公共政策立法分析的备选策略

Richard Burton, David Dellinger, William R. King
{"title":"公共政策立法分析的备选策略","authors":"Richard Burton,&nbsp;David Dellinger,&nbsp;William R. King","doi":"10.1016/0147-8001(78)90003-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Current methods for providing analytic support for public policy choices provide a severely limited basis for decisions by the legislative branch. The executive branch currently dominates the system in that it employs most of the analytical talent, maintains data bases, and determines the alternatives to be analysed. In this paper, two alternative models designed to correct this deficiency are defined and illustrated—i.e. (1) an independent legislative analysis model, and (2) a joint executive-legislative analysis model, and the three alternatives are compared. The conclusion reached is that the joint analysis model is preferable. Two alternative institutional arrangements—an in-house bureaucracy and contracts with outside consultants are also compared with the conclusion that a mixture of the two institutional arrangements is desirable.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101267,"journal":{"name":"Urban Systems","volume":"3 1","pages":"Pages 9-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1978-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0147-8001(78)90003-7","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Alternative strategies for legislative analysis of public policy\",\"authors\":\"Richard Burton,&nbsp;David Dellinger,&nbsp;William R. King\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/0147-8001(78)90003-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Current methods for providing analytic support for public policy choices provide a severely limited basis for decisions by the legislative branch. The executive branch currently dominates the system in that it employs most of the analytical talent, maintains data bases, and determines the alternatives to be analysed. In this paper, two alternative models designed to correct this deficiency are defined and illustrated—i.e. (1) an independent legislative analysis model, and (2) a joint executive-legislative analysis model, and the three alternatives are compared. The conclusion reached is that the joint analysis model is preferable. Two alternative institutional arrangements—an in-house bureaucracy and contracts with outside consultants are also compared with the conclusion that a mixture of the two institutional arrangements is desirable.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101267,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urban Systems\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 9-20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1978-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0147-8001(78)90003-7\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urban Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0147800178900037\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0147800178900037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前为公共政策选择提供分析支持的方法为立法部门的决策提供了极为有限的基础。行政部门目前在系统中占主导地位,因为它雇用大多数分析人才,维护数据库,并确定要分析的备选方案。在本文中,定义和说明了两个替代模型来纠正这一缺陷,即。(1)独立立法分析模式和(2)行政立法联合分析模式,并对三种备选模式进行了比较。得出的结论是,联合分析模型是优选的。两种可供选择的制度安排——内部官僚机构和与外部顾问签订合同——也进行了比较,结论是两种制度安排的混合是可取的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Alternative strategies for legislative analysis of public policy

Current methods for providing analytic support for public policy choices provide a severely limited basis for decisions by the legislative branch. The executive branch currently dominates the system in that it employs most of the analytical talent, maintains data bases, and determines the alternatives to be analysed. In this paper, two alternative models designed to correct this deficiency are defined and illustrated—i.e. (1) an independent legislative analysis model, and (2) a joint executive-legislative analysis model, and the three alternatives are compared. The conclusion reached is that the joint analysis model is preferable. Two alternative institutional arrangements—an in-house bureaucracy and contracts with outside consultants are also compared with the conclusion that a mixture of the two institutional arrangements is desirable.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board A systems analysis approach to transit routing and scheduling in a small city Delphi methodologies: A review and critique The assessment of public agency responsiveness: A pilot study in an urban context Integer goal programming model for urban renewal planning
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1