Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T09:40:12.074Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biological approaches to public administration and public policy

Introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2019

Christopher W. Larimer  and
Steven A. Peterson
Christopher W. Larimer
Affiliation:
University of Northern Iowa
Steven A. Peterson
Affiliation:
Penn State Harrisburg
Get access

Abstract

This special issue considers the relationship of the life sciences to both public policy and public administration. This makes sense because the bureaucratic process and public administration are deeply involved in the policy process and the development of substantive public policy. The two subjects are intertwined. And a biological perspective can illuminate many aspects of both. That is the focus of this issue.

Keywords

Public administrationpublic policybiology
Type
Article
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , Fall 2019 , pp. 113 - 116
Copyright
© Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 2019

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

Gulick, L., “Introduction,” in Biology and Bureaucracy, White, E. and Losco, J., eds. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986), pp. xii–xvi, at p. xv.Google Scholar
See also Gulick, L., “Democracy and administration face the future,” Public Administration Review, 1977, 37(6): 706–711.10.2307/975339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K. B. and Larimer, C. W., The Public Policy Theory Primer (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2017), chap. 9.Google Scholar
Somit, A. and Peterson, S. A., eds., Human Nature and Public Policy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003).10.1057/9781403982094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer-Emerick, N., “Public administration and the life sciences,” Administration & Society, 2007, 38(6): 689–708.10.1177/0095399706293077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tybur, J. and Griskevicius, V., “Evolutionary psychology: A fresh perspective for understanding and changing problematic behavior,” Public Administration Review, 2013, 73(1): 12–22.10.1111/puar.12003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, L. K., “Biopolitics: Science, ethics, and public policy,” Yale Review, 1964, 54(1): 1–16.Google Scholar
Caldwell, L. K., “Biology and bureaucracy: The coming confrontation,” Public Administration Review, 1980, 40(1): 1–12.10.2307/976100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funke, O., “Biopolicy and policymaking,” in Handbook of Biology and Politics, Peterson, S. A. and Somit, A., eds. (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2017), pp. 304–323.10.4337/9781783476275.00028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkland, T. A., An Introduction to the Policy Process, 4th ed. (New York: Routledge, 2016).Google Scholar
White, E. and Losco, J., eds., Biology and Bureaucracy (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986).Google Scholar
Adrian, C., “Ethology and bureaucracy,” paper presented at the International Political Science Association Meeting, Munich, Germany, 1970.Google Scholar
Masters, R. D., “Why bureaucracy?,” in Biology and Bureaucracy, White, E. and Losco, J., eds. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986), pp. 149–191.Google Scholar
Somit, A., “Bureaucratic pathology, public administration, and the life sciences,” in Biology and Bureaucracy, White, E. and Losco, J., eds. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986), pp. 43–55.Google Scholar
O’Hara, Patrick, “Can ethology bring lucidity to organizational research?,” in Biology and Bureaucracy, White, E. and Losco, J., eds. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986), pp. 305–324.Google Scholar
Flohr, H., “Bureaucracy and its clients: Exploring a biosocial perspective,” in Biology and Bureaucracy, White, E. and Losco, J., eds. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986), pp. 57–116.Google Scholar
Peterson, S. A., “Evolution, cognition, and decision-making,” in Handbook of Decision-Making, Morçöl, Göktug, ed. (New York: Taylor & Francis, 2007), pp. 119–131.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., “Psychic numbing and mass atrocity,” in The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy, Shafir, E., ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013), pp. 126–142.Google Scholar
Vastjfall, E., Slovic, P., Mayorga, M., and Peters, E., “Compassion fade: Affect and charity are greatest for a single child in need,” PLOS One, 2014, 9(6): e100115, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100115.Google Scholar
Schubert, J. N., “The impact of food aid on world nutrition,” International Organization, 1981, 35(3): 329–354.10.1017/S002081830003246XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blank, R. H., The Political Implications of Human Genetic Technology (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1981).Google Scholar
Masters, R. D., et al, “Environmental pollution and crime,” Vermont Law Review, 1998, 22: 358–382.Google Scholar
Butts, K. H., “Climate change and environmental security: Implications for national and homeland security,” in Handbook of Biology and Politics, Peterson, S. A. and Somit, A., eds. (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2017), pp. 431–444.10.4337/9781783476275.00035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corning, P. A., The Fair Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011).10.7208/chicago/9780226116303.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, E. O., Consilience (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998).Google ScholarPubMed
Peterson, S. A. and Somit, A., eds. Handbook of Biology and Politics (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2017).10.4337/9781783476275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafir, E., The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013).10.1515/9781400845347CrossRefGoogle Scholar