Policy studies has been one of the most dynamic parts of the social sciences over the past several decades. There has been substantial growth in the literature, the number of courses, the number of professionals who identify themselves with the field, and, arguably, in the impact on public sector policy and programs. The policy studies field is an eclectic one, claimed by public administrators, political scientists, economists, sociologists, psychologists, educators, environmental scientists, and many others.

The policy studies enterprise, which I define here to include both “policy analysis” and “program evaluation,” (more about this later) has struggled with its identity and with its image of itself. Ever self-critical, the field is as willing to hold up its failures as it is its successes. The assessment of the field in these books (as well as others) raises a number of issues: Does the field have an adequate and appropriate impact on decision making? Does it have credibility with both the academic community and policy decision makers? Is it overly vulnerable to political pressure? Or, alternately, unresponsive to decision maker needs? Does the policy studies field enhance the democratic process or undermine it? Can the field usefully address normative issues? Does it have adequate methodological power to answer key questions? Is it focusing on the key questions? Is the field appropriately organized and integrated or is it just a hodge-podge of sub-fields in the social sciences? How effectively do we convey the knowledge and skill in the field to new practitioners and students?

Read the rest of this entry »

Related posts

• Why Hiring a Public Adjuster Makes Sense
• The Politics of Sin: Drugs, Alcohol and Public Policy.
• Public Liability Insurance and Road Gritting
• Challenging the public/private divide: feminism, law and public policy.
• Flexibility in Employment Policy