Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy. Pearson Higher Education AU.
(Chapter 1).
https://paulcairney.wordpress.com/2019/10/08/policy-analysis-in-750-words-carol-bacchis-2009-
wpr-approach/
Introducing the 'What's the problem represented to be' (WPR) approach
a specific policy will (implicitly) represent - or constitute - a problem in a certain way.
Hence, policies do not merely react to exogenous 'problems', but they are active in the
creation of the shape of those 'problems'.
The way in which the problem is framed carries a whole bunch of implications (social
construction of social problems).
^from lecture 1
,elaboration:
1. Looking at what is proposed as policy intervention will reveal the implicit problem
representation to you. Mostly, of course, policies are complex, and cover multiple
problem representations.
2. What is assumed in this deducted representation of the problem? what is
taken for granted (epistemological or ontological)? what is not questioned? What
are the deep-seated cultural values?-> Goal is to identify the conceptual premises
(conceptual logics) that underpin specific problem representations.
Discourse, i.e., the assumptions, values, presuppositions, and accompanying
signs, encompasses conceptual logics
e.g. the Youth Suicide Prevention Strategy is based upon a particular
understanding of psyches based upon nineteenth and twentieth century
psychology knowledge.
Governmental or political rationalities form patterns of thinking about problems;
reflecting rationales (ways of thinking) for certain ways of governing.
a currently popular style of problematization is making individuals themselves
primarily responsible for their lives.
Discourse is an important term, encompassing more than just language, it is a system
that encompasses conceptual logics. It conceives social reality.
Discourse analysis is there to identify and interrogate the possibly present
binaries, key concepts, and categories operating within a policy.
Binaries (dichotomies): nature/culture; responsible/irresponsible;
economic/social; mind/body; licit/illicit; legal/illegal; private/public;
civilized/uncivilized; etc.
Key concepts: relatively open-ended and abstract labels for concepts. E.g. 'health',
'welfare', 'equality', 'liberty'. The meanings that people have associated with these
key concepts are very important for discourse, and for policy making. These
meanings are often embedded deeply within governmental practices.
, Categories: concepts that are central to governing. The question again is how do
these categories function to give a particular meaning to a problem
representation? esp. 'people categories' are relevant to us.
e.g., age categories, disease categories, gender and sexuality categories, etc.
e.g. 'youth', 'single mothers', 'students', 'citizens'.
Categories are created through measurement.
Question 2 and 3 I think both link strongly to Auerhahn's split labor market theories of
criminalization.
3. How has this representation come about?
Genealogy. How do we trace the 'history', the 'genetic roots', of a current problem
representation? What was the process like? are there any competing problem
representations that were not taken up? For this we do not assume a 'natural
evolution' over time, but we identify specific points in time when key decisions
were made. Genealogy has a destabilizing effect on problem representations that
are often taken for granted (people categories only come to exist when they are
'made up').
e.g., what were the rules that gave medical specialists the institutional
authority in the domain of abortions? What is the governmental interest in
abortions? Why are certain statistics collected? How do these numbers play
a role in 'making up people'?
4. What are the gaps and silences? (see also Auerhahn)
What has been failed to be problematized? What underlying aspects of a problem
have been ignored? What are the limits of the underlying problem
representations. Reflection is important. Often the binaries identified in question
2 are of importance here.
e.g., the public/private dichotomy often mystifies relationships between
governments and individuals/families (Olsen, 1985).
cross-cultural comparisons can sometimes help to shed light on what constitutes a
problem, and which differences should apparently be noted.
5. What effects follow from this representation of the problem?
Effects, in WPR approach, are subtle of influence, and rely on theoretical perspectives
such as poststructuralist discourse psychology and femisist body theory. Central to this
question: what (harmful) effects does the problem representation have on which
groups?
3 kinds of effects that need to be weighed up:
a. discursive effects: effects following from the limits of what can be said and thought
(not in a biocognitive way). The earlier identified problem representations and the
discourses that frame them make it difficult to think differently, limiting the kinds
of social analyses that can be produced. So the restrictive result of the presented
frame basically.
e.g., portraying child care as a necessity for women engaged in paid labor,
closes off consideration of the child care demands placed on other women.
b. subjectification effects: the ways in which subjects are constituted in discourse.
Discourses make certain subject positions available, i.e., the subject (the person)
henceforth sees the world through this one position (viewpoint). Who we are is till
some extent an effect of the subject positions made available in public policies.
an important example is the issue that problem representations often set
groups of people in opposition to each other - 'dividing practices' (Foucault,
, 1982, p.208). The stigmatisation of the minority group serves a
governmental purpose: encouraging desired behaviour among the majortiy.
e.g., the ways in which targeted policy groups such as 'illegal immigrants' and
'single mothers' are represented as the problem, allows government
responses to be 'generous and compassionate'.
How do subjects feel when they are painted as the 'problem', what does this
reinforce?
c. lived effects: the material impact of problem representations on lives and deaths
(Dean, 2006). Emotional and material distress/ impact.
1.
6. How/ Where is this representation of the problem produced, disseminated, and defended?
How could it be questioned, disrupted and replaced?
How does the representation achieve legitimacy in the target audience? What is the
relation between the speakers, the discourse, and the audience?
e.g., what was the role of the media (in problem dissemination/defense)?
To end the WPR approach, self-analysis or reflexivity is required, one has to apply all
questions to one's OWN problem representations (considering your positionality).
Practical Notes:
Text selection: it is wise to start with a specific piece of legislation or report, and
further anayse documents such as parliamentary debates, ministerial pronouncements
[uitspraken/ decreten], related government reports, and media statements.
Complexity: acknowledge the contesting positions within a complex document don't
distort documents by choosing particular segments.
Context: you need a solid understanding of the bigger background of the issue you are
considering. You have to consider the wider context of a problem.
Nesting: because problem representations are often 'nested' into one another, the WPR
approach needs to be applied multiple times to interrelated key terms or topics.
[chapters 3 and 4 of this book aply the approach systematically]
