Knowledge and Policy

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 40–60 | Cite as

Coping with intractable controversies: The case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis

  • Matthijs Hisschemöller
  • Rob Hoppe
Article

Abstract

Intractable controversies and other types of policy disagreements correspond to policy problems with a different structure. The more structured a problem is, the more consensus there is about which values and information are at stake in the process of problem solving. Policymakers like to treat problems in as structured a way as possible. Three policy strategies are described to move away from the unstructured to the more structured problem type. However, policymakers run the risk of oversimplifying an ill-structured problem, which means that elements of the problem situation relevant to other actors are overlooked or denied. Hence, policy controversies may become intractable. The remedy is a fourth strategy, characterised by problem structuring. This strategy requires political participation of actors with different views on the problem, and an argued political problem choice.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackoff, R.L. (1974).Redesigning the future. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, Ch.W. (1987). Political philosophy, practical reason, and policy analysis. In: F. Fischer and J. Forester (Eds.),Confronting values in policy analysis: The politics of criteria. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Arendt, H. (1968).Between past and future: Eight exercises in political thought. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  4. Bachrach, P. and M.S. Baratz (1970).Power and poverty: Theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bacon, L.S. and Milkey, J.R. (1982). Overcoming local opposition to hazardous waste facilities; the Massachusetts approach.Harvard Environmental Law Review 6: 265–305.Google Scholar
  6. Beck, U. (1992).Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Caplan, N., A. Morrison, and Stambaugh, R.J. (1975).The use of social science knowledge in policy decisions at the national level: A report to respondents. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  8. Cobb, R.W. and Elder, C.D. (1983).Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda building. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dahl, R.A. (1985).Nuclear weapons: Democracy versus guardianship. Syracuse: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dery, D. (1984).Problem definition in policy analysis. Lawrence: Kansas University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Diesing, P. (1962).Reason in society: Five types of decisions and their social conditions. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  12. Douglas, M., and Wildavsky, A. (1982).Risk and culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dryzek, J.S. (1990).Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dunn, W.N. (1981).Public policy analysis. An introduction. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  15. Dunn, W.N. (1988). Methods of the second type: Coping with the wilderness of conventional policy analysis.Policy Studies Review 7: 720–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer, F. (1980).Politics, values, and public policy. The problem of methodology. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fischer, F. (1990).Technocracy and the politics of expertise. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Fischer, F. (1995).Evaluating public policy. Chicago: Nelson Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Hawkesworth, M.E. (1988).Theoretical issues in policy analysis. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hisschemöller, M. and Midden, C.J.H. (1989). Technological risk, policy theories and public perception in connection with the siting of hazardous facilities. In: C. Vlek and G. Cvetkovich (Eds.),Social decision methodology for technological projects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  21. Hisschemöller, M. (1993).De Democratie van Problemen. De Relatie Tusen de Inhoud van Beleidsproblemen en Methoden van Politieke Besluitvorming. Amsterdam: Free University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hodgkinson, C. (1978).Towards a philosophy of administration. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Hogwood B.W. and Gunn, L.A. (1986).Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hoppe, R. (1989).Het Beleidsprobleem Geproblematiseerd: Over Beleid Ontwerpen en Probleemvorming. Muiderberg: Coutinho.Google Scholar
  25. Hoppe, R. and A. Peterse (1993).Handling frozen fire: Political culture and risk management. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kimball, A.W. (1957). Errors of the third kind in statistical consulting.Journal of the American Statistical Association 52: 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lasswell, H.D. (1951). The policy orientation. In: D. Lerner and H.D. Lasswell (Eds.),The policy sciences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lijphart, A. (1968).The politics of accommodation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lindblom, C.E. and D.K. Cohen (1979).Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lowi, Th. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics and choice.Public Administration Review 32: 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MacRae, D. (1976).The social function of social science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mason, R.O. and I.I. Mitroff (1981).Challenging strategic planning assumptions. Theory, cases, and techniques. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Meer, M, van der (1995). Mest, Natuur en het Ministerie van Landbouw. Een Politicologische Analyse van het Beleid met Behulp van de Theorie van M. Hisschemöller. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  34. Mitroff, I.I., R.O. Mason and V.P. Barabba (1983).The 1980 census: Policy-making amid turbulence. Lexington: HeathGoogle Scholar
  35. Myrdal, G. (1944).An American dilemma. The negro problem and modern democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  36. Olson, M. (1971).The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  37. Paris, D.C., and J.F. Reynolds (1983).The logic of policy inquiry. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  38. Piller, C. (1991).The fail-safe society: Community defiance and the end of American technological optimism. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  39. Portney, K.E. (1985). The potential of the theory of compensation for mitigating public opposition to hazardous waste treatment facility siting: Some evidence from five Massachusetts’ communities.Policy Studies Journal 14: 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Raiffa, H. (1968).Decision analysis: Introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. Reading: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  41. Rittel, H.W.J. and M.M. Webber (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning.Policy Sciences 4: 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roe, E. (1990).Narrative policy analysis. Theory and procedure. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Sabatier, P. and H.C. Jenkins-Smith (Eds.) (1993).Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  44. Schattschneider, E.E. (1960).The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  45. Schmitter, P.C. (1979). Still the century of corporatism? In: P.C. Schmitter and G. Lehmbruch (Eds.),Trends Towards Corporatist Intermediation. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Schön, D. and M. Rein (1994).Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  47. Simon, H.A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems.Artificial Intelligence 4: 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stone, D.A. (1988).Policy paradox and political reason. Chicago: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
  49. Thompson, J.D. and A. Tuden (1959). Strategies, structures and processes of organizational decision. In: J.D. Thompson et al. (Eds.),Comparative Studies in Administration. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  50. Weiss, C.H. (1980). Knowledge creep and decision accretion.Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 1: 381–404.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Transaction Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthijs Hisschemöller
    • 1
  • Rob Hoppe
    • 2
  1. 1.the Institute for Environmental Studies of the Free UniversityAmsterdam
  2. 2.the University at AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations