公共政策分析:麦克拉思公园的供水和下水道。

Phylon (1960) Pub Date : 1979-01-01 DOI:10.2307/274421
H. D. Hamilton, B. G. Lander
{"title":"公共政策分析:麦克拉思公园的供水和下水道。","authors":"H. D. Hamilton, B. G. Lander","doi":"10.2307/274421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"FTER A TWENTY YEAR eclipse, the study of policy making has revived as a respectable concern of political science. A manifestation of the new fashion is a spate of American politics textbooks with policy making as their focus.' These texts are not catalogs of the functions and policies of American governments; instead they purport to offer insights and tools for policy analysis. They are sprinkled liberally with generalizations and tentative propositions about the variables which determine how values are allocated by the American political system. These generalizations may be classified in three categories with reference to their purported utility: explanatory propositions, analytical tools useful for the individual in making his policy choices, and criteria appropriate to some policy areas. Analysis of specific policy controversies, the case method, appears to be exceptionally appropriate for teaching about public policy. How much validity and utility does the variegated assortment of policy propositions have? There are abundant reasons for skepticism. How much do undergraduates comprehend these generalizations, usually framed in esoteric terms at a high level of abstraction? Rote memorization of them is worthless. Therefore careful analysis of specific policy controversies may be the best route toward three objectives: elucidation of the propositions, testing their validity and utility, and acquisition of policy analysis skill. The McElrath Park controversy may be viewed as a laboratory case for considering the relevance of propositions from the public policy literature, and for testing the utility of some prominent policy criteria of public finance literature. The prolonged agitation of the residents of the McElrath and Skeels allotments, two urban ghettos adjacent to Ravenna, Ohio, for construction of sewers and water lines is a minature case of the politics of race and poverty. Its isolation and vest-pocket scale makes it exceptionally manageable for the study of the dynamics of policy making. Of course, a case does not prove or disprove the policy propositions, because they are only probabilistic generalizations","PeriodicalId":82317,"journal":{"name":"Phylon (1960)","volume":"3 1","pages":"1979;40(1)41-51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1979-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public policy analysis: water and sewers for McElrath Park.\",\"authors\":\"H. D. Hamilton, B. G. Lander\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/274421\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"FTER A TWENTY YEAR eclipse, the study of policy making has revived as a respectable concern of political science. A manifestation of the new fashion is a spate of American politics textbooks with policy making as their focus.' These texts are not catalogs of the functions and policies of American governments; instead they purport to offer insights and tools for policy analysis. They are sprinkled liberally with generalizations and tentative propositions about the variables which determine how values are allocated by the American political system. These generalizations may be classified in three categories with reference to their purported utility: explanatory propositions, analytical tools useful for the individual in making his policy choices, and criteria appropriate to some policy areas. Analysis of specific policy controversies, the case method, appears to be exceptionally appropriate for teaching about public policy. How much validity and utility does the variegated assortment of policy propositions have? There are abundant reasons for skepticism. How much do undergraduates comprehend these generalizations, usually framed in esoteric terms at a high level of abstraction? Rote memorization of them is worthless. Therefore careful analysis of specific policy controversies may be the best route toward three objectives: elucidation of the propositions, testing their validity and utility, and acquisition of policy analysis skill. The McElrath Park controversy may be viewed as a laboratory case for considering the relevance of propositions from the public policy literature, and for testing the utility of some prominent policy criteria of public finance literature. The prolonged agitation of the residents of the McElrath and Skeels allotments, two urban ghettos adjacent to Ravenna, Ohio, for construction of sewers and water lines is a minature case of the politics of race and poverty. Its isolation and vest-pocket scale makes it exceptionally manageable for the study of the dynamics of policy making. Of course, a case does not prove or disprove the policy propositions, because they are only probabilistic generalizations\",\"PeriodicalId\":82317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Phylon (1960)\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"1979;40(1)41-51\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1979-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Phylon (1960)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/274421\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Phylon (1960)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/274421","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在沉寂了二十年之后,政策制定的研究作为一门值得尊敬的政治科学重新兴起。这种新潮流的一个体现就是美国大量以政策制定为重点的政治教科书。这些文本不是美国政府职能和政策的目录;相反,它们旨在为政策分析提供见解和工具。书中大量地散布着关于决定美国政治体系如何分配价值的变量的概括和试探性命题。这些概括可以根据其所谓的效用分为三类:解释性命题,对个人做出政策选择有用的分析工具,以及适用于某些政策领域的标准。对具体政策争议的分析——案例法——似乎特别适合公共政策的教学。这些五花八门的政策主张有多少有效性和效用?怀疑的理由很多。本科生对这些概括的理解程度如何?这些概括通常是用深奥的术语在高度抽象的层面上概括出来的。死记硬背是毫无价值的。因此,仔细分析具体的政策争议可能是实现三个目标的最佳途径:阐明主张,测试其有效性和效用,以及获得政策分析技能。McElrath Park争议可以被视为一个实验室案例,用于考虑公共政策文献中命题的相关性,并用于测试公共财政文献中一些突出政策标准的效用。毗邻俄亥俄州拉文纳的两个城市贫民区麦克拉思和斯基尔斯的居民为修建下水道和供水管道而进行的长期骚乱,是种族和贫困政治的一个缩影。它的孤立性和袖珍规模使得它非常适合研究政策制定的动态。当然,一个案例不能证明或否定政策主张,因为它们只是概率概括
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
Public policy analysis: water and sewers for McElrath Park.
FTER A TWENTY YEAR eclipse, the study of policy making has revived as a respectable concern of political science. A manifestation of the new fashion is a spate of American politics textbooks with policy making as their focus.' These texts are not catalogs of the functions and policies of American governments; instead they purport to offer insights and tools for policy analysis. They are sprinkled liberally with generalizations and tentative propositions about the variables which determine how values are allocated by the American political system. These generalizations may be classified in three categories with reference to their purported utility: explanatory propositions, analytical tools useful for the individual in making his policy choices, and criteria appropriate to some policy areas. Analysis of specific policy controversies, the case method, appears to be exceptionally appropriate for teaching about public policy. How much validity and utility does the variegated assortment of policy propositions have? There are abundant reasons for skepticism. How much do undergraduates comprehend these generalizations, usually framed in esoteric terms at a high level of abstraction? Rote memorization of them is worthless. Therefore careful analysis of specific policy controversies may be the best route toward three objectives: elucidation of the propositions, testing their validity and utility, and acquisition of policy analysis skill. The McElrath Park controversy may be viewed as a laboratory case for considering the relevance of propositions from the public policy literature, and for testing the utility of some prominent policy criteria of public finance literature. The prolonged agitation of the residents of the McElrath and Skeels allotments, two urban ghettos adjacent to Ravenna, Ohio, for construction of sewers and water lines is a minature case of the politics of race and poverty. Its isolation and vest-pocket scale makes it exceptionally manageable for the study of the dynamics of policy making. Of course, a case does not prove or disprove the policy propositions, because they are only probabilistic generalizations
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
Increasing sex mortality differentials among black Americans, 1950-1978. Death timing among deceased married couples in a southern cemetery. Black suicide and social support systems: an overview and some implications for mental health practitioners. Toward a systematic typology of black folk healers. Health and crime among Chinese-Americans: recent trends.
×
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