Journal•ISSN: 0032-2687
Policy Sciences
Springer Science+Business Media
About: Policy Sciences is an academic journal published by Springer Science+Business Media. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Public policy & Policy analysis. It has an ISSN identifier of 0032-2687. Over the lifetime, 1261 publications have been published receiving 62798 citations.
Topics: Public policy, Policy analysis, Politics, Policy studies, Government
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: The search for scientific bases for confronting problems of social policy is bound to fail, becuase of the nature of these problems as discussed by the authors, whereas science has developed to deal with tame problems.
Abstract: The search for scientific bases for confronting problems of social policy is bound to fail, becuase of the nature of these problems. They are “wicked” problems, whereas science has developed to deal with “tame” problems. Policy problems cannot be definitively described. Moreover, in a pluralistic society there is nothing like the undisputable public good; there is no objective definition of equity; policies that respond to social problems cannot be meaningfully correct or false; and it makes no sense to talk about “optimal solutions” to social problems unless severe qualifications are imposed first. Even worse, there are no “solutions” in the sense of definitive and objective answers.
13,262 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a conceptual framework focusing on the belief systems of advocacy coalitions within policy subsystems is proposed for understanding the role of policy analysis in policy-oriented learning and the effect, in turn, of such learning on changes in governmental programs.
Abstract: There has been a great deal of research in recent years concerning the use of substantive policy analysis in public policy-making. This paper seeks to integrate those findings - e.g., the ‘enlightenment function’ of policy research - into a more general model of policy-making over periods of a decade or more. The conceptual framework focuses on the belief systems of advocacy coalitions within policy subsystems as the critical vehicle for understanding the role of policy analysis in policy-oriented learning and the effect, in turn, of such learning on changes in governmental programs.
2,855 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigated an alternative technique, in which psychometric procedures were used to elicit quantitative judgments of perceived risk, acceptable risk, and perceived benefit for each of 30 activities and technologies.
Abstract: One of the fundamental questions addressed by risk-benefit analysis is “How safe is safe enough?” Chauncey Starr has proposed that economic data be used to reveal patterns of acceptable risk-benefit tradeoffs. The present study investigates an alternative technique, in which psychometric procedures were used to elicit quantitative judgments of perceived risk, acceptable risk, and perceived benefit for each of 30 activities and technologies. The participants were seventy-six members of the League of Women Voters. The results indicated little systematic relationship between perceived existing risks and benefits of the 30 risk items. Current risk levels were generally viewed as unacceptably high. When current risk levels were adjusted to what would be considered acceptable risk levels, however, risk was found to correlate with benefit. Nine descriptive attributes of risk were also studied. These nine attributes seemed to tap two basic dimensions of risk. These dimensions proved to be effective predictors of the tradeoff between acceptable risk and perceived benefit. The limitations of the present study and the relationship between this technique and Starr's technique are discussed, along with the implications of the findings for policy decisions.
2,535 citations
TL;DR: Several different explanations of policy change based on notions of learning have emerged in the policy literature to challenge conventional conflict-oriented theories as discussed by the authors, and they identify different actors and different effects with each different type of learning.
Abstract: Several different explanations of policy change based on notions of learning have emerged in the policy literature to challenge conventional conflict-oriented theories. These include notions of ‘political-learning’ developed by Heclo, ‘policy-oriented learning’ developed by Sabatier, ‘lesson-drawing’ analyzed by Rose, ‘social learning’ discussed by Hall and ‘government learning’ identified by Etheredge. These different concepts identify different actors and different effects with each different type of learning. Some elements of these theories are compatible, while others are not. This article examines each approach in terms of who learns, what they learn, and the effects of learning on subsequent policies. The conclusion is that three distinct types of learning have often been incorrectly juxtaposed. Certain conceptual, theoretical and methodological difficulties attend any attempt to attribute policy change to policy learning, but this does not detract from the important reorientation of policy analysis that this approach represents.
1,055 citations
TL;DR: It is argued that an “applied forward reasoning” approach is better suited for social scientists seeking to address climate change, which is characterized as a “super wicked” problem comprising four key features: time is running out, those who cause the problem also seek to provide a solution, the central authority needed to address it is weak or non-existent, and policy responses discount the future irrationally.
Abstract: Most policy-relevant work on climate change in the social sciences either analyzes costs and benefits of particular policy options against important but often narrow sets of objectives or attempts to explain past successes or failures. We argue that an “applied forward reasoning” approach is better suited for social scientists seeking to address climate change, which we characterize as a “super wicked” problem comprising four key features: time is running out; those who cause the problem also seek to provide a solution; the central authority needed to address it is weak or non-existent; and, partly as a result, policy responses discount the future irrationally. These four features combine to create a policy-making “tragedy” where traditional analytical techniques are ill equipped to identify solutions, even when it is well recognized that actions must take place soon to avoid catastrophic future impacts. To overcome this tragedy, greater attention must be given to the generation of path-dependent policy interventions that can “constrain our future collective selves.” Three diagnostic questions result that orient policy analysis toward understanding how to trigger sticky interventions that, through progressive incremental trajectories, entrench support over time while expanding the populations they cover. Drawing especially from the literature on path dependency, but inverting it to develop policy responses going forward, we illustrate the plausibility of our framework for identifying new areas of research and new ways to think about policy interventions to address super wicked problems.
1,013 citations