Estimates and public policy: The politics of numbers

Abstract

Estimates of the number of homeless persons in the United States are frequently said to range from 250,000 to three million. In fact, the latter number is an invalid guesstimate that developed staying power for political reasons. National estimates of homeless persons based on explainable methodologies actually range from 230,000 to 736,000, with the most likely estimates around the half‐million mark. Despite the confrontational politics surrounding the numbers issue in the 1980s, a consensus is developing in the 1990s among private groups, including some major advocacy organizations, and all levels of government regarding policy direction in assistance programs for the homeless. There is widespread recognition that the goal should be to end homelessness, not simply to provide emergency assistance. Permanent housing solutions for special populations are needed in the context of renewed efforts to combat poverty.

In the public debate about the policy implications of divergent national estimates of the numbers of homeless persons, a common assumption is that the estimates vary widely and inexplicably—anywhere from a few hundred thousand to three million or more. Those who do try to explain the odd discrepancy between the extremes seem to assume that any count is politically motivated. They say that it depends on how one defines homelessness and who is counting. In other words, the implication is that numbers derive from policy and politics, rather than the other way around.

Given such perceptions, it is not surprising that some who have neither the time nor, perhaps, the resources to judge the accuracy of estimates begin to feel that the truth must be somewhere in between, as if a mathematical average were equivalent to a political compromise. Others will believe the message if they like the messenger. In a recent book on homelessness, for example, the author confesses that he trusts estimates “made by people who live where ‘the rubber meets the road’… rather more than the bright theorists tucked away in ivory towers.”¹ Although many statistics are politically controversial, it is probably safe to say that the debate on homelessness during the past decade represents the apogee of political numerology. It is worth reviewing just how this came to pass.     

政策网络:公共政策创新的视角

引入政策网络分析的方法可以真实地认识到公共政策创新过程中的现实图景.我国某些公共政策创新失败的原因正是其忽略了政策网络的存在,忽略了政府对政策网络中个人和组织的依赖属性.我们应当重视政策网络在政策创新过程中的作用,通过培育网络主体的公共理性.构建协商民主与政策网络的良性互动,加强政策网络的学习机制等,从而形成合理、优良的创新政策,保证公共政策创新对社会的持续作用.     

公共政策冲突:内涵、表现及其效应分析

公共政策是政府行政机关为实现一定的目标而确定的行动方案与行为准则,公共政策冲突就是公共政策系统内部各种政策之间以及政策的各种要素之间所发生的对立、抵触、矛盾现象.公共政策冲突的本质是政策主体之间的利益冲突.公共政策冲突的表现形式多种多样,当前中国公共政策冲突具有普遍性,既具有正面的效应,也具有负面的影响.但最主要的是负面影响.     

试论公共政策公共性提升之道

公共性是公共政策的本质属性 ,本文就公共政策的公共性作出了一些具体的阐述和分析 ,其中包括公共政策公共性的涵义 ,也就是公有性、公治性和公享性三方面的内容 ;公共政策公共性的具体表现内容 ,也就是公共政策主体、价值观、手段和对象的公共性。此外 ,本文利用公共选择理论对公共政策的非公共化进行了阐释 ,并提出了增强公共政策公共性的一系列政策     

A new environment for public policy: Japanese manufacturing in Europe

During the late 1950s and early 1960s the growth of foreign direct investment, mainly by American firms, emerged as a political issue in Europe, and policies were devised to maximise the benefits and minimise the disadvantages which resulted from this process. Later, Japanese companies, with a vested interest in retaining markets in Europe and consolidating productive advantages worldwide became increasingly influential as a source of inward investment in manufacturing. As a consequence of this later trend the European Commission and individual countries in Europe have become increasingly concerned with the range of multilateral and bilateral issues which emerge from this development, its influence upon the formulation of industrial policy, and the wider issue of competitiveness.     

On credit and blame: disentangling the motivations of public policy decision-making behaviour

While the idea that policy-makers are motivated by the desire to earn “credit” for their work has a long history, policy studies since Weaver (J Public Policy 6(4):371–398, 1986) have also used the concept of “blame” to help understand these often observed but little studied aspect of policy decision-making activity. Observed credit- and blame-related activities range from the agenda-denial behaviour of politicians to the use of policy evaluations to paint overly positive pictures of the effectiveness of policy efforts. Despite their frequent invocation by analysts, however, the status of “blame” and “credit” and their component parts is not well understood and different uses and conceptions of the term abound in the policy literature. This article addresses three issues surrounding the concepts which require clarification: first, the relationship between “blame” and “credit” as motivators of policy agents and activities; second, the related but not synonymous behavioural notions of “blame avoidance” and “credit claiming” and their relationship to more primordial ideas of “blame” and “credit”; and third, the notions of “reactive” versus “anticipatory” blame avoidance and credit claiming. The article develops a framework to help move the discussion of these three issues and of the basic concept forward. It argues that blame especially should be studied more widely from the view of the public as well as that of the public official, and that both concepts should be analysed as part of the larger issue of the legitimation of public actions, rather than, as is often the case, solely as an aspect of the utilitarian calculations and risk management activities of politicians and officials.     

对公共政策制定过程中信息管理的思考

本文首先从系统论角度探讨了公共政策制定过程中信息和对信息进行管理的重要性,进而分析了信息和信息管理的内涵以及公共政策系统中信息管理的原则。最后,本文从信息论的一般信息传播模型的分析入手,指出了公共政策系统信息管理应该从信源、信道和信宿方面注意的问题。     

Transnational policy influence and the politics of legitimation

Many domains of transnational policy are now governed through dynamic, multilevel governance processes, encompassing transnational, national, and subnational scales. In such settings, both membership of policy communities and distributions of authority within them become more fluid and openly contested—increasing the importance of the politics of legitimation as a basis for distributing influence over policy processes and outcomes. Drawing on insights from theories of organizational and institutional legitimation, this article theorizes three distinctive strategies of policy influence exercised by transnational actors in multilevel governance settings, through which strategic efforts to legitimize transnational actors and forums are deployed as means of transnational policy influence. The three strategies involve: transnational field building, localized network building, and role adaptation. The effects of these influencing strategies on policy processes and outcomes are illustrated with reference to the case of Indonesian land governance, in which highly dynamic, contested, and multiscalar governance processes lend our theorized strategies particular salience.     

On religion and public policy: Does Catholicism make a difference?

Abstract. This paper suggests that differences in religious adherence and/or in degrees of secularization between advanced nations may be as relevant to understanding cross-national variance in a wide range of public policy outcomes as the impact of socio-economic and political factors. The prima facie evidence for such a thesis is demonstrated in areas as diverse as welfare expenditure, family policy and labour market policy outcomes, and is shown to have a particular salience wherever gender-related outcomes are at issue. On the basis of this evidence, it is suggested that, in policy outcome terms at least, it is possible to identify a distinctive Catholic family of nations consisting of a grouping of core Western European and Southern European countries.     

论中国利益群体参与公共政策制定存在的问题

处于社会转型期的中国,如何处理利益群体参政问题关乎改革开放的历史进程和社会稳定。中国的渐进式改革路径在保持社会稳定方面发挥了重要的作用,但是这种渐进式改革更多地表现在经济领域,而政治领域的改革,特别是公民参政权的落实则略显迟滞和不够。由此引起的矛盾和问题使人们产生了诸多不满和怨恨,因此探讨中国利益群体在参与公共政策制定上存在的问题,对于进一步完善中国利益群体参政的路径、提高政府的执政能力和管理创新能力,其理论价值和现实意义不言而喻。