Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T14:42:51.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconsidering Policy Design: Policies and Publics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Peter J. May
Peter J. May
Affiliation:
Political Science, University of Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the emerging areas in the public policy literature concerns new modes of thought about the construction and analysis of public policy. This article extends notions about politics within the ‘policy design’ literature by considering the implications of different political environments for policy design and implementation. Two different political environments – policies with and without publics – that form ends of a continuum of policy publics are discussed. A contrast is drawn between these two polar political environments with respect to differing policy design and implementation challenges, as well as with respect to differing opportunities for policy learning.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , April 1991 , pp. 187 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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

REFERENCES

Bardach, Eugene. (1980) ‘Implementation Studies and the Study of Implements.’ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Bobrow, Davis B. and Dryzek, John S.. (1987) Policy Analysis by Design. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Bosso, Christopher J. (1987) Pesticides and Politics, The Life Cycle of a Public Issue. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandl, John (1988) ‘On Politics and Policy Analysis as the Design and Assessment of Institutions.’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 7 (3): 419–424.Google Scholar
Browne, William P. (1990) ‘Organized Interests and Their Issue Niches.’ Journal of Politics 52 (05): 510–529.Google Scholar
Chubb, John E. (1983) Interest Groups and the Bureaucracy, The Politics of Energy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Cobb, Roger W. and Elder, Charles D. (1972) Participation in American Politics, The Dynamics of Agenda Building. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Cobb, Roger W., Ross, Jennie-Keith, and Ross, Marc Howard (1976) ‘Agenda Building as a Comparative Political Process.’ American Political Science Review 70 (1): 126–138.Google Scholar
Coleman, James S. (1957) Community Conflict. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Cutter, Susan L. (1987) ‘Airborne Toxic Releases,’ Environment 29 (6): 12.Google Scholar
deLeon, Peter (1988–1989) ‘The Contextual Burdens of Policy Design.’ Policy Studies Journal 17 (2): 297–309.Google Scholar
Douglas, Mary (1985) Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Douglas, Mary and Wildavsky, Aaron (1982) Risk and Culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. (1983) ‘Don't Toss Coins in Garbage Cans: A Prologue to Policy Design.’ Journal of Public Policy 3 (4): 345–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmore, Richard F. (1987) ‘Instruments and Strategy in Public Policy.’ Policy Studies Review 7 (1): 174–186.Google Scholar
Greenberg, David H. and Robbins, Philip K. (1986) ‘The Changing Role of Social Experiments in Policy Analysis.’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 5 (2): 340–362.Google Scholar
Gusfield, Joseph R. (1981) The Culture of Public Problems: Drinking-Driving and the Symbolic Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heclo, Hugh (1978) ‘Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment.’ In King, Anthony, ed. The New American Political System. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Heclo, Hugh (1974) Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hilgartner, Stephen and Bosk, Charles L. (1988) ‘The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arenas Model.’ American Journal of Sociology 94 (1): 53–78.Google Scholar
Holling, C. S. (ed.) (1978) Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Hood, Christopher C. (1983) The Tools of Government. London: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, Peter W. (1986) ‘The Bhopalization of American Tort Law.’ In Hazards: Technology and Fairness. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 89–110.Google Scholar
Huber, Peter W. (1988) Liability, The Legal Revolution and Its Consequences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ingraham, Patricia W. (1987) ‘Towards More Systematic Consideration of Policy Design.’ Policy Studies Journal 15 (4): 611–628.Google Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. (1988) ‘Analytical Debates and Policy Learning: Analysis and Change in the Federal Bureaucracy.’ Policy Sciences 21: 169–211.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John (1984) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policy. Boston: Little Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Laumann, Edward O. and Knoke, David (1987) The Organizational Slate, Social Choke in National Policy Domains. Madison, Wl: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Leman, Christopher K. (1988) ‘The Forgotten Fundamental: Successes and Excesses of Direct Government.’ In Salamon, Lester M., ed. Beyond Privatization: The Tools of Government Action. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press: 53–92.Google Scholar
Linder, Stephen H. and Peters, B. Guy (1989) ‘Instruments of Government: Perceptions and Contexts.’ Journal of Public Policy 9 (1): 35–58.Google Scholar
Linder, Stephen H. and Peters, B. Guy (1987) ‘A Design Perspective on Policy Implementation: The Fallacies of Misplaced Prescription.’ Policy Studies Review 6 (3): 459–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linder, Stephen H. and Peters, B. Guy (1984) ‘From Social Theory to Policy Design.’ Journal of Public Policy 4 (3): 237–259.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore J. (1972) ‘Four Systems of Policy Politics, and Choice.’ Public Administration Review 32 (07/08): 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majone, Giandomenico (1989) Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
May, Peter J. (1986) ‘Politics and Policy Analysis.’ Political Science Quarterly 101: 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonnell, Lorraine M. and Elmore, Richard F. (1987) ‘Getting the Job Done: Alternative Policy Instruments.’ Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 9 (2): 133–152.Google Scholar
McFarland, Andrew S. (1987a) ‘Interest Groups and Theories of Power in America.’ British Journal of Political Science 17 (part 2): 129–147.Google Scholar
McFarland, Andrew S. (1987b) ‘Interest Group Theory and Policy Implementation Studies.’ Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Merrill, Stephen A. (1984) ‘The Politics of Micropolicy: Innovation and Industrial Policy in the United States.’ Policy Studies Review 3 (3–4): 445–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Trudi C. (1984) ‘Conclusion: A Design Science Perspective.’ In Miller, Trudi C., ed. Public Sector Performance: A Conceptual Turning Point. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press: 251–268.Google Scholar
Nelson, Barbara J. (1984) Making an Issue of Child Abuse, Political Agenda Setting for Social Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Neustadt, Richard E. and Fineberg, Harvey V. (1978) The Swine Flu Affair, Decision-Making on a Slippery Disease. Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Toole, Laurence J. Jr. (1986) ‘Policy Recommendations for Multi-Actor Implementation: An Assessment of the Field.’ Journal of Public Policy 6 (2): 181–210.Google Scholar
Rivlin, Alice (1971) Systematic Thinking for Social Action. Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
Robertson, David B. (1984) ‘Program Implementation versus Program Design: Which Accounts for Policy “Failure”?’ Policy Studies Review 3 (3–4): 391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, Paul A. (1988) ‘An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein.’ Policy Sciences 21: 129–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, Paul A. (1987) ‘Knowledge, Policy-Oriented Learning, and Policy Change.’ Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 8 (4): 649–692.Google Scholar
Sabatier, Paul A. (1986) ‘Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis.’ Journal of Public Policy 6 (1): 21–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamon, Lester M. (ed.) (1989) Beyond Privatization: The Tools of Government Action. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
Salisbury, Robert H., Heinz, John P., Laumann, Edward O., and Nelson, Robert L. (1987) ‘Who Works with Whom? Interest Group Alliances and Opposition.’ American Political Science Review 81 (4): 1217–1234.Google Scholar
Schattsneider, E. E. (1960) The Semisovereign People. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Schneider, Anne and Ingram, Helen (1990) ‘Behavioral Assumptions of Policy Tools.’ Journal of Politics 52 (2): 510–529.Google Scholar
Slovic, Paul (1987) ‘Perception of Risk.’ Science 236 (04 17): 236–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stone, Deborah A. (1989) ‘Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas.’ Political Science Quarterly 104 (2): 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temples, James (1980) ‘The Politics of Nuclear Power: A Subgovernment in Transition.’ Political Science Quarterly 95 (Summer): 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Jack L. (1977) ‘Setting the Agenda in the U.S. Senate: A Theory of Problem Selection.’ British Journal of Political Science 7 (part 4): 423–445.Google Scholar
Weimer, David L. and Vining, Aidan R. (1989) Policy Analysis, Concepts and Practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Weingast, Barry (1980) ‘Congress, Regulation, and the Decline of Nuclear Power.’ Public Policy 28 (Spring): 231–255.Google Scholar
Weiss, Janet A. (1989) The Powers of Problem Definition: The Case of Government Paperwork.’ Policy Sciences 22: 97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wildavsky, Aaron (1979) ‘Strategic Retreat on Objectives: Learning from Failure in American Public Policy.’ In Speaking Truth to Power. Boston: Little, Brown and Company: 385–406.Google Scholar
Wilson, James Q. (1973) ‘Organizations and Public Policy.’ In Political Organizations. New York: Basic Books: 327–346.Google Scholar
Wolf, Charles Jr. (1979) ‘A Theory of Nonmarket Failure: Framework for Implementation Analysis.’ Journal of Law and Economics 22 (1): 107–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar