Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-mz6gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-23T09:16:08.132Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Place of Principles in Policy Analysis*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Charles W. Anderson
Charles W. Anderson*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Any theory of policy evaluation has to address the problem of the choice of criteria for decision making. In most theories of policy rationality, derived from economic theories of the utility-maximizing individual and a positivist conception of valuation, such values are to be regarded as the “preferences” of the policy maker. The stipulation and ordering of standards of judgment is not considered to be part of policy rationality itself. This conception of rationality is not obligatory. Understanding rationality as having good reasons for an action, and policy judgment as a process of argument, enables us to stipulate certain standards at the metapolitical level which any system of policy evaluation must meet. It is possible to identify a logical sense in which such classic principles as authority, justice and efficiency can be understood as necessary considerations in any rationally defensible policy appraisal.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 73 , Issue 3 , September 1979 , pp. 711 - 723
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1979

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

I gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments of Murray Edelman, Booth Fowler, Leon Lindberg, Ben Page, Gina Sapiro, and John Witte on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

References

Barry, Brian and Rae, Douglas W. (1975). “Political Evaluation.” In Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W. (eds.), Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 1. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, pp. 337–401.Google Scholar
Barry, Brian and Rae, Douglas W. (1977). “Justice Between Generations.” In Hacker, P. M. S. and Raz, J. (eds.), Law, Morality and Society: Essays in Honour of H. L. A. Hart. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 268–84.Google Scholar
Bedau, Hugo, ed. (1971). Justice and Equality. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Benn, S. I. and Peters, R. S. (1959). Social Principles and the Democratic State. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Benn, S. I. and Peters, R. S. and Mortimore, G. W., eds. (1976). Rationality and the Social Sciences. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Berlin, Isaiah (1969). Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Braybrooke, David and Lindblom, Charles E. (1963). A Strategy of Decision. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Brecht, Arnold (1959). Political Theory. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. and Lindblom, Charles E. (1953). Politics, Economics and Welfare. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Dror, Yehezkel (1968). Public Policy making Reexamined. San Francisco: Chandler.Google Scholar
Feinberg, Joel (1973). Social Philosophy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Gregor, A. James (1969). The Ideology of Fascism. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Charles E. (1968). The Policy-Making Process. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, Alasdair (1977). “Utilitarianism and Cost-Benefit Analysis: An Essay on the Relevance of Moral Philosophy to Bureaucratic Theory.” In Sayre, Kenneth (ed.), Values in the Electric Power Industry. Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
MacRae, Duncan (1976). The Social Function of Social Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
March, James G. and Simon, Herbert A. (1958). Organization. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Mishan, E. J. (1973). Economics for Social Decisions. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Neuman, Franz L. (1953). “The Concept of Political Freedom.” Columbia Law Review 53: 901–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okun, Arthur M. (1975). Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff. Washington, D.C.: Brookings.Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaim (1963). The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, William H. and Ordeshook, Peter C. (1973). An Introduction to Positive Political Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Taylor, Paul W. (1961). Normative Discourse. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen (1969). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen (1972). Human Understanding: Vol. 1. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Waismann, Friedrich (1951). “Verifiability.” In Flew, G. N. (ed.), Logic and Language: First Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zeckhauser, Richard and Schafer, Elmer (1968). “Public Policy and Normative Economic Theory.” In Bauer, Raymond A. and Gergen, Kenneth J. (eds.), The Study of Policy Formation. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.