Policy Sciences

, Volume 37, Issue 3–4, pp 209–225 | Cite as

What future for the policy sciences?

  • Roger A. PielkeJr.


The term “policy sciences” refers both to a distinctive tradition within the policy movement and to the broader policy movement itself. While the generic use of this term is sure to persist, the community of policy scientists trained in the tradition founded by Harold Lasswell and Myres S. McDougal faces challenges to its sustainability as a distinctive tradition of the policy movement. To motivate open discussion and debate, this essay follows the logic of a problem-oriented analysis, and also includes personal reflections and anecdote, with the following objectives: It suggests that the policy sciences tradition faces challenges to its sustainability because of the simple arithmetic of generational turnover in university faculty. It explores six factors internal and external to the policy sciences community militating against sustainability. The essay then critiques three different roles the policy scientist might play in contemporary academia, and concludes with a discussion of alternatives that might enhance the sustainability of the policy sciences tradition, should sustainability indeed be a desired outcome.


Science Community Economic Policy Policy Science Open Discussion Simple Arithmetic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Almond, G. (1990). A Discipline Divided: Schools and Sects in Political Science. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Ascher, W. and R. D. Brunner (1995). ‘Society for the Policy Sciences,’ published online at
  3. Ascher, W. and B. Hirschfelder-Ascher (2004). ‘Linking Lasswell's political psychology and the policy sciences,’ Policy Sciences 37: 23–36.Google Scholar
  4. Ayala, F. J. (1996). ‘The candle and the darkness,’ Science 273: 442.Google Scholar
  5. Brady, D. W. (1993). ‘The causes and consequences of divided government: Toward a new theory of American politics?,’ American Political Science Review 87: 189–194.Google Scholar
  6. Brunner, R. D. (1991). ‘The policy movement as a policy problem,’ Policy Sciences 24: 65–98.Google Scholar
  7. Brunner, R. D. (1996). ‘A milestone in the policy sciences,’ Policy Sciences 29: 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brunner, R. D. (1997). ‘Teaching the policy sciences: Reflections on a graduate seminar,’ Policy Sciences 30: 217–231.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, T. W. (2002). The Policy Process: A Practical Guide for Natural Resource Professionals. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, I. B. (1994). Interactions: Some Contacts Between the Natural Sciences and the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Daniels, G. H. (1967). ‘The pure-science ideal and democratic culture,’ Science 156: 1699–1705.Google Scholar
  12. deLeon, P. and K. Kaufmanis (2001). ‘Public policy theory: Will it play in Peoria?,’ Policy Currents 10(4): 9.Google Scholar
  13. deLeon, P. and T. Steelman (1999). ‘Making public policy programs effective and relevant: The role of the policy sciences,’ Journal of Public Policy Analysis and Management 20: 163–171.Google Scholar
  14. Falk, R. A. (1995). ‘Casting the spell: The New Haven School of international law,’ Yale Law Journal 104: 1991–2008.Google Scholar
  15. Fischer, F. (1998). ‘Beyond empiricism: Policy inquiry in post-positivist perspective,’ Policy Studies Journal 26: 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing Public Policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hill, K. Q. (1997). ‘In search of policy theory,’ Policy Currents 7(1): 1–9.Google Scholar
  19. Ingram, H. and S. R. Smith (1998). ‘Institutions and policies for democracy: A discussion paper and comments,’ Policy Currents 8(1): 1–13.Google Scholar
  20. James, W. ([1907] 1963). Pragmatism and Other Essays. New York: Washington Square Press.Google Scholar
  21. Karl, B. D. (1974). Charles E. Merriam and the Study of Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lasswell, H. D. (1956). The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis. College Park: Bureau of Governmental Research, College of Business and Public Administration, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  23. Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
  24. Lasswell, H. D. and A. Kaplan (1950). Power and Society: A Framework for Political Inquiry. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lasswell, H. D. and M. S. McDougal (1992). Jurisprudence for a Free Society: Studies in Law, Science and Policy, 2 Vols. New Haven, CT: New Haven Press; Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  26. Lerner, D. and H. D. Lasswell, eds. (1951). The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method. Standford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. MacEachren, A. M. (1995). How Maps Work: Representation, Visualization, and Design. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  28. McDougal, M. S. (1979). ‘Harold Dwight Lasswell, 1902–1978,’ Yale Law Journal 88: 675–679.Google Scholar
  29. Ostrom, E. (1999). ‘Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development,’ in Paul Sabatier, ed., Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 35–71.Google Scholar
  30. Pielke, R. A. (2002). ‘Policy, politics, and perspective,’ Nature 416: 368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ross, D. (1991). The Origins of American Social Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Sabatier, P. A. (1991). ‘Political science and public policy,’ Political Science and Politics 24: 144–147.Google Scholar
  33. Sabatier, P. A., ed. (1999). Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  34. Sarewitz, D. and R. A. Pielke, Jr. (1999). ‘Prediction in science and policy,’ Technology in Society 21: 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sarewitz, D., R. A. Pielke, Jr. and R. Byerly (2000). Prediction: Science, Decision Making, and the Future of Nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  36. Schlager, E. (1999). ‘A comparison of frameworks, theories, and models of policy processes,’ in Paul Sabatier, ed., Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 233–260.Google Scholar
  37. Schön, D. A. and M. Rein (1994). Frame Reflection. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  38. Science (1883). ‘The Future of American Science,’ Science 1(1): 1–3.Google Scholar
  39. Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Seidelman, R. and E. J. Harpham (1985). Disenchanted Realists: Political Science and the American Crisis, 1884–1984. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  41. Stokes, D. (1998). Pasteur's Quadrant. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  42. University of Maryland, Baltimore County (2002). ‘Policy Sciences Graduate Program,’ May 24,
  43. Wallace, R. (2003). ‘Review of The Policy Process, by Tim W. Clark, and The Foundations of Natural Resource Policy and Management, eds. Tim W. Clark, Andrew R. Willard, and Christina M. Cromley,’ Policy Sciences 36: 343–348.Google Scholar
  44. Weinberg, A. M. (1970). ‘The axiology of science: The urgent question of scientific priorities has helped to promote a growing concern with value in science,’ American Scientist 58: 612–617.Google Scholar
  45. Weinberg, A. M. (1992). Nuclear Reactions: Science and Trans-science. New York: American Institute of Physics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CIRES Center for Science and Technology Policy ResearchUniversity of ColoradoBoulderU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations