Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:34:03.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Social Theory to Policy Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Stephen H. Linder  and
B. Guy Peters
Stephen H. Linder
Affiliation:
School of Public HealthUniversity of Texas
B. Guy Peters
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Little attention has been given in policy analysis to the creative process of designing solutions to public policy problems. There are a number of difficulties in applying macro-level theories – whether from economics, sociology, philosophy or macro-systems theory – in the policy process. Any macro-level theory will tend to provide inadequate guidance in one or more of three aspects of policy-making: a model of causation, a model for evaluating alternatives and outcomes, and a model of how interventions operate. Our current knowledge about which policy strategies work best under which conditions is at best rudimentary. Academic disciplinary perspectives focus on a narrow repertoire of policy instruments. What is required is a design focus which draws on instruments associated with a range of disciplines and professions. A design perspective involves both a systematic process for generating basic strategies and a framework for comparing them. Such an approach will require at least the following elements: (1) the characteristics of problems (scale, collectiveness, certainty, predictability, independence); (2) characteristics of goals (value-laden, operational, process of goal-setting); (3) characteristics of instruments (suitability of different instruments).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , August 1984 , pp. 237 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aaron, H. (1978) Politics and the Professors: The Great Society in Perspective. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Alexander, C. (1964) Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Alexander, C. (1965) A city is not a tree, Architectural Forum, 122.Google Scholar
Alexander, E. R. (1982) Design in the decision-making process, Policy Sciences, 14, 279–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardach, E. and Kagan, R. A. (1982) Going by the Book: The Problem of Unreasonableness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Benjamin, R. (1980) The Limits of Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Benjamin, R. (1983) Memo to members of policy roundtable. Mimeo, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1972) The garbage can model of organizational choice, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–25.Google Scholar
Davidson, F. P. et al. (1980) How Big and Still Beautiful: Macro-Engineering Revisited. AAAS Selected Symposium 40. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.Google Scholar
Dornbusch, R. and Fischer, S. (1982) Macroeconomics, 2nd ed.New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. (1983) Don't toss coins into garbage cans: a prologue to policy design, Journal of Public Policy, 3, 345–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, W. (1981) Public Policy Analysis. Englewood ClifTs, NJ: Prentice–Hall.Google Scholar
Etzioni, A. (1968) The Active Society. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. (1982) Political Theory and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1976) Legitimation Crisis. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Hall, O. P. (1975) A policy model appraisal paradigm, Policy Sciences, 6, 185–95.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1944) The Road to Serfdom. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Heclo, H. (1978) Issue networks and the executive establishment. In King, A. (ed.), The New American Political System. Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Hogwood, B. W. and Peters, B. G. (1983) Policy Dynamics. New York: St. Martins.Google Scholar
Hogwood, B. W. and Peters, B. G. (1985) The Pathology of Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hood, C. (1984) The Tools of Government. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R. (1977) The Silent Generation in Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jordan, A. G. (1981) Iron triangles, woolly corporatism and elastic nets: images of the policy process, Journal of Public Policy, 1, 95–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keegan, W. (1984) Mrs. Thatcher's Economic Experiment. London: Lane.Google Scholar
Kozmetsky, G. (1980) Evaluation of macro-systems: models and case analysis, in Davidson et al. (1980).Google Scholar
Lindblom, C. (1965) The Intelligence of Democracy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
MacRae, D. (1976) The Social Function of the Social Sciences. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
MacRae, D. and Wilde, J. A. (1979) Policy Analysis for Public Decisions. North Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury.Google Scholar
May, P. J. (1981) Hints for crafting alternative policies, Policy Analysis, 7, 227–43.Google Scholar
Merton, R. (1957) Social Theory and Social Structure, 2nd ed.Glencoe, II.: Free Press.Google Scholar
Mood, A. (1983) Introduction to Policy Analysis. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Mosher, F. (1980) The changing responsibilities and tactics of the federal government, Public Administration Review, 40, 541–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, E. (1982) On the Autonomy of the Democratic State. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Okun, A. (1981) Prices and Quantities. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G. (1981) The problem of bureaucratic government, Journal of Politics, 43, 56–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. (1945) The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Quade, E. (1982) Analysis for Public Decisions. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, J. (ed.) (1982) Policy Styles in Western Europe. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Ruin, O. (1982) Sweden. In Richardson, J. (ed.), Policy Styles in Western Democracies. London: Allen and Unwin, 102–34.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. (1981) Rethinking public management – 3rd party government and the changing forms of government action, Public Policy, 29, 255–75.Google Scholar
Sargent, T. and Wallace, N. (1976) Rational expectations and the theory of economic policy, Journal of Monetary Economics, 2, 169–83.Google Scholar
Scott, R. A. and Shore, A. R. (1979) Why Sociology Dots Not Apply. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Schulman, P. R. (1980) Large-Scale Policymaking. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Sieber, S. D. (1981) Fatal Remedies. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1972) The Architecture of Complexity. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1978). On how to decide what to do, Bell Journal, 9, 494–507.Google Scholar
Tobin, J. (1981) The monetarist counterrevolution today, Economic Journal, 9, 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolman, H. (1981) The determinants of program success or failure, Journal of Public Policy, 1, 433–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, C. (1979) A theory of non-market failure: framework for implementation analysis, Journal of Law and Economics, 22, 107–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar