to reduce divisive
argumentation and support the greater
collaboration needed to understand and
resolve the great difficulties of our time.
Without such analysis, it is more difficult for
interested citizens to make informed
decisions. IPA provides a scientific, nonpartisan source of policy analyses. The
objective insights presented here will help to
inform policy discussions and national level
decision-making. There is a deep need for
this kind of analysis as a new approach to
resolving the frequent and divisive
arguments that plague our decision making
process.
Better maps will also improve transparency
and accountability by clarifying the
candidate’s understanding and anticipated
actions to achieve success according to the
policy.
The Center for Scientific Analysis of
Policy, LLC, is an independent research
group of scholars and practitioners
working in the Policy Analysis field and
the STEM specialties (Science,
Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics). We use our expertise in
evaluating documents to determine if
they are based on current knowledge
and methodologies of those disciplines
along with a deep understanding of how
the law and policy intersects with social
and cultural networks.
Our analysis shows that this is a very weak
policy. Its low level of Breadth and Depth
indicates that implementing this policy
would produce many unanticipated
consequences while providing few of the
expected benefits. Further, because there are
so few causal connections, an individual
might make spurious claims about the
efficacy or justification for policy action.
To improve its chance for successful
implementation, the map should be
expanded to include additional concepts and
causal connections (to show how changes in
each will cause changes in others) based on
expert insight and empirical study.
We present the results of our analyses in
a clear, concise, and deliberately nonpartisan manner.
By doing so, we hope to promote the
adoption of sustainable and generative
policies that have the greatest potential
benefit to the people of America and the
world, avoiding laws and policies that are
profligate and injudicious.
Policy maps with more Breadth and Depth
will be more useful for elected officials to
make successful policy decisions. By
understanding the structure of maps, the
American people are empowered to make
more informed voting decisions.
For more information, contact:
[email protected]
4