Policy Science as Metaphysical Madness

  • Edward C. Banfield


In the past dozen years or so, policy-oriented social science research and analysis has become a growth industry in the United States. This has occurred in response to demand created by the spate of social welfare programs initiated by the Great Society and, for the most part, continued and expanded by the later administrations. Whereas in 1965 federal agencies spent about $235 million on applied social science research, in 1975 they spent almost $1 billion. Of the approximately $7.4 billion spent in these eleven years about two-thirds was under contract.1 This brought into being several large independent research bodies, some quasi-public and others private, and it greatly increased the amount of university-based policy-oriented social research and the supply of social scientists. According to the 1970 census, the number of social scientists increased by 163 percent in the 1960s, an increase larger than that of any other major occupational group nearlythree times that of professional and technical workers as a whole.


Policy Analysis Social Science Research Policy Science Policy Analyst Executive Branch 
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. Bureaucrats, Policy Analysts, Statesmen: Who Leads?, ed. Robert A. Goldwin (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1980), 1–19. Copyright 1980 by The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Reprinted by permission.Google Scholar
  2. Alton Frye, “Congressional Politics and Policy Analysis: Bridging the Gap,”Policy Analysis 2 (Spring 1976): 276.Google Scholar
  3. Barry D. Karl, “Presidential Planning and Social Science Research: Mr. Hoover’s Experts,”Perspectives in American History, vol. 3 (Cambridge, Mass.: Charles Warren Center for Studies in American History, Harvard University, 1969), 350.Google Scholar
  4. Herbert Croly,Progressive Democracy (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1914).Google Scholar
  5. Evron M. Kirkpatrick, “Toward A More Responsible Two-Party System: Political Science, Policy Science, or Pseudo-Science?”American Political Science Review 65(4) (December 1971): 965–90.Google Scholar
  6. Robert H. Haveman, “Policy Analysis and the Congress: An Economist’s View,”Policy Analysis 2(2) (Spring 1976): 242, 249.Google Scholar
  7. Robert Dorfman, “Operations Research,”American Economic Review 50 (September 1960): 613.Google Scholar
  8. Gary D. Brewer,Politicians, Bureaucrats and the Consultant (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 165.Google Scholar
  9. Peter Rossi, “Evaluating Social Action Programs,” ed. Francis G. Caro,Readings in Evaluation Research(New York: Russell Sage, 1971), 278.Google Scholar
  10. John P. Gilbert, Richard J. Light, and Frederick Mosteller inEvaluation and Experiment: Some Critical Issues in Assessing Social Programs, eds., Carl A. Bennett and Arthur A. Lumsdaine (New York: Academic Press, 1975), 46.Google Scholar
  11. N. P. Roos, “Contrasting Social Experimentation with Retrospective Evaluation: A Health Care Perspective,”Public Policy23 (Spring 1975): 254.Google Scholar
  12. Bertrand de Jouvenal,The Art of Conjecture(New York: Basic Books, 1967), 103.Google Scholar
  13. Alain Enthoven, eds. Richard Zeckhauseret al.,Benefit-Cost and Policy Analysis: 1974(Chicago: Aldine, 1975), 464.Google Scholar
  14. David K. Cohen and Janet A. Weiss, “Social Science and Social Policy: Schools and Race,” ed. Carol H. Weiss,Using Social Research in Public Policy Making(Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Company, 1977), 67–83.Google Scholar
  15. Robert E. Lane, “The Decline of Politics and Ideology in a Knowledgeable Society,”American Sociological Review31 (October 1966): 650, 653.Google Scholar
  16. Philip J. Cook, in U.S. Department of Justice, “Punishment and Crime,” Working Paper, Economic Research Program, Office of Policy and Planning, August 1976, Opp-ERP 76–3, P. 54.Google Scholar
  17. David Seidmn, “The Politics of Policy Analysis,” Regulation 1 (July/August 1977): 35.Google Scholar
  18. James R. Schlesinger, “Systems Analysis and the Political Process,” Journal of Law and Economics 11 (October 1968): 297.Google Scholar
  19. Howard Pack and Janet Rothenberg Pack, “Urban Land Use Models: The Determinants of Adoption and Use,” Policy Sciences (March 1977): 79–101.Google Scholar
  20. Robert E. Lane, “The Decline of Politics and Ideology in a Knowledgeable Society” American Sociological Review 31 (October 1966): 650, 653.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward C. Banfield
    • 1
  1. 1.Harvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations