Search results

This article discusses the possibility of applying deductively based rational choice theories as analytical tools for understanding complex policy problems. It surveys the basic assumptions, axioms and rules of interpretation on which the theory is constructed and some of its important findings. Two of its more interesting results, that of the "paradox of voting" and of the "prisoner's dilemma," are presented and applied herein.

AbstractThe Yale tradition of policy sciences offers a comprehensive taxonomy of human behavior, especially that which is associated with purposive institutional actions. Like newer schools of thought such as Public Choice, it has a theoretical base; like the Public Policy tradition, it focuses on historical explanations and analyses. Its categories of analysis range from Lasswell's famous eight value arenas to the seven policy functions that ate often used in identifying stages or phases of public action. Its professional breadth incorporates methods from economics, psychology, moral philosophy, and sociology, all in the context of policy behavior. The two volumes under review recapitulate theoretical and behavioral research dating back to the 1920s and still continuing at Yale and other policy centers. There is a strong moral commitment in these pages to human dignity, defined as the preferred outcomes among all competing and complementary basic values. The jurisprudence espoused in these volumes is a process through which people seek to clarify and secure their common interest; it is a tool of discovery rather than a mere syntactical philosophy of law. It is more a "political" than a "legal" science.

This overview surveys the conceptual and practical development of the policy sciences as an independent field of academic studies. It outlines the conditions that led to the emergence of this field and its expansion over the years. In addition, the article portrays the range of substantive topics and methodologies of the policy sciences. Finally, it presents the logic that guided the structure of this symposium.

This article examines competing strategies for supporting and utilizing applied social science and the policy sciences in public decisions and program operations. It argues that tension and conflict are the normal, expected state of affairs between decision makers and the social science and policy science communities. This is so because of very different strategic perspectives governing the scientific standing, decision utility, and political "morality"of applied social research and policy research. The article suggests conflict can be dampened, but never completely eliminated, by two things: (1) sequential research designs that simultaneously produce both partial scientific truths and information useful to decision makers, and (2) more attention to overall quality control and utilization possibilities. However, such improvements require changes in the incentive and value systems of social scientists, policy scientists, and decision makers. The engineering of change m these three communities is itself a formidable unsolved problem.

Abstract. The policy sciences have been evolving as a discipline over the past thirty years, but the development has been less than clear, its directions somewhat uncertain. Still, the founding characteristics, as set forth by its early proponents, have remained relevant and relatively constant. The policy sciences have been defined by their multidisciplinary perspective, their problem‐oriented, contextual approach, and their treatment of normative standards. This paper reviews the development of the policy sciences in light of these three hallmarks and observes how each has experienced great variations. Finally, the paper suggests six emerging conditions which could have a significant effect on the future development and practice of the policy sciences.