Cause and consequence in legislation: an introduction

Abstract. Legislation has traditionally been studied from different but usually limited perspectives. To analyse the process of law-making as an extended process including the causes as well as the consequences of legislation, the initiation as well as the implemention of legislative decisions, may contribute to a better understanding of the effects and limits of contemporary politics, to the meaning of different policy styles, and to the role of interest groups both before and after formal decision making has taken place. It may also sharpen our awareness of the basic assumptions from which participants in the political process proceed and direct our attention to changes in the prevailing patterns in political decision making and their possible consequences.     

Rational choice theory,public policy and the liberal state

Liberalism requires a high order of responsible behaviour from its citizens in order to be sustainable. Yet when the modern liberal state makes policy, it is the stereotyped economic man, driven by self-interest and influenced only by carrots and sticks, who occupies center stage. This regulatory approach to public policy can be shown theoretically to give rise to a paradox — the greater the need for regulation, the less likely, because of compliance problems, it is to succeed. It is contended that an alternative approach which explicitly focuses on a broader behavioral understanding of citizens' attitudes and motivations provides a rationale for the use of a much wider range of policy instruments than does the regulatory framework, and is also more in keeping with those values necessary to the sustainability of the liberal state.     

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.     

Graduate education in public policy

Contemporary social transformation and accelerated politicization are inducing and requiring changes in the epistemological structure and the substantive content of the social and political sciences. To accommodate to and to facilitate these changes there is here proposed an interdisciplinary program of graduate education in Public Policy which is designed (1) to aggregate the most relevant materials and usable generalizations of the sociopolitical sciences and (2) to strike a balance between viable theory and tested experience. Although the curriculum is intended to be primarily contemporaneous and futuristic, it incorporates comparative and historical as well as normative and positivistic materials and methods. A variegated and qualified body of students is expected to be recruited for the proposed program as its principal intellectual and creative component.     

Evaluation use and learning in public policy

Policy Sciences - Scientific evidence has become increasingly important for the decision-making processes in contemporary democracies. On the one hand, research dealing with...     

Demand for masters of public policy in public service

This piece was written to assist those who lead schools of public policy and administration in evaluating their pedagogies and examining their curricula. The perspectives contained in this piece reflect those of the author, who has spent the last 35 years practicing and leading public policy research and analysis in the Congressional Research Service (CRS)—the public policy agency created by the U.S. Congress for its exclusive use. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of CRS or the Congress.     

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.     

Advanced technology and public policy: Multinational weapons acquisition

This article's purpose is to examine the role of institutions in the innovation and dissemination of advanced technology in the international policy arena, focusing specifically upon multinational cooperation in the acquisition of advanced technology weapons. The analysis examines interrelationships among different national public policy processes and compares cross-nationally the role of governmental and non-governmental organizations in policy formulation. An analytic framework for comparative analysis of organizational objectives is developed and then applied to four cases of multinational cooperation. Based upon the results of this comparative analysis, the article's conclusion sets forth some observations potentially applicable to a policy aimed at furthering transatlantic cooperation in particular, and more generally, to public policy and technology.This is a revised version of a paper originally prepared for a Technology and Public Policy Workshop held under the auspices of the Technology and Policy Program at MIT on 16–17 February 1979. The sponsorship of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation is gratefully acknowledged. The author particularly wishes to thank Peter deLeon for his asistance and encouragement. The research was performed under grants from The Brookings Institution, while the author was a Fellow with the Defense Analysis Staff, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Readers should take careful note of the fact that the views expressed in this paper are those of the author alone and do not reflect official positions of the US Government or its component agencies, nor are these views necessarily shared by The Brookings Institution or the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.     

公共政策的价值原则体系之建构

公共政策的价值原则体系,实际上是由公共政策的公正价值原则为基础的人道主义、规范和和谐等价值原则所构成的。公共政策的价值原则体系在社会公共领域里对公共政策制定和实施起着哲学上指导作用,并在各自所规范的公共政策领域发挥着重要规范和协调等作用,最终促使社会和谐。     

发展中的政策过程理论——我国政策过程理论发展回顾与展望

政策科学在我国90年代才真正开始兴起,而政策过程理论方面的研究则更加滞后。政策过程理论作为一种中层理论或称为中观理论在整个政策科学中占有着重要地位。这要求我们应重视其理论的引介、探索和建构。在这个过程中,我们既要介绍和借鉴国外政策过程理论,又要更加注重梳理和总结国内主要的政策过程及其理论方面研究的文献成果,从中获得发展我国本土化的政策过程理论的启迪、思路和脉络,从而更好地把握我国政策过程理论的发展趋势和走向。     

Systems theory and policy practice: An exploration

Systems approaches in policy analysis have had a chequered history. Expectations that hard (quantitative) systems analysis would lead to better answers to policy problems have largely been disappointed. Yet systems theory has itself moved on, to embrace the concept of autopoiesis and a variety of soft systems methodologies. Collectively, these theories offer a way of analysing policy quite distinct from the institutionalist approaches which tend to dominate the theory and practice of policy-making. Rather than selecting instruments to fit a particular kind of policy problem (the conventional approach to policy design) systems analysis suggests that the nature of the problem cannot be understood separately from its solution. For policy problems characterised by complexity (such as those concerned with environmental management and regulation, and urban re-development) using systems concepts offers a way of rationalising aspects of existing practice and of suggesting directions for improvement.