Regulationisevil:Anapplicationofnarrativepolicyanalysis toregulatorydebateinNewZealand TODD BRIDGMAN 1 & DAVID BARRY 2 SchoolofBusinessandEconomicsUniversityofAuckland,PrivateBag92019,Auckland1, NewZealand,E-mail: 1 tnb23@cam.ac.uk, 2 david.barry@vuw.ac.nz Abstract. Using ¢ndings from research on the implementation of telephone number portability in New Zealand, we demonstrate how narrative analysis can account for how particular in£uence stories, or policy narratives, come to dominate the policy process. In this paper, we extend the concept of metanarrative, which to date has been interpreted as a story that policy makers use to recast policy problems. Policy metanarratives are shown to have strong pre-¢gurative e¡ects and to be more pervasive than previously recognised. Introduction:Narrativepolicyanalysistodate In the ¢rst issue of this journal, Lasswell (1970) outlined the need for the policy sciences to be multi-disciplinary and innovative. According to him, the problem- focused nature of the ¢eld requires the policy scientist to synthesise a diverse range of ideas and analysis techniques. Importantly, the policy scientist must bring to the policy process a creativity that enlarges the conceptual map of any given policy problem. Consistent with this mandate, we seek to extend recent attempts to apply narrative epistemologies to the analysis of policy con£icts. The narrative perspective, which derives from linguistics, the literary arts, and constructivism (cf. Gergen, 1985; Riessman, 1993; Schwandt, 1994), holds that meaning is a highly contextualised, locally constructed phenomenon that reliesheavilyon language. Jerome Bruner (1990; 1991) takes this a step further, arguing that narrative is one of two basic ways people use to apprehend the world, the other being the‘logico-scienti¢c.’ Unlike the logico-scienti¢c mode, narrative knowing assumes thatindividuals perceive the same world di¡erently depending on their values, interests, and histories (Kildu¡ and Mehra, 1997; Riessman,1993;Winslade and Monk, 2000). Following this same line of thinking, discourse and narrative approaches to policy analysis assume that language does not simply mirror the world, but instead shapes our view of it in the ¢rst place (cf., Fischer and Forester, 1993; Roe,1989,1994). Once the importance oflanguage in constructing policy issues is recognised, policy debate becomes more than just interplay between logics, or arguments ^ it becomes a competitive contest between discursive frame- works (Edelman, 1971), one where attention to language becomes critical (Rifkin et al., 1991; Parsons, 1995). Policy analysts are no longer rational, neutral observers; rather, they are contestants jockeying for position using 141 PolicySciences 35:141^161, 2002. ß 2002 KluwerAcademicPublishers.PrintedintheNetherlands.