Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:40:21.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Political Science and Public Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Paul A. Sabatier*
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis

Extract

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.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1991

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

Anderson, James. 1975. Public Policy-Making. N.Y.: Praeger.Google Scholar
Bailey, Stephen and Mosher, Edith. 1968. ESEA: The Office of Education Administers a Law. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Bobrow, Davis and Dryzek, John. 1987. Policy Analysis by Design. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Browning, Rufus, Marshall, Dale Rogers, and Tabb, David. 1984. Protest Is Not Enough: The Struggle of Blacks and Hispanics for Equality in Urban Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Dawson, Richard and Robinson, James. 1963. “Interparty Competition, Economic Variables, and Welfare Policies in the American States,” Journal of Politics 25 (May): 265289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
deLeon, Peter. 1988. Advice and Consent. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Derthick, Martha. 1979. Policymaking for Social Security. Washington: Brookings.Google Scholar
Dunn, William. 1980. “The Two-Communities Metaphor and Models of Knowledge Use.” Knowledge 1 (June): 515536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, David. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Eulau, Heinz. 1977. “The Interventionist Synthesis,” American Journal of Political Science 21 (May): 419423.Google Scholar
Goggin, Malcolm. 1987. Policy Design and the Politics of Implementation. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, George, Miller, Jeffrey, Mohr, Lawrence, and Vladeck, Bruce. 1977. “Developing Public Policy Theory Perspectives from Empirical Research,” American Political Science Review 71 (December): 15321543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofferbert, Richard. 1974. The Study of Public Policy. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Hofferbert, Richard. 1986. “Policy Evaluation, Democratic Theory, and the Division of Scholarly Labor,” Policy Studies Review 5 (Feb.): 511519.Google Scholar
Huntington, Samuel. 1988. “One Soul at a Time: Political Science and Reform,” American Political Science Review 82 (March): 310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, Helen, Laney, Nancy, and McCain, John. 1980. A Policy Approach to Political Representation: Lessons from the Four Corners States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, Hank. 1990. Democratic Politics and Policy Analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles. 1970. An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
Kiser, Larry and Ostrom, Elinor. 1982. “The Three Worlds of Action,” in Strategies of Political Inquiry, ed. Ostrom, E.. Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 179222.Google Scholar
Landau, Martin. 1977. “The Proper Domain of Policy Analysis,” American Journal of Political Science 21 (May): 423427.Google Scholar
Lerner, Daniel and Lasswell, Harold, eds. 1951. The Policy Sciences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Linder, Stephen and Peters, B. Guy. 1989. “Instruments of Government: Perceptions and Contexts,” Journal of Public Policy 9 (1): 3558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luttbeg, Norman, ed. 1968. Public Opinion and Public Policy: Models of Political Linkages. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.Google Scholar
MacRae, Duncan. 1989. “Social Science and Policy Advice,” Paper presented at the PSO/APSA Conference, “Advances in Policy Studies.” Atlanta.Google Scholar
MacRae, Duncan. and Whittington, Dale. 1988. “Assessing Preferences in Cost-Benefit Analysis,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 7 (Winter): 246263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazmanian, Daniel and Sabatier, Paul, eds. 1981. Effective Policy Implementation. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
Mazmanian, Daniel and Sabatier, Paul, 1989. Implementation and Public Policy, rev. ed. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Meier, Kenneth. 1975. “Representative Bureaucracy: An Empirical Analysis,” American Political Science Review 69 (June): 526542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, Kenneth. 1984. “The Limits of Cost-Benefit Analysis,” Decision-Making in the Public Sector, ed. Nigro, Lloyn. N.Y.: Marcel Dekker, pp. 4363.Google Scholar
Meier, Kenneth. 1987. Politics and the Bureaucracy, 2d. ed. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Miller, Trudi. 1989. “Design Science as a Unifying Paradigm,” Paper presented at the PSO/APSA Conference, “Advances in Policy Studies.” Atlanta.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren and Stokes, Donald. 1963. “Constituency Influence on Congress,” American Political Science Review 57 (March): 4556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moynihan, Daniel. 1970. Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding. N. Y.: Free Press.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Robert. 1987. “The Textbook Policy Process and Implementation Research,” Policy Studies Review 7 (1): 142154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Barbara J. 1984. Making an Issue of Child Abuse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
O'Toole, Laurence. 1986. “Policy Recommendations for Multi-Actor Implementation: An Assessment of the Field,” Journal of Public Policy 6 (April): 181210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 1989. Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin and Shapiro, Robert. 1983. “Effects of Public Opinion on Policy,” American Political Science Review 77 (March): 175190.Google Scholar
Peters, B. Guy. 1986. American Public Policy: Promise and Performance, 2d ed. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Pierce, John and Doerksen, , eds. 1976. Water Politics and Public Involvement. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science.Google Scholar
Pressman, Jeffrey and Wildavsky, Aaron. 1973. Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ranney, Austin, ed. 1968. Political Science and Public Policy. Chicago: Markham.Google Scholar
Ripley, Randall. 1985. Policy Analysis in Political Science. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Rodgers, Harrell and Bullock, Charles. 1976. Coercion to Compliance. Lexington, Mass: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
Sabatier, Paul. 1986. “Top-Down and Bottom-Up Models of Policy Implementation: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis,” Journal of Public Policy 6 (January): 2148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, Paul. 1988. “An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein,” Policy Sciences 21 (Fall): 129168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamon, Lester, ed. 1989. Beyond Privatization: The Tools of Government. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
Schneider, Anne and Ingram, Helen. 1990. “Behavioral Assumptions of Policy Tools,” Journal of Politics 52 (May): 510–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharkansky, Ira, ed. 1970. Policy Analysis in Political Science. Chicago: Markham.Google Scholar
Stokey, Edith and Zeckhauser, Richard. 1978. A Primer for Policy Analysis. NY: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Weiss, Carol. 1977. Using Social Research in Public Policy Making. Lexington, Mass: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, Aaron. 1966. “The Political Economy of Efficiency: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Systems Analysis, and Program Budgeting,” Public Administration Review 26 (December): 292310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar