Policy Objectives and the Functions of Transport Systems

Chapter
Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 9)

Abstract

The general purpose of this chapter is to identify lessons learned from policy objectives and to relate these lessons to key areas from modern philosophical literature. This chapter more specifically focuses on the Swedish transport policy objectives, which provide unusually clear illustrations of the problems involved in managing large and complex policy areas. The analysis aspires to highlight these problems. The Swedish transport policy objectives can be compared with international transport policy objectives as well as with objectives from other policy areas, suggesting that this specific case has certain features of general interest.

Keywords

Goal Setting Policy Objective Road Safety Policy Area Transport Policy 
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.

References

  1. Amara, R.C. 1972. Toward a framework for national goals and policy research. Policy Sciences 3: 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avelino, F. 2009. Empowerment and the challenge of applying transition management to ongoing projects. Policy Sciences 42: 369–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brundtland Commission (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cingranelli, D.L., R.I. Hofferbert, and E.A. Ziegenhagen. 1980. Goal evolution through implementation: The problem for policy evaluation. Policy Studies Journal 8(7): 1229–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dixon, J., and R. Dogan. 2004. The conduct of policy analysis: Philosophical points of reference. Review of Policy Research 21(4): 559–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dye, T.R. 2008. Understanding public policy, 12th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Edvardsson, K., and S.O. Hansson. 2003. When is a goal rational? Social Choice and Welfare 24(2): 343–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elvik, R. 1999. Can injury prevention efforts go too far? Reflections on some possible implications of Vision Zero for road accident fatalities. Accident Analysis and Prevention 31(3): 265–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Johansson, R. 2009. Vision Zero – Implementing a policy for traffic safety. Safety Science 47: 826–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kern, F., and M. Howlett. 2009. Implementing transition management as policy reforms: A case study of the Dutch energy sector. Policy Sciences 42: 391–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kuruvilla, S., and P. Dorstewitz. 2010. There is no ‘point’ in decision-making: A model of transactive rationality for public policy and administration. Policy Sciences. 43(3): 263–287. Available at www.springerlink.com/content/gp23hw6754p10511
  12. Larsson, P., S.W.A. Dekker, and C. Tingvall. 2010. The need for a systems theory approach to road safety. Safety Science 48: 1167–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nagel, S.S. 1984. A bibliography on goals, means, and methods in public policy analysis. Policy Studies Journal 12(4): 777–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Parsons, W. 1995. Public policy: An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  15. Pinch, T.J., and W.E. Bijker. 1987. The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In The social construction of technological systems, ed. W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes, and T.J. Pinch, 17–50. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Rawson, G.E. 1980. Organizational goals and their impact on the policy implementation process. Policy Studies Journal 8(7): 1109–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rosencrantz, H. 2008. Properties of goal systems: Consistency, conflict, and coherence. Studia Logica 82: 1–22.Google Scholar
  18. Rosencrantz, H. 2009. Goal-setting and the logic of transport policy decisions. Royal Institute of Technology, PhD thesis, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  19. Rosencrantz, H., K. Edvardsson, and S.O. Hansson. 2007. Vision Zero – Is it irrational? Transportation research part A: Policy and practice 41: 559–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sabatier, P.A. (ed.). 1999. Theories of the policy process. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  21. Said, K.E. 1974. A policy-selection/goal-formulation model for public systems. Policy Sciences 5: 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tudela, A., N. Akiki, and R. Cisternas. 2006. Comparing the output cost benefit and multi-criteria analysis – An application to urban transport investments. Transportation Research Part A 40: 414–423.Google Scholar
  23. Voβ, J.-P., A. Smith, and J. Grin. 2009. Designing long-term policy: Rethinking transition management. Policy Sciences 42: 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations