University centers for the study of public policy: Organizational viability

The central problems of creating and maintaining a university center for the study of public policy stem from the inherently interdisciplinary nature of the policy design process and the tensions in academic circles between pure and applied research.The nature and costs of interdisciplinary communication are such that the unguided, steady state for the organization is a series of disciplinary groups roughly similar to the disciplinary structure of the larger, academic environment. Internal policies and practices designed to maintain interdisciplinary as opposed to disciplinary communications structures are discussed in some detail.Problems caused by the relationship between pure and applied research usually stem from a failure to understand their necessary and mutually-reinforcing connections.The inherently interdisciplinary nature of public policy and the largely disciplinary supply of possible faculty and staff means that, regardless of the internal structure of the particular university the policy unit is located in, the unit is forced to simultaneously maintain a set of relationships with the various disciplines both within and without the university. It is argued that the nature of these external (to the policy unit) interdependencies are the key to the long run viability of the policy unit. The theoretical effects of varying degrees of autonomy for the unit with respect to budget, faculty appointments, and curriculum on viability are examined. Finally, the key role of students in stimulating a meaningful and lasting interdisciplinary dialog among the faculty is discussed.A paper such as this represents a combination of the author's personal experience and background in organization theory. I have been extremely fortunate in having been associated with three excellent, interdisciplinary institutions: Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie-Mellon University; the Rand Corporation; and the Institute of Public Policy Studies, the University of Michigan. My teachers and colleagues will recognize many of their ideas in this paper. Also reflected are continuing discussions on this topic with Graham Allison, Otto Davis, John Jackson, James March, Richard Neustadt, Herbert Simon, Aaron Wildavsky, and Sidney Winter among others. Peter Bouxsein and Jack Walker provided insightful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Any lack of perspective is the author's unique contribution. Partially developed analysis in this paper illustrates (unintentionally) the arguments in the last paragraph of section C.1.