Policy Sciences

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 175–195

Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void

  • Maarten Hajer
Article

Abstract

How should policy analysis respond to the changing context of policy making? This article examines three aspects of policy analysis in this changing context: polity, knowledge and intervention. It argues that policy making now often takes place in an ‘institutional void’ where there are no generally accepted rules and norms according to which politics is to be conducted and policy measures are to be agreed upon. More than before, solutions for pressing problems transgress the sovereignty of specific polities. Furthermore, the role of knowledge changes as the relationship between science and society has changed: scientific expertise is now negotiated rather than simply accepted. And, with the weakening of the state, it is far less obvious that the government is the sole actor to intervene in policy making. This article calls for a reconsideration of the analysis of policy making in the light of this changing context. Based on a contextual perspective it calls for a revitalization of the commitments of Harold Lasswell toward a policy science of democracy by proposing a new ‘deliberative’ policy analysis.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackerman, B. (1992). We, the People: Foundations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Akkerman, T. (2001). ‘Urban debates and deliberative democracy,’ Acta Politica 36: 71-87.Google Scholar
  3. Albrow, M. (1996). The Global Age: State and Society BeyondModernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft. Auf demWeg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, U. (1991). Die Welt als Labor. Politik in der Risikogesellschaft. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, pp. 154-166.Google Scholar
  6. Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, U. (1999).World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  8. Beck, U. et al. (1994). Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Berman, M. (1982). All that Is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  10. Carver, T. et al. (2002). ‘Discourse analysis and political science,’ European Political Science 2 (1): 48-67.Google Scholar
  11. Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Dahrendorf, R. (1988). The Modern Social Conflict. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
  13. deLeon, P. (1994). ‘Reinventing the policy sciences: Three steps back to the future,’ Policy Sciences 27: 77-93.Google Scholar
  14. deLeon, P. (1997). Policy Sciences and Democracy. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dryzek, J. (1982). ‘Policy analysis as hermeneutic activity,’ Policy Sciences 14: 309-329.Google Scholar
  16. Dryzek, J. (1989). ‘Policy sciences of democracy,’ Polity 22: 97-118.Google Scholar
  17. Dryzek, J. (1996). Democracy in Capitalist Times: Limits, Ideals, and Struggles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dryzek, J. et al., eds. (1995). Political Science in History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Dunn,W.N. (1981). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Eade, J. (1997). Living the Global City: Globalization as Local Process. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Epstein, S. (1996). Impure Science: Aids, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. Evers, A. and H. Nowotny (1989). Uber den Umgang mit Unsicherheit. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  24. Ewald, F. (1986). L'Etat Providence. Paris: Gaullimard.Google Scholar
  25. Fischer, F. (1990). Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Fischer, F. (1998). ‘Beyond empiricism,’ Policy Studies Journal 26: 129-146.Google Scholar
  27. Fung, A. and E.O.Wright (2001). ‘Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered participatory governance,’ Politics and Society 29: 5-41.Google Scholar
  28. Funtowicz, S.O. and J.R. Ravetz (1991). ‘A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues,’ in R. Costanza, ed., Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability. NewYork: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Garfinkel, A. (1981). Forms of Explanation. Rethinking the Questions in Social Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Giddens, A. (1991). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gieryn, T. F. (1995). ‘Boundaries of science,’ in S. Jasanoff et al., eds., Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 393-443.Google Scholar
  32. Gomart, E. and M. A. Hajer (2003, forthcoming). ‘Is that politics? Searching for forms of democratic politics,’ in B. Joerges et al., eds., Looking Back, Ahead-The Year book for the Sociology of Sciences. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  33. Goodin, R. E. and H.-D. Klingemann (1996). New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Haas, P.M. (1990). Saving the Mediterranean. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hajer, M.A. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hajer, M.A. (2000). Politiek als vormgeving. Amsterdam: Vossius Pers (inaugural address).Google Scholar
  37. Hajer, M.A. (2003). ‘A frame in the fields. Policy making and the reinvention of politics,’ in M.A. Hajer and H. Wagennar, eds., Deliberative Policy Analysis. Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hajer, M.A. and H. Wagenaar, eds. (2003). Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hannerz, U. (1996). Transnational Connections. Culture, People, Places. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Harvey, D. (1989).The Conditions of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  41. Hawkesworth, M.E. (1988). Theoretical Issues in Policy Analysis. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  42. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  43. Heilbron, J. L. et al., eds. (1997). The Rise of the Social Sciences and the Formation of Modernity. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  44. Hillgartner, S. (2001). Science on Stage. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Hobsbawn, E. J. (1977). The Age of Revolution. London: Abacus.Google Scholar
  46. Holzer, B. (2001). ‘Transnational subpolitics and corporate discourse: A study of environmental protest and the Royal Dutch/Shell Group,’ Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Sociology, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  47. Innes, J. E. (1996). ‘Planning through consensus building,’ Journal of the Americam Planning Association 62: 460-472.Google Scholar
  48. Innes, J. E. and D. E. Booher (1999). ‘Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: Toward a theory of collaborative planning,’ Journal of the American Planning Association 65: 9-26.Google Scholar
  49. Innes, J. E. and D. E. Booher (2000). Public Participation in Planning. New Strategies for the 21st Century. Berkeley: University of California, Institute of Urban and Regional Development.Google Scholar
  50. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policy Makers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Joll, J. (1978). Europe since 1870. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  52. Kickert,W. J. M. et al. (1997).Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Kundera, M. (1992). ‘Les chemins dans le brouillard,’ L'Infini Hiver 1992: 42-64.Google Scholar
  54. Lane, F.C. (1979). Profits from Power: Readings in Protection Rent and Violence Controlling Enterprises. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  55. Lasswell, H.D. (1951). ‘The policy orientation,’ in H.D. Lasswell and D. Lerner, eds., The Policy Sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Lasswell, H.D. (1971). A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
  57. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Lenzer, G., ed. (1975). Auguste Comte and Positivism: The Essential Writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  59. Manin, B. (1997). The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Marks, G. et al. (1996). Governance in the European Union. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  61. Meny, Y. et al., eds. (1996). Adjusting to Europe. The Impact of the European Union on National Institutions and Policies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Putnam, R.D. (1993). Making Democracy Work. Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Rhodes, R. A.W. (1996). ‘The new governance: Governing without government,’ Political Studies 44: 652-667.Google Scholar
  64. Rhodes, R. A.W. (1997). Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity, and Accountability. Buckingham, Philadephia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Rhodes, R. A.W. (2000). ‘Governance and public administration,’ in J. Pierre, ed., Debating Governance: Authority, Steering and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Rosenau, J.N., ed. (1995). Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Schwarz, M. and M. Thompson (1990). Divided We Stand: Redefining Politics, Technology and Social Choice. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  68. 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
  69. Torgerson, D. (1985). Contextual orientation in policy analysis: The contribution of Harold D. Lasswell,’ Policy Sciences 18: 241-261.Google Scholar
  70. Torgerson, D. (1986). ‘Between knowledge and politics: Three faces of policy analysis,’ Policy Sciences 19: 33-59.Google Scholar
  71. Torgerson, D. (1992). ‘Priest and Jester in the policy sciences: Developing the focus of inquiry,’ Policy Sciences 25: 225-235.Google Scholar
  72. Tribe, L. H. (1972). ‘Policy science: Analysis or ideology?’ Philosophy and Public Affairs 2: 66-110.Google Scholar
  73. Wagenaar, H. and S.N. Cook (2003). ‘Understanding policy practices: Action, dialectic and deliberation in policy analysis,’ in M.A. Hajer and H. Wagenaar, eds., Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Wagner (2000). Theorizing Modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  75. Warren, M.E. (1999). Democracy and Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Wildavsky, A. (1979). Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  78. Williams, R. (1961). The Long Revolution. London: Chatto and Windus.Google Scholar
  79. Yanow, D. (1996). How Does a PolicyMean? Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Young, I.M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Zürn, M. (1999). Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaates. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maarten Hajer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of AmsterdamDL AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations