Policy Sciences

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 65–98

The policy movement as a policy problem

  • Ronald D. Brunner
Article

Abstract

The policy movement is unified by a common interest in the improvement of policy decisions through scientific inquiry. The movement is differentiated, however, because this common interest is highly ambiguous and subject to interpretation from different perspectives. This paper applies a policy sciences perspective to the movement's disappointments over the last few decades, and in particular, the failure to realize earlier aspirations for rational, objective analysis on the more important and controversial policy issues. The paper offers a definition and diagnosis of the underlying problem, and suggests what can be done about it as a matter of individual and collective choice.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander, C. (1965). ‘A City Is Not a Tree,’ Architectural Forum 122 (April and May): 58–62 and 58–61.Google Scholar
  2. Alter, J. (1983). ‘Harvard vs. Democracy,’ The Washington Monthly 15 (March): 32–39.Google Scholar
  3. Ascher, W. (1978). Forecasting: An Appraisal for Policy-Makers and Planners, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ascher, W. (1981). ‘The Forecasting Potential of Complex Models,’ Policy Sciences 13: 247–267.Google Scholar
  5. Ascher, W. (1982). ‘Political Forecasting: The Missing Link,’ Journal of Forecasting 1: 227–239.Google Scholar
  6. Ascher, W. (1987a). ‘The Evolution of the Policy Sciences: Understanding the Rise and Avoiding the Fall,’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 5: 367–373.Google Scholar
  7. Ascher, W. (1987b). ‘Policy Sciences and the Economic Approach in a “Post-Positivist” Era.’ Policy Sciences 20: 3–9.Google Scholar
  8. Benveniste, G. (1984). ‘On a Code of Ethics for Policy Experts,’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 3: 561–572.Google Scholar
  9. Betts, R. K. (1978). ‘Analysis, War, and Decision: Why Intelligence Failures are Inevitable,’ World Politics 31: 61–89.Google Scholar
  10. Boulding, K. E. (1961). The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  11. Brewer, G. D. (1983). ‘Some Costs and Consequences of Large-Scale Social Systems Modeling,’ Behavioral Sciences 28: 166–185.Google Scholar
  12. Brunner, R. D. (1982). ‘The Policy Sciences as Science,’ Policy Sciences 15: 115–135.Google Scholar
  13. Brunner, R. D. (1986). ‘Case-Wise Policy Information Systems: Redefining Poverty,’ Policy Sciences 19: 201–223.Google Scholar
  14. Brunner, R. D. (1987). ‘Conceptual Tools for Policy Analysis,’ prepared for delivery at the 1987 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, The Palmer House, Chicago, September 3–6. Revised October 1987.Google Scholar
  15. Campbell, D. T. (1987). ‘Guidelines for Monitoring the Scientific Competence of Preventive Intervention Research Centers,’ Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 8: 389–430.Google Scholar
  16. Clark, T. and R. Westrum (1987). ‘Paradigms and Ferrets,’ Social Studies of Science 17: 3–33.Google Scholar
  17. Cronbach, L. J. (1975). ‘Beyond the Two Disciplines of Scientific Psychology,’ American Psychologist 30: 116–127.Google Scholar
  18. deNeufville, J. I. and S. E. Barton (1987). ‘Myths and the Definition of Policy Problems: An Exploration of Home Ownership and Public-Private Partnerships,’ Policy Sciences 20: 181–206.Google Scholar
  19. Dery, D. (1984). Problem Definition in Policy Analysis, Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  20. Dunn, W. N. (1988). ‘Methods of the Second Type: Coping With the Wilderness of Conventional Policy Analysis,’ unpublished manuscript, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  21. Etheredge, L. S. (1985). Can Governments Learn? American Foreign Policy and the Central American Revolutions, New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  22. Fischer, E. (1980). Politics, Values, and Public Policy: The Problem of Methodology, Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  23. Fischhoff, B., S. Watson, and P. Hope (1984). ‘Defining Risk,’ Policy Sciences 17: 123–140.Google Scholar
  24. Friedman, M. (1953). Essays in Positive Economics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gelernter, D. (1989). ‘The Metamorphosis of Information Management,’ Scientific American (August): 66–73.Google Scholar
  26. George, A. L. (1963). ‘Prediction of Political Action by Means of Propaganda Analysis,’ in N. W. Polsby, R. A. Dentler, and P. A. Smith, eds. Politics and Social Life, pp. 847–855. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  27. Gordon, R. J. (1969). ‘Postwar Macroeconomics: The Evolution of Events and Ideas,’ in M. Feldstein, ed. The American Economy in Transition, pp. 101–162, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gray, C. S. (1971). ‘What Has Rand Wrought?’ Foreign Policy (Fall): 111–129.Google Scholar
  29. Hempel, C. G. and P. Oppenheim (1969). ‘The Covering Law Analysis of Scientific Explanation,’ in L. I. Krimmerman, ed. The Nature and Scope of Social Science, pp. 54–68, New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.Google Scholar
  30. Kaplan, A. (1963). American Ethics and Public Policy, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Keynes, J. M. (1965). The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
  32. Kupferberg, S. (1979). ‘Teaching the unteachable,’ The New Republic (April 14): 18–21.Google Scholar
  33. Lasswell, H. D. (1941). Democracy Through Public Opinion. Menasha, Wis.: George Banta Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  34. Lasswell, H. D. (1943). ‘Personal Policy Objectives,’ unpublished memorandum, dated October 1, archived in Sterling Library, Yale University.Google Scholar
  35. Lasswell, H. D. (1945). World Politics Faces Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  36. Lasswell, H. D. (1950). National Security and Individual Freedom. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  37. Lasswell, H. D. (1951a). ‘Democratic Character,’ in The Political Writings of Harold D. Lasswell, pp. 465–525, Glencoe: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lasswell, H. D. (1951b). ‘The Policy Orientation,’ in D. Lerner and H. D. Lasswell, eds. The Policy Sciences, pp. 3–15, Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lasswell, H. D. (1956a). The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis, College Park: Bureau of Governmental Research, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  40. Lasswell, H. D. (1956b), ‘The Political Science of Science: An Inquiry Into the Possible Reconciliation of Mastery and Freedom,’ American Political Science Review 50 (December): 961–979.Google Scholar
  41. Lasswell, H. D. (1966). ‘The World Revolution of Our Time: A Framework for Basic Policy Research,’ in H. D. Lasswell and D. Lerner, eds. World Revolutionary Elites, Ch. 2, pp. 29–96, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lasswell, H. D. (1970a), ‘The Developing Science of Democracy,’ in The Analysis of Political Behavior, Ch. 1, pp. 1–12, Hamden, CT: Archon Books.Google Scholar
  43. Lasswell, H. D. (1970b). ‘Must Science Serve Political Power?’ American Psychologist 25: 117–123.Google Scholar
  44. Lasswell, H. D. (1971a). The Policy Orientation of Political Science. Agra, India: Lakshmi Narain Agarwal.Google Scholar
  45. Lasswell, H. D. (1971b). A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  46. Lasswell, H. D. (1977). ‘The Politics of Prevention,’ in Psychopathology and Politics, Ch. X, pp. 173–203, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Lasswell, H. D. and A. Kaplan (1950). Power and Society: A Framework for Political Inquiry, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Lasswell, H. D., D. Lerner, and I. de S. Pool (1952). The Comparative Study of Symbols, Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Leontief, W. (1982). ‘Academic Economics,’ Science (9 July): pp104–105.Google Scholar
  50. Lewis, G. H. (1983). ‘The Day Care Tangle: Unexpected Outcomes When Programs Interact,’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2: 531–547.Google Scholar
  51. Lippmann, W. (1965). Public Opinion, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  52. Lukas, J. A. (1989). ‘Harvard's Kennedy School: Is Competence Enough?’ New York Times Magazine (March 12): 36f.Google Scholar
  53. March, J. G. (1982). ‘Theories of Choice and Making Decisions’. Society (November/December): 29–39.Google Scholar
  54. McCloskey, D. N. (1985). The Rhetoric of Economics, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  55. McNown, R. (1986). ‘On the Uses of Econometric Models: A Guide for Policy Makers’. Policy Sciences 19: 359–380.Google Scholar
  56. Moore, M. (1988). ‘What Sort of Ideas Become Public Ideas?’ in R. B. Reich, ed. The Power of Public Ideas, Ch. 3, pp. 55–83, Cambridge: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  57. Norgaard, R. B. and J. A. Dixon (1986). ‘Pluralistic Policy Design: An Argument for Combining Economic and Coevolutionary Methodologies,’ Policy Sciences 19: 297–317.Google Scholar
  58. Norgaard, R. B. (1987). ‘Economics as Mechanics and the Demise of Biological Diversity,’ Ecological Modelling 38: 107–121.Google Scholar
  59. Rabinow, P. and W. M. Sullivan, eds. (1979). Interpretive Social Science: A Reader, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  60. Rappaport, R. A. (1979). ‘On Cognized Models,’ in his Ecology, Meaning, and Religion, pp. 97–144, Richmond, CA: North Atlantic Books.Google Scholar
  61. Reich, R. B. (1988). ‘Introduction,’ in R. B. Reich, ed. The Power of Public Ideas, pp. 1–12, Cambridge: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  62. Ridgeway, V. F. (1956). ‘Dyfunctional Consequences of Performance Measures,’ Administrative Science Quarterly 1: 240–247.Google Scholar
  63. Rivlin, A. M. (1984). ‘A Public Policy Paradox,’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 4: 17–22.Google Scholar
  64. Roland, A. (1987). ‘Priorities in Space for the USA,’ Space Policy 3: 104–111.Google Scholar
  65. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Schneider, J. A., N. J. Stevens, and L. G. Tornatzky (1982). ‘Policy Research and Analysis: An Empirical Profile, 1975–1980,’ Policy Sciences 15: 99–114.Google Scholar
  67. Schön, D. A. (1979). Generative Metaphor: ‘A Perspective on Problem-Setting in Social Policy,’ in A. Ortony, ed. Metaphors and Thought, pp. 254–283, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  69. Simon, H. A. (1957). ‘Rationality and Administrative Decision Making,’ in Models of Man, pp. 196–206, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  70. Simon, H. A. (1981). The Sciences of the Artificial, 2nd Ed. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  71. Simon, H. A. (1983). Reason in Human Affairs. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Simon, H. A. (1985). ‘Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science,’ American Political Science Review 79: 293–304.Google Scholar
  73. Stern, P. C. (1986). ‘Blind Spots in Policy Analysis: What Economics Doesn't Say About Energy Use,’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 5 (1986): 200–227.Google Scholar
  74. Stone, I. F. (1979). ‘I. F. Stone Breaks the Socrates Story,’ New York Times Magazine (April 8, 1979): 23f.Google Scholar
  75. Sui, R. G. H. (1978). ‘Management and the Art of Chinese Baseball,’ Sloan Management Review 19: 83–89.Google Scholar
  76. Thurow, L. C. (1977). ‘Economics, 1977,’ Daedalus 106: 79–94.Google Scholar
  77. Torgerson, D. (1985). ‘Contextual Orientation in Policy Analysis: The Contribution of Harold D. Lasswell,’ Policy Sciences 18: 241–261.Google Scholar
  78. Torgerson, D. (1986). ‘Between Knowledge and Politics: Three Faces of Policy Analysis,’ Policy Sciences 19: 33–59.Google Scholar
  79. Tribe, L. H. (1972). ‘Policy Science: Analysis or Ideology?’ Philosophy and Public Affairs 2: 66–110.Google Scholar
  80. Vernon, R. (1985). ‘Swan Song,’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 4: 573–578.Google Scholar
  81. Vickers, G. (1987). Policymaking, Communication, and Social Learning. G. B. Adams, J. Forester, and B. L. Catron, eds. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
  82. von Wright, G. H. (1971). Explanation and Understanding, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Weber, M. (1949). Max Weber on the Methodology of the Social Sciences, ed. and trans. by E. A. Shils and H. A. Finch, Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald D. Brunner
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Public Policy Research, University of ColoradoBoulderU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations