Search results

The contribution of multiple theories of the policy process stems, in part, from the identification of alternative concepts and relations that provide distinct—though often partially overlapping—explanations of (and predictions about) policy development. Thus the competing theories single out alternative concepts as critical to the policy process, and specify widely different hypotheses for test. When theory-building is at a rudimentary level, as is generally the case for the study of the policy process, the alternative theories may provide enriching supplemental insights and hypotheses that, if confirmed, lead to better theory. In that spirit, this article provides some illustrations of the application of alternative theories to an ongoing policy dispute over adoption and development of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) as a testing and storage facility for defense nuclear wastes. My focus is on how the alternative theories emphasize different sets of concepts (and therefore data) and hypotheses, and on some of the implications for research design. These comments are based on my own preliminary research on the WIPP issue, and are meant to be illustrations and suggestions, rather than conclusions, about the policy process regarding the WIPP.

The manner by which policy analysis fosters &/or inhibits policy learning is examined, with emphasis on analysis as a process that both inhibits & responds to policy change. Constraints posed by the organizational context in which analysis takes place, subsystem coalitions, & the character of the policy issue itself are identified. Four cases of the use of analysis in federal energy policy debate are described, & it is concluded that significant modifications of the policy positions of subsystem actors depend on the level of conflict attending a particular issue. In turn, subsystem conflict is affected by the analytical tractibility of the issue at hand & by the nature of the forum in which the debate is conducted. 95 References. K. Hyatt

Analysts in agencies that make public policy may find themselves operating in any of several different roles. They may see themselves as objective technicians, above the political fray, as advocates of causes of their own choosing, or as unquestioning proponents of their employers' positions. Their choice of roles will differ according to systematic characteristics found in the environment. Any serious effort to develop a code for the behavior of policy analysts must take these differences into account. HA.

How do mitigation and benefits measures affect public acceptance for siting different kinds of potentially hazardous facilities? What kinds of benefits measures are seen as most (or least) appropriate for different kinds of facilities? This study used a nationwide telephone survey consisting of 1,234 interviews with randomly selected respondents to test for the effects of packages of safety and benefits measures for siting a landfill, prison, incinerator and nuclear waste repository. The experimental design used in the survey permits analysis of the fractions of respondents who are willing to change their initial levels of acceptance (or opposition) when presented with a sequence of the safety and benefit measures. The measures vary significantly in their impact on levels of acceptance for the facilities, and some measures that would at face value appear to reassure residents of facility safety turn out to lack credibility and therefore diminish facility acceptance. Ordering of the benefits versus safety measures significantly affects changes in acceptance in surprising ways. The perceived appropriateness of different kinds of benefits measures varies systematically by the type of facility under consideration. It appears that successful benefits packages will directly address the underlying dimensions of concern caused by the facility. These findings point to the importance of further research on "commensurable" benefits measures.

ABSTRACTThe Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) was developed to provide a causal theory of the policy process which would serve as one of several alternatives to the familiar stages heuristic, with its recognized limitations. This paper first summarizes the central features of the ACF, including a set of underlying assumptions and specific hypotheses. We next review the implications for the framework of six case studies by various authors dealing with Canadian education and with American transportation, telecommunications, water, environmental, and energy policy. While generally supportive of the ACF, the case studies also suggest several revisions.