Suchergebnisse

This article asserts that the current 'Double Devolution' idea in the UK is part of a wider fashion in political architecture that generally sees the emergence of larger units. Simultaneously though there is a political need for gestures to smaller scale units and more deliberative procedures. The article argues that the Double Devolution concept simply ignores a rising volume of evidence that finds problems in operationalizing small-scale and deliberative ideas. Among other problems is the consequence that the resulting increased policy diversity is quickly labelled a 'postcode lottery'. The article also reviews the deliberative literature to find serious questions raised about new biases that emerge in deliberative settings. Finally, the article adopts Hood's work on cultural theory and public management to say that in fact evidence-based policy making may not be the norm - but policy selections reflect values and normative preferences.

A comment on Wyn Grant's "Bringing Policy Communities Back In: The Case of Fire Service Cover" (2005) considers how best to develop the approach further. A call is made to follow Grant & employ the ideas of Frank Baumgartner & Bryan Jones (1993). Adapted from the source document.

Governments are increasingly making decisions involving contested interpretations between scientific schools. In part, & notoriously too, there are controversies between science & political protest, but of course the latter is rarely without some claimed scientific justification. Political decision making has been complicated by the explosion of groups that challenge dominant science. References. Adapted from the source document

This review finds little utility in Bentley's famous The Process of Government. It is asserted that his book is cited as a primary source of interest group writing, but in fact, the review argues, that this prominence is given mainly by those who want to criticise the interest group orientation. Critics commonly misinterpret the group approach as meaning that policy is the outcome of an interest group struggle: such critics seem to find in Bentley that banal and easily discredited position. The review argues that in fact Bentley's stress on group conflict was anything but coincident with interest group conflict. The charge is unfair on Bentley as it grotesquely simplifies his position and is unfair on the general interest group approach because that perspective is not adequately summarised by a distortion of Bentley. In contrast Truman's The Governmental Process is commended as raising issues that are strikingly contemporary.

This review finds little utility in Bentley's famous The Process of Government. It is asserted that his book is cited as a primary source of interest group writing, but in fact, the review argues, that this prominence is given mainly by those who want to criticize the interest group orientation. Critics commonly misinterpret the group approach as meaning that policy is the outcome of an interest group struggle: such critics seem to find in Bentley that banal & easily discredited position. The review argues that, in fact, Bentley's stress on group conflict was anything but coincident with interest group conflict. The charge is unfair on Bentley as it grotesquely simplifies his position & is unfair on the general interest group approach because that perspective is not adequately summarized by a distortion of Bentley. In contrast, Truman's The Governmental Process is commended as raising issues that are strikingly contemporary. 29 References. Adapted from the source document.