Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Contents -- Preface -- Chapter 1 -- Social Change through Creativity: -- Music in Mainland China's Schools and Community -- Abstract -- Introduction -- The Role of the Chinese Government in the Growth of Creativity -- The Development of Creativity in Chinese School Education -- Creativity in School Music Education in the Global Age -- A Review of Arts Education and Music Education -- The Study of School Music Education in Beijing -- Background of Beijing -- Creativity and Innovation in School Education -- A Content Analysis of Selected Music Textbooks -- Discussion and Conclusion -- Acknowledgment -- References -- Chapter 2 -- Preparing Competent Policy Practitioners: How to Be an Effective Advocate for Your Clients -- Abstract -- Introduction -- What Is Policy Practice? -- Competent Policy Practice (CPP) Framework -- Strategy 1. Personal Relationships -- Case Study -- Strategy 2. Client/Constituent Empowerment -- Case Study -- Strategy 3. Documentation and Correspondence -- Case Example -- Strategy 4. Social Media -- Case Study -- Strategy 5. Collaboration -- Case Study -- Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 3 -- A Panorama on Sports Policies in Brazil -- Abstract -- Introduction -- History of the Relationship between State and Sports -- Sports Organization - Executive Power and Private Initiative -- Sports Organization - Legislative Power and Judicial Power -- Public Resources for Sports -- Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 4 -- A Study of Young Students' Musical Preferences in Contemporary Hong Kong -- Abstract -- Introduction -- An Overview of Contemporary Hong Kong Society -- Purpose of the Study -- Method -- Findings -- Parental Educational Attainment -- Students' Purpose of Music Listening -- Medium of Students' Music Listening -- Musical Styles that Student Listened to

Political scientists who are policy scholars often trace their lineage back to the pioneering work of Lerner and Lasswell (1951). But public policy did not emerge as a significant subfield within the discipline of political science until the late 1960s or early 70s. This resulted from at least three important stimuli: (1) social and political pressures to apply the profession's accumulated knowledge to the pressing social problems of racial discrimination, poverty, the arms race, and environmental pollution; (2) the challenge posed by Dawson and Robinson (1963), who argued that governmental policy decisions were less the result of traditional disciplinary concerns such as public opinion and party composition than of socioeconomic factors such as income, education, and unemployment levels; and (3) the efforts of David Easton, whose Systems Analysis of Political Life (1965) provided an intellectual framework for understanding the entire policy process, from demand articulation through policy formulation and implementation, to feedback effects on society.Over the past twenty years, policy research by political scientists can be divided into four types, depending upon the principal focus:1. Substantive area research. This seeks to understand the politics of a specific policy area, such as health, education, transportation, natural resources, or foreign policy. Most of the work in this tradition has consisted of detailed, largely atheoretical, case studies. Examples would include the work of Derthick (1979) on social security, Moynihan (1970) on antipoverty programs, and Bailey and Mosher (1968) on federal aid to education. Such studies are useful to practitioners and policy activists in these areas, as well as providing potentially useful information for inductive theory building. In terms of the profession as a whole, however, they are probably less useful than theoretical case studies—such as Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) on implementation or Nelson (1984) on agenda-setting—which use a specific case to illustrate or test theories of important aspects of the policy process.2. Evaluation and impact studies. Most evaluation research is based on contributions from other disciplines, particularly welfare economics (Stokey and Zeckhauser 1978; Jenkins-Smith 1990). Policy scholars trained as political scientists have made several contributions. They have broadened the criteria of evaluation from traditional social welfare functions to include process criteria, such as opportunities for effective citizen participation (Pierce and Doerksen, 1976). They have focused attention on distributional effects (MacRae, 1989). They have criticized traditional techniques of benefit-cost analysis on many grounds (Meier, 1984; MacRae and Whittington, 1988). Most importantly, they have integrated evaluation studies into research on the policy process by examining the use and non-use of policy analysis in the real world (Wildavsky, 1966; Dunn, 1980; Weiss, 1977).3. Policy process. Two decades ago, both Ranney (1968) and Sharkansky (1970) urged political scientists interested in public policy to focus on the policy process, i.e. the factors affecting policy formulation and implementation, as well as the subsequent effects of policy. In their view, focusing on substantive policy areas risked falling into the relatively fruitless realm of atheoretical case studies, while evaluation research offered little promise for a discipline without clear normative standards of good policy. A focus on the policy process would provide opportunities for applying and integrating the discipline's accumulated knowledge concerning political behavior in various institutional settings. That advice was remarkably prescient; the first paper in this symposium attempts to summarize what has been learned.Policy design. With roots in the policy sciences tradition described by deLeon (1988), this approach has recently focused on such topics as the efficacy of different types of policy instruments (Salamon 1989; Linder and Peters 1989). Although some scholars within this orientation propose a quite radical departure from the behavioral traditions of the discipline (Bobrow and Dryzek 1987), others build upon work by policy-oriented political scientists over the past twenty years (Schneider and Ingram 1990) while Miller (1989) seeks to integrate political philosophy and the behavioral sciences.

This book revives the discussion on public social services and their redesign, with a focus on services relating to care and the social inclusion of vulnerable groups, providing rich information on the changes that occurred in the organisation and supply of public social services over the last thirty years in different European places and service fields. Despite the persisting variety in social service models, three shared trends emerge: public sector disengagement, 'vertical re-scaling' of authority and 'horizontal re-mix' in the supply system. The consequences of such changes are evaluated from different perspectives – governance, social and territorial cohesion, labour market, gender – and are eventually deemed 'disruptive' in both economic and social terms. The policy implications of the restructuring are also explored.

Advocates of complexity theory describe it as a new scientific paradigm. Complexity theory identifies instability and disorder in politics and policy making, and links them to the behaviour of complex systems. It suggests that we shift our analysis from individual parts of a political system to the system as a whole; as a network of elements that interact and combine to produce systemic behaviour. This article explores the use of complexity theory in public policy, highlighting a small literature using the language of complexity directly to describe complex policy-making systems, and a larger literature identifying complexity themes. It then highlights the main problems to be overcome before complexity theory can become truly valuable in politics and policy making.

The politics of public policy is a vibrant research area increasingly at the forefront of intellectual innovations in the discipline. We argue that political scientists are best positioned to undertake research on the politics of public policy when they possess expertise in particular policy areas. Policy expertise positions scholars to conduct theoretically innovative work and to ensure that empirical research reflects the reality they aim to analyze. It also confers important practical advantages, such as access to a significant number of academic positions and major sources of research funding not otherwise available to political scientists. Perhaps most importantly, scholars with policy expertise are equipped to defend the value of political science degrees and research in the public sphere.

This article examines how Progressive-Era political scientists worked to promote public service training. It gives evidence that the Progressive-Era political science community had a broad view of its mission that included preparing civil servants. Since World War II, tension has permeated relations between mainstream political science and professional public administration programs. Participants in current debates on relations between the two fields can gain from knowing something about the broad interests that engrossed the American Political Science Association at its start.

ABSTRACTThe politics of public policy is a vibrant research area increasingly at the forefront of intellectual innovations in the discipline. We argue that political scientists are best positioned to undertake research on the politics of public policy when they possess expertise in particular policy areas. Policy expertise positions scholars to conduct theoretically innovative work and to ensure that empirical research reflects the reality they aim to analyze. It also confers important practical advantages, such as access to a significant number of academic positions and major sources of research funding not otherwise available to political scientists. Perhaps most importantly, scholars with policy expertise are equipped to defend the value of political science degrees and research in the public sphere.

Public administration writers have placed considerable faith in the power of social science to improve the practice of public administration. This article argues that such faith derives from their vision of the state as a purposive association. However, because we live in what is essentially a civil association rather than a purposive association, there are severe limits on the knowledge that social science can provide for practice. Public administration inquiry, it is concluded, needs to devote more attention to the nature of the civil association in which it operates, particularly in regard to our constitutional system of governance.

This article identifies a number of challenges the social sciences will have to face in order to play a broader role in formulating international migration policies. This new role is subject to two major processes: globalisation and the universal acceptance of human rights. Both processes affect policy options, albeit from different perspectives. Recent research findings have confirmed that there is no direct link between poverty and South‐North migration, despite the fact that many policy recommendations are based on this premise. The article suggests that the contradiction between policy recommendations and research findings is due to the weight of economic theory in migration policy. Yet economics does not take into account the complex nature of social, political and cultural factors that also influence migrants' motivations and migration processes. Recent efforts to formulate multi‐disciplinary theories should, it is suggested, help devise more effective policies. Channels of communication will need to be improved between knowledge‐producers and policy‐makers. The article also recommends distinguishing between a conceptual and an instrumental use of knowledge.