Valuing Public Participation in Policy Making

Books reviewed:
Richard Stuart Olson, Robert A. Olson, and Vincent T. Gawronski, Some Buildings Just Can't Dance: Politics, Life Safety, and Disaster
Louise K. Comfort, Shared Risk: Complex Systems in Seismic Response
Gregory E. McAvoy, Controlling Technocracy: Citizen Rationality and the NIMBY Syndrome     

Civic Engagement and Public Policy Making in America

Larry N. Gerston, Public Policymaking in a Democratic Society: A Guide to Civic Engagement
Thomas A. Birkland, An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making
Mark E. Rushefsky, Public Policy in the United States: At the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century     

Policy Target Populations and Public Participation in Agency Decision Making

Why are some government agencies more open to public input than others? Although many agree about the normative desirability of involving citizens in administrative decision making, there is significant variation across agencies in the extent of public participation. This article investigates the conditions under which public managers solicit greater public participation. We argue that, in addition to normative rationales, participation also serves instrumental considerations related to agency constituency. We draw on a rich body of literature examining participation in the policy process to develop empirically testable hypotheses about the patterns of participation in the administrative decision making of public agencies. Using data on the approaches to gathering citizen input in the budget process at four state departments—environmental protection, transportation, child protective services, and corrections—we find that the characteristics of target populations (namely, their political power and social construction) are strong predictors of an agency's openness to the public.     

对公共政策制定的政治哲学思考

公共政策制定是社会政治生活中公共决策系统的经常性活动。在现代社会,由于公共政策的巨大作用和影响,公共政策制定问题引起了广泛的关注。从政治哲学的角度审视,以公意为价值取向、以政治权力为基本依托,以政治秩序为最终归宿,才能建立起人民期待的合理、公正、有效的公共政策,从而进一步推进决策的科学化、民主化。     

浅谈公共政策制定中的公民参与

公民参与是公共政策制定过程中不可或缺的重要环节,是确保社会价值公平分配的重要途径。目前,我国公民参与公共政策的程度还比较低,一些问题还比较突出。本文通过对公共政策制定中公民参与的发展与现状的分析和研究,在此基础上找出了公共政策制定中的公民参与存在的问题,并为之完善提出积极地建议。     

Havel versus Klaus: Public Policy Making in the Czech Republic

In Central and Eastern Europe, we can observe and analyze an ongoing social experiment euphemized as the process of the transformation of totalitarian countries with centrally planned economies into democratic countries with market economies. This article offers an analysis of what has been happening in the Czech Republic in this regard. Attention is given to the impact of political philosophies (those represented by names of Václav Havel and Václav Klaus) upon legal and institutional changes. Key terms for better understanding of these processes are the free market, civil society, civic sector, and participation of citizens in public affairs. Channels, developmental threats, and opportunities for public policy formation and implementation are studied as well.     

In Modernism's Wake: Public Administration and Policy in the 21st Century

Hugh T. Miller, Postmodern Public Policy
Goktug Morcol, A New Mind for Policy Analysis: Toward a Post-Newtonian and Postpositivist Epistemology and Methodology
Michael W. Spicer, Public Administration and the State: A Postmodern Perspective     

反事实分析与公共政策制定——以“自行车难题”为例

本文尝试将反事实分析法引入公共政策制定,用于预先评估某项公共政策可能引发的预期效果和非意愿后果。选取城市治理中的"自行车难题"为案例,探讨反事实分析法在公共政策制定过程中的适用范围、应用方法和分析过程。现有研究认为,惩罚成本过低是导致"自行车难题"的主因,因而提高惩罚的治理政策就能解决"自行车难题"。本文采用犯罪经济学的分析框架,通过反事实分析,系统地考察惩罚严厉的治理政策的社会效果,得出与之相反的结论:惩罚严厉的治理政策仅考虑了单一的盗窃成本与收益,但实际上犯罪者的行为选择受各种社会条件制约,严厉的惩罚政策不但不能解决治理问题,并有可能导致社会治安恶化的非意愿后果。单一政策目标和复杂社会系统之间的矛盾是中国公共治理中广泛存在的问题,而在政策制定中引入反事实分析则是避免这一困境的有效途径。     

制定公共政策过程的科学化与民主化的内在联系

本文对制定公共过程的科学化民主化的内在联系进行了论证 :一是科学化与民主化相互联系 ,密不可分 ;二是民主化是决策科学化的前提和保证 ,科学化是决策民主化的目的和归宿 ;三是决策民主化与科学化必须相辅助相成。     

Policy Consulting and Public Policy

The changing nature of governance in Australia over the last two decades has given rise to a broad range of new strategies to review the development and delivery of government policies and programs. Key factors affecting the relationship between citizens and the state have been the deregulation and liberalisation of the Australian economy, with its focus on the market for the delivery of services, once the exclusive domain of public sector organisations. The increased use of consultants over this period is an example of governments going to the market for professional services. Effective policy development and review by consultants requires that they be well versed both in the substantive issues surrounding the policy field as well as in the process required to properly frame and evaluate these issues.     

Behavioral Public Administration: Combining Insights from Public Administration and Psychology

Behavioral public administration is the analysis of public administration from the micro‐level perspective of individual behavior and attitudes by drawing on insights from psychology on the behavior of individuals and groups. The authors discuss how scholars in public administration currently draw on theories and methods from psychology and related fields and point to research in public administration that could benefit from further integration. An analysis of public administration topics through a psychological lens can be useful to confirm, add nuance to, or extend classical public administration theories. As such, behavioral public administration complements traditional public administration. Furthermore, it could be a two‐way street for psychologists who want to test the external validity of their theories in a political‐administrative setting. Finally, four principles are proposed to narrow the gap between public administration and psychology.     

公共政策的合法性:基于制定程序的视角

公共政策的制定程序为政策主体设置了决策步骤与职业规范,为政策实体提供了技术支撑与制度保障。立足合法性的基本含义,程序的合法性首先体现为程序之于实体合法性的基础与保障功能。其次,合法性赋予公众价值主体与评判主体的地位,要求政策程序遵循科学性、民主性的价值标准,以实现公众的权利诉求。再次,政策的技术与制度程序在各自层面遵循科学性、民主性的标准,也对程序乃至实体的合法性产生积极影响。     

Reputation and Public Administration

This article examines the application of organizational reputation to public administration. Organizational reputation is defined as a set of beliefs about an organization’s capacities, intentions, history, and mission that are embedded in a network of multiple audiences. The authors assert that the way in which organizational reputations are formed and subsequently cultivated is fundamental to understanding the role of public administration in a democracy. A review of the basic assumptions and empirical work on organizational reputation in the public sector identifies a series of stylized facts that extends our understanding of the functioning of public agencies. In particular, the authors examine the relationship between organizational reputation and bureaucratic autonomy.