This article explores the problem of why most Continental languages lack a term which distinguishes the concept of policy, and to what extent political scientists writing in them are handicapped. It employs a diachronic approach to explore historical shifts of meaning within the “polis-family of words” in English and German, with reference also to French and other languages. The analysis is related to the manner in which the concept and term for state flourished m these languages over time, and explores why a convergence in usages of the English policy and the Continental Policey was aborted in the early nineteenth century. The bureaucratic and ideological roots of the broad Continental police concept are traced. Then synchronic analysis is used to explore how in the contemporary setting the presence or absence of a policy term effects communication and conceptualization.

Comparativists interested in the political dynamics of policy development, and students of public policy desirous of studying national programs in crossnational contexts, face similar dilemmas at present. There is a literature focusing on decision-making processes which often pays little regard to policy substance. There are statistical analyses of expenditure levels, but these are difficult to relate to the ample literature bearing on how particular substantive problems have been handled in specific national and local situations. As a result, political scientists interested in the cross-national study of broad policy areas - such as those studying social policy development in Western Europe and America - are now engaged in the creation of historically based frameworks which will permit more fruitful analyses of differences in the patterns of development.

This article seeks to acquaint the reader with the intellectual landscape of comparative policy studies, and to raise the level of self-consciousness of scholars active in the field. To this end it discusses why comparative policy studies emerged when and where it did in the 1970s. Then it grapples with the reasons and possible effects of the fact that the very term ‘comparative policy’ is so difficult to translate into non-English languages, and links this to a discussion of problems of conceptual cohesion. The last part assesses the prospects of a field which is seeking to gain and retain intellectual coherence and respect, though not nestled comfortably within a single discipline, and is subject to contending pulls from national and international academic, political and bureaucratic forces.

Anyone who keeps abreast of the international political science literature or has dwelt on the contrast in contents of contemporary journals in this discipline is aware of the still very limited convergence of research interests of most American and most European political scientists. The different emphases among the regional groups of producers of published knowledge raises the question of whether there is within political science really an effective intercontinental market in ideas and publications. An attempt to ascertain the extent to which political science professors and their students keep up with foreign literature would constitute a formidable undertaking. But a precondition to their reading would be its easy accessibility in their university libraries.