Advertisement

Public Policy Inquiry and Simulations

  • Anand Desai
Chapter

Abstract

The methods we use to study policy issues must be able to apprehend the complexity inherent in these issues. This chapter describes some of the characteristics of policy issues that make them complex. Simulations are proposed as a class of readily available computational tools that can capture some of that complexity and can provide insights to inform policy decisions and actions.

Keywords

Policy Intervention Emergent Property Practical Wisdom Emergent Behavior Conceptual Metaphor 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgment

Comments from Jos Raadschelders, on an earlier draft of this chapter, are gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Ackerman F, Andersen DF, Eden C, Richardson GP. 2010. “Using a group decision support system to add value to group model building.” System Dynamics Review, 26, no. 4: 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackoff, R. 1974. Redesigning the Future: Systems Approach to Societal Problems New York, NY: John S. Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  3. ______. 2004. Transforming the systems movement. Available at http://www.acasa.upenn.edu/RLAConfPaper.pdf accessed on October 29, 2011.
  4. Argyris, C. and D. Schön. 1974. Theory in practice: increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Ashby, W.R. 1956. An Introduction to Cybernetics, London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Balint, P., R. Stewart, A. Desai and L.C. Walters. 2011. Wicked Environmental Problems: Managing Uncertainty and Conflict. Washington DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Becker, C.L. 1955. What are Historical Facts? The Western Political Quarterly, 8, no. 3: 327–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bedau, M.A. and P. Humphreys. 2008. Emergence: Contemporary readings in philosophy and science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Card, S.K., J.D. Mackinlay and B. Schniderman. 1999. Readings in information visualization: Using vision to think. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kauffman.Google Scholar
  11. Carwright, N., T. Shomar and M. Suarez. 1995. The tool box of science. In: Novack L (ed.) Poznan Studies in the philosophy of science. Amsterdam: RodopiGoogle Scholar
  12. Cigler, B.A. 1999. Pre-conditions for the emergence of multicommunity collaborative organizations. Review of Policy Research 16, no. 1: 86–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clayton, P. 2004. Mind & Emergence: From Quantum to Consciousness. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Coveney, P.V. and R.R. Highfield. 1995. Frontiers of Complexity. New York: Fawcett.Google Scholar
  15. Duhem, P. 1954. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Eckerd, A. 2011. Cleaning Up Without Clearing Out? A Spatial Assessment of Environmental Gentrification. Urban Affairs Review Vol. 47, no. 1: 31–59.Google Scholar
  17. Epstein, J.M. 2007. Generative Social Science: Studies in Agent-Based Computational Modeling . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fisher, F. 2003. Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Giddens, A. 2000. The Third Way and Its Critics. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  20. Gilbert, N. and R. Conte. (eds.) 1995. Artificial Societies: The Computer Simulation of Social Life. London UK: University College Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gilbert, N. and K.G Troitzsch 1999. Simulation for the Social Scientist. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gladwell, M. 2000. The Tipping Point: How little things can make a big difference. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  23. Graves, M. 2007. Peircean approaches to emergent systems in cognitive science and religion. Zygon. Vol. 42, no. 1: 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.Google Scholar
  25. Greenspan, A. 2007. The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  26. Haeckel, S.H. 1999. Adaptive enterprise: Creating and leading sense-and-respond organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  27. Holland, J.H. 1995. Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
  28. Horn, R.E. 1998. Mapping Great Debates: Can Computers Think? Bainbridge Island, WA: MacroVU, Inc.Google Scholar
  29. Kauffman, Stuart A. 1995. At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-organization and Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kim, Y., Xiao, N. 2008. FraudSim: Simulating fraud in a public delivery program. In: Liu L, Eck J. (eds.). Artificial Crime Analysis Systems: Using Computer Simulations and Geographic Information Systems (pp. 319–338). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kuhn, T. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  33. Latour, B. 1987. Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lindblom, CE. 1959. The Science of “Muddling Through”. Public Administration Review. Vol. 19, no. 2: 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Morçöl, G. 2002. A new mind for policy analysis: Toward a post-Newtonian and postpositivist epistemology and methodology. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  36. Morrison, M. and M.S. Morgan. 1999. Introduction in M.S. Morgan and M. Morrison (eds.) Models as Mediators. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Murray, T. 2006. Collaborative Knowledge Building and Integral Theory: On Perspectives, Uncertainty, and Mutual Regard. Integral Review. Vol. 2: 210–268.Google Scholar
  38. Norman, D.A. 1993. Things that make us smart: Defending human attributes in the age of the machine. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  39. Ragin, C.C. 2000. Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. Raadschelders, J.C.N. 2011. Public Administration: The Interdisciplinary Study of Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rittel, H. W. J., and M. M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences. Vol. 4: 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schelling, T. C. 1971. Dynamic Models of Segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology. Vol. 1: 143–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schmidle, N. 2011. Getting bin Laden: What happened that night in Abbottabad. The New Yorker, August 8, 2011, pp. 34–45.Google Scholar
  44. Selia, A.F., V. Ceric and P. Tadikamalla. 2003. Applied Simulation Modeling. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  45. Shields, P. 2003. The Community of Inquiry: Classical Pragmatism and Public Administration. Administration & Society. Vol. 35, no. 5: 510–538.Google Scholar
  46. Shiller, R. 2000. Irrational Exuberance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Taber C.E. and R.J. Timpone. 1996. Computational Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Toulmin, S. 1995. Foreword in R.F. Goodman and W.R. Fisher (eds.) Rethinking Knowledge Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  49. Waldrop, M.M. 1992. Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  50. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Whitehead A.N. and B. Russell. 1910–13. Principia Mathematica 3 vols. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Wilensky, U and M. Resnick, 1999. Thinking in Levels: A Dynamic Systems Approach to Making Sense of the World. Journal of Science Education and Technology. Vol. 8, no. 1. Google Scholar
  53. Zacharias, G.L., J. MacMillan and S.B. Van Hemel (eds.) 2008. Behavioral Modeling and Simulation. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.John Glenn School of Public AffairsThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations