AHow far do f diddles, reason, reasonable discussion, and analysis, go in insurance policy making? In in all in all political systems people gather facts, analyze them, and debate issues@ (p. 13). That act of information gathering is critical, he suggests, but must not be considered the ne plus ultra of the planning process. analytic thinking of evidence is essential to the planning process, but, as he emphasizes, it should not be construed to equate to the planning process. This is an essential point of view, he argues, since, its very nature, analysis is flawed in four areas:
A1. It is unreliable and people believe it to be so.
2. It cannot wholly resolve conflicts of look upon and interests.
4. It cannot tell us conclusively which problems to attack@ (p. 19).
In violate of these flaws, analysis is a rigorous activity that should be embraced, since it is the draw to the policy planning process.
ABecause in the real world, analysis is not conclusive, in order to set policy people interact to exercise influence, power, or control
This suggests a world in which policy making is an architecture, of necessity, built on sand, and that we human beings are forced to think and act indoors a grand complex of ever-shifting goals and changing means to stool them.
Author uncited, (1998, Sept. 1), PAR Awards, Public Administration Review, 58:5 p. II
The answer, it seems clear, is that Lindblom is dedicated to the concept that is so clearly stated on page 5. AThoughtful people sometimes despair of fixing responsibleness on any official or body for the failures of policy making...to understand policy making, one must understand all of political life and activity.@
Lindblom, C.E. (1980), The policy-making process. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.
No comments:
Post a Comment