Intellectualizing about the moon-ghetto metaphor: A study of the current malaise of rational analysis of social problems

The title refers to the widely held view that advanced western societies (particularly the United States) have been vastly more successful in meeting certain kinds of objectives, than others, and that rectifying this imbalance is a high priority social objective. The paper is concerned with three intellectual traditions that have purported to explain the reasons for the problem, and to provide guidance for helping with the lot of the ghetto. One of these traditions views the problems in terms of inadequate policy machinery, and the resolution in terms of better analysis feeding into the policymaking process. A second views the problem in terms of organizational structure, and searches for a solution in terms of institutional reform or redesign. Still a third tradition sees the problem as stemming from the past allocation of scientific and technical talent, and proposes a solution in terms of a significant reallocation of research and development activity. It is apparent that these traditions of analysis, neither separately nor together, have been very successful in resolving social problems. The purpose of the essay is, through examination of the intellectual traditions and their interaction with the policymaking process, to try to illuminate the nature of their weaknesses and, if possible, to see what lessons can be learned regarding how to make analysis more useful, and map out some potentially fruitful directions for intellectual exploration.The author is indebted to Graham Allison, Harvey Brooks, John Patrick Crecine, Lee Friedman, A. O. Hirschman, C. E. Lindblom, Keith Pavitt, Kenneth Warner, and Douglas Yates for helpful criticism and encouragement. The debt I owe to these intellectual colleagues goes far beyond their reactions to this paper. Many of my better ideas have been lifted from them. I could list here a number of other important influences but in a paper of this sort the author is faced with a Hobson's choice regarding footnote acknowledgements. On the one hand he could footnote all of the obvious sources and influences on particular points, in which case the footnotes would take up more space than the text. Or he can be parsimonious and be accused of stealing, without acknowledgement, other people's ideas. With apologies, and misgivings, I have opted for the second strategy both in this opening footnote and throughout the paper.