Introduction

In the Czech Republic, policy analysis is far from being an established discipline, which makes it difficult to delimit and structure the field. At the same time, there is a lack of reflection on policy analysis outputs and processes which makes it even more difficult to describe the policy analysis styles and methods. Even though many of the details described in previous publications on this topic are not achievable due to the low level of available knowledge, the content of this chapter is inspired by the related chapters of Dobuzinskis et al's (2007) book, Policy Analysis in Canada.

This chapter reflects the classification of analytical styles by various authors discussing the rational, ‘modern’ analysis of the 1960s and 1970s, which is based on the quantification of economic costs and benefits, and the ‘postmodern’ analysis of the 1980s and 1990s focused on the social construction of policy problems and a more interpretive approach (for example, Radin, 2000). Using this background and original research, we will try to unveil the dominant paradigms of policy analysis in the Czech Republic. Later we discuss the classification of Mayer, Els van Daalen, and Bots (2001), who distinguish six different styles of policy analysis and apply their ideas to the Czech setting.

Dominating paradigms of Czech policy analysis

Deriving from policy analysis textbooks (see Stokey and Zeckhauser, 1978; Behn and Vaupel, 1982; Hogwood and Gunn, 1984; Weimer and Vining, 2004), the early years of policy analysis were marked by a strong inclination toward quantitative methods and techniques adopted from economics, statistics, operational research and system analysis. In those days, policy analysis was supposed to be a scientific, rational and objective tool to find the best solutions and recommendations in public policy processes.

During the 1980s this approach (later labelled ‘traditional’) started to be criticised for distinct reasons:

• • Its opponents claimed that quantitative analysis (for example cost-benefit analysis) often fails and does not lead to expected outcomes (Kosterlitz, 1991; deLeon, 1994, p 201).

• • Others (Weiss, 1977a, 1977b; Booth, 1990; Shulock, 1999) raised doubts about the use of policy analysis as many of the recommendations did not have any (or had very little) influence on public policy decisions.