In Defense of Domestic Analysis

In his interview for this issue, James Thomson reflects on 20 years as president of the RAND Corporation and 35 years of a career in public policy, dating to 1974, when he joined the staff of the U.S. Office of the Secretary of Defense. Across the decades, he has witnessed the shifting fortunes of policy research in America, leading him to this disquieting observation: “The scope for analysis in the policy process has been declining since around 1980, more in the domestic agencies than in the Pentagon.”

Upon taking the helm at RAND in 1989, Thomson hoped to put some of its domestic policy research on the same solid financial footing given to the defense policy research since the 1940s. “I was naïve,” he acknowledged. “There was a brief era of analytical research in support of the missions of domestic agencies. And then it never came back. Today, much more than before, ideology is part of the process — as opposed to analysis.”

Nevertheless, he remains hopeful about the potential for domestic policy analysis to occupy a “nonpartisan space” within an otherwise polarized political debate. The three feature stories in this issue underscore his point, demonstrating the promise yet to be fulfilled.

Our story about grade retention policies in New York City sheds light on a heated issue. The research offers encouragement for school districts that combine grade retention with academic support services. However, important questions remain: whether the short-term benefits will persist over the long term and whether the benefits will outweigh the costs.

Likewise, our story about health care financing in Massachusetts outlines some strategies that could save not just Massachusetts but also the rest of the country lots of money. However, several additional strategies, including some popular ones, could be neither encouraged nor discounted by the analysis due to lack of evidence.

Finally, our cover story on international stabilization operations emphasizes the need for civilian agencies to play greater roles in these missions. Perhaps nowhere is the need for civilian expertise so great — and the absence of analysis of the civilian efforts so glaring — as in the stabilization operations for which defense agencies have found themselves doing the work of nondefense agencies.

“There’s a lot for us to do,” says Thomson. “We’re in a period of change now with a new administration. Will there be a change in attitude of openness toward policy research? We’ll see.”

—John Godges