Advertisement

Policy Sciences

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 201–223 | Cite as

Case-wise policy information systems: redefining poverty

  • Ronald D. Brunner
Article

Abstract

Problem definition and program adaptation are difficult tasks in policy analysis. In the analysis of social welfare policy, for example, there are tendencies (1) to ignore many of the factors necessary to distinguish the truly needy, resulting in the misdirection of resources; (2) to focus on individual programs, resulting in unintended consequences arising from program interactions; and (3) to overlook evolutionary changes in the target populations, resulting in obsolete programs. Conventional techniques that simplify data by variables exacerbate these and related problems of analysis. Unconventional techniques that simplify by cases might help resolve them. This paper develops the rationale for case-wise policy information systems, using the measurement and definition of poverty as an example.

Keywords

Information System Social Welfare Economic Policy Target Population Related Problem 
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.

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 122:58–62 (April), 58–61 (May).Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, K. D. (1973). “Monothetic and polythetic typologies and their relation to conceptualization, measurement and scaling.”American Sociological Review 38:18–33.Google Scholar
  3. Brewer, G. D., and Kakalik, J. S. (1979).Handicapped Children: Strategies for Improving Services. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  4. Breyer, J. M. and Trice, H. M. (1982). “The utilization process: A conceptual framework and synthesis of empirical findings.”Administrative Science Quarterly 27:591–622.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, S. R. (1980).Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q-Methodology in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brunner, R. D. (1982). “The policy sciences as science.”Policy Sciences 15:115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brunner, R. D. (1983). “Case-wise policy analysis: Another look at the burden of high energy costs.”Policy Sciences 16:97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Congressional Budget Office (1983a).Natural Gas Pricing Policies: Implications for the Federal Budget. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  9. Congressional Budget Office (1983b).Understanding Natural Gas Price Decontrol. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  10. Danziger, S. and Gottschalk, P. (1983). “The measurement of poverty: implications for antipoverty policy.”American Behavioral Scientist 26:739–756.Google Scholar
  11. Danziger, S., Haveman, R. and Plotnick, R. (1981). “How income transfer programs affect work, savings, and the income distribution: A critical review.”Journal of Economic Literature XIX:975–1028.Google Scholar
  12. Derbyshire, M. E. (1983). “The application of statistical methods in social services — a review.”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 146 (Part 2):115–149.Google Scholar
  13. Donnelly, H. (1981). “Millions of poor face losses Oct. 1 as reconciliation bill spending cuts go into effect.”Congressional Quarterly Reports (September 26), pp. 1833–1840.Google Scholar
  14. Edelman, M. (1977).Political Language: Words that Succeed and Policies that Fail. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fischhoff, B., Watson, S. R. and Hope, C. (1984). “Defining risk.”Policy Sciences 17:123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freiwald, A. (1984). “Debut of experimental poverty statistics arouses suspicions of future welfare cuts.”National Journal (August 18), pp. 1562–1565.Google Scholar
  17. Friedman, M. (1953).Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gibbons, J. H. (1983). “Technology assessment comes of age.”Environment 25:28–31.Google Scholar
  19. Gilsinan, J. F. and Volpe, L. C. (1984). “Do not cry wolf until you are sure: The manufactured crisis in evaluation research.”Policy Sciences 17:179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaplan, A. (1964).The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. San Francisco: Chandler.Google Scholar
  21. Keynes, J. M. (1921).A Treatise on Probability. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Kondratus, S. A. (1984).The Problems of Measuring Poverty. Backgrounder No. 390. Washington, D.C., The Heritage Foundation.Google Scholar
  23. Kuttner, R. (1985). “Declaring war on the war on poverty.”Manchester Guardian Weekly (April 21).Google Scholar
  24. Landau, M. (1969). “Redundancy, rationality, and the problem of duplication and overlap.”Public Administration Review XX:346–358.Google Scholar
  25. Lasswell, H. D. (1971).A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  26. Lasswell, H. D., Lerner, D. and Pool, I. deS. (1952).The Comparative Study of Symbols. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lewis, G. H. (1983). “The day care tangle: Unexpected outcomes when programs interact.”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2:531–547.Google Scholar
  28. Lippmann, W. (1965).Public Opinion. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  29. McKelvey, B. (1978). “Organizational systematics: Taxonomic lessons from biology.”Management Science 24:1428–1440.Google Scholar
  30. Medin, D. L. and Smith, E. E. (1984). “Concepts and concept formation.”Annual Review of Psychology 35:113–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mervis, C. B. and Rosch, E. (1981). “Categorization of natural objects.”Annual Review of Psychology 32:89–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moon, M. and Smolensky, E. (eds.) (1977).Improving Measures of Economic Well-Being. Institute for Review on Poverty Monograph Series. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  33. Murray, C. (1984). “The war on poverty: 1965–1980.”The Wilson Quarterly 8:94–139.Google Scholar
  34. Nisbett, R. E., Krantz, D. H., Jepson, C. and Kunda, Z. (1983). “The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning.”Psychological Review 90:339–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Phillips, L. T. and Phillips, K. B. (1984). “Research politics, and the dynamics of policy development: A case study of motor carrier regulatory reform.”Policy Sciences 17:367–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Primus, W. E. (1984). “Legislative impact of poverty statistics.” Paper presented at the Sixth Annual Review Conference, Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  37. Rein, M. (1976).Social Science and Public Policy. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  38. Rorty, R. (1979).Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Rosch, E. (1978). “Principles of categorization.” InCognition and Categorization, E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd (eds.), pp. 27–47. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  40. Rosch, E. and Mervis, C. B. (1975). “Family resemblance: Studies in the internal structure of categories.”Cognitive Psychology 7:573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosch, E., Simpson, C. and Miller, R. S. (1976). “Structural bases of typicality effects.”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2:491–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Simon, H. A. (1957). “Rationality and administrative decision making.” In hisModels of Man, pp. 196–206. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Simon, H. A. (1969).The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  44. Simon, H. A. (1973). “Applying information technology to organizational design.”Public Administration Review XXIV:268–278.Google Scholar
  45. Sneath, P. H. A. and Sokal, R. R. (1973).Numerical Taxonomy: The Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  46. Sokal, R. R. (1974). “Classification: Purposes, principles, progress, prospects,”Science 185:1115–1123.Google Scholar
  47. Strauch, R. E., “‘Squishy’ problems and quantitative methods.”Policy Sciences 6:175–184.Google Scholar
  48. Sui, R. G. H. (1978). “Management and the art of Chinese Baseball.”Sloan Management Review 19 (1978):83–89.Google Scholar
  49. Tobin, J. (1969). “Raising the incomes of the poor.” InAgenda for the Nation, K. Gordon (ed.). Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  50. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1983). “Extensional vs. intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.”Psychological Review 90:293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. US. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1984).Characteristics of the Population Below the Poverty Level: 1982. Current Population Reports, Consumer Income, Series P-60, No. 144. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  52. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1976).The Measure of Poverty: A Report to the Congress as Mandated by the Education Amendments of 1974. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  53. Weber, M. (1949).Max Weber on the Methodology of the Social Sciences. Ed. and trans. by E. A. Shils and H. A. Finch. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  54. Weiss, R. D. (1982). “Measuring the need for low-income energy assistance.” InHigh Energy Costs: Assessing the Burden, H. H. Landesberg (ed.), pp. 121–125. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  55. Wildavsky, A. (1979).Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  56. Wittgenstein, K. (1972).Philosophical Investigations. Trans. by G. E. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald D. Brunner
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Public Policy ResearchUniversity of Colorado at BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations