ââ⢠Policy Paradox the Art of Political Decision Making 3rd Edition by Deborah Stone
See a Trouble?
Thanks for telling u.s.a. about the problem.
Friend Reviews
Community Reviews
Her basic indicate is that the rational models fatigued from economics practise non explain very well how policy analysis works. Nor, in her view, should it be the actual model for decision making. She contends that economic rationality oft gives manner to political reality, to accommodation to alien interests, to compromise, to values other than economic efficiency (such every bit liberty, fairness, so on).
The introduction opens the book strongly, with Stone noting policy paradoxes, where the economic rational model does not prevail and explain how things work. She argues (page 13) that "each type of policy instrument [e.g., inducements, rules, rights, for example:] is a kind of sports arena, each with its peculiar ground rules, within which political conflicts are continued." The outset chapter continues the theme, by speaking of the market (economics) and the polis (politics), with a nice table summarizing key points on folio 33). She concludes that (page 34) "Problems in the polis are never `solved' in the way that economical needs are met in the market model." Two dissimilar realms, and what works in the marketplace may or may non piece of work in the polis.
The book proceeds in iii major sections: Part Two focuses on broad goals (eastward.m., equity, efficiency, security, liberty); Part Three examines problems (with chapters labeled every bit follows: symbols, numbers, causes, interests, decisions); Part 4 focuses on solutions (or tools or instruments, such as inducements, rules, facts).
In the end, the book examines nicely the tensions between economic rational analysis of policy ideas and the messier but inescapable political process equally it addresses policy issues. The reader will be provoked to think about important bug upon encountering Stone's perspective. A very useful piece of work on the bigger picture of policy analysis.
...more
Rock suggests that the economics-based model neglects several aspects of our "polis" that cannot be accounted for in traditional policy assay. Nosotros are asked to call back more broadl
A beautifully written text--full of humor and grappling with contradictions--that deftly reveals some of the major flaws in a traditional economics-based analysis of public policy. Stone doesn't so much propose an alternative model, however. Her critique is powerful, only it'southward difficult to say where exactly to go from there.Stone suggests that the economic science-based model neglects several aspects of our "polis" that cannot be accounted for in traditional policy analysis. We are asked to recall more broadly in how we define issues, and how solutions are posed based on particular gains to be realized by particular groups.
There is simply a streak of humanism in this volume that is absent from much literature in public policy. A more rounded viewpoint that recognizes many of the political realities that drive our policy process. Probably the all-time text I read in my graduate public policy form.
...more
Additionally, author has listed diverse paradox faced by policy makers with ideological prejudice.
Book is a good read, just only for readers with at-to the lowest degree intermediate level noesis on polic
Book is based on i grand theme, that the market model cannot be applied on defining a lodge(community, metropolis, land) whilst designing a policy. Market model is discrete, has clear definition and boundaries, whereas gild isn't, information technology is a continuum, and collectively defined by traits known and unknown.Additionally, writer has listed various paradox faced by policy makers with ideological prejudice.
Book is a good read, only only for readers with at-least intermediate level knowledge on policy design.
...more
― Deborah Stone
I have two issues with the book: 1) information technology needlessly uses examples from the liberal camp to brand its signal; and ii) the author argues that she will draw a new and better manner to describe public policy that incorporates the idea of the polis rather tha
I had to read this book for a graduate class on public policy. Technically it offers useful data nearly public policy and goes into several different theories of public policy. Information technology's pretty thorough and a good start to considering public policy.I have two issues with the volume: 1) it needlessly uses examples from the liberal camp to make its point; and 2) the author argues that she will describe a new and better style to describe public policy that incorporates the idea of the polis rather than economic or cost/benefit analysis frameworks. On the former point, the book could have been just equally practiced had she not made her liberal politics oh so clear. There was no nuance or residual. I felt like I was existence hit over the head at times. As to the latter betoken, from the get get she tells readers how she'due south going to introduce a new framework for public policy that leaves backside the old, bad economical frameworks that public policy is so heavily steeped in. I do not begrudge her the effort nor the critique that public policy is as well heavily steeped in economic frameworks. It actually is and it'due south terrible (my stance--not expertise). Then I was looking forwards to her doing just that. Her efforts at the offset of the book seem to motion toward her goal and then she stops. The very concepts and frameworks she critiqued at the start of the book notice their style throughout the text. Information technology's either the case of someone so steeped in the field of study that they can't pull dorsum enough to meet their own contradictions, or possibly, the desire to generate a new and better framework was a device used to get into the meat of the volume: discussing and evaluating different theories of public policy.
Information technology's ok. If you have an involvement, check information technology out. Only make infinite for the critique of the book so yous don't gobble it upward hook, line, and sinker. Also, diversify your reading. This was one book of three paired with several journal articles over the form of a semester. Those readings assistance bring the foibles of the book into relief. I'thou not generally recommending this book.
...more than
Although I sort of dislike some of the inexpensive relativist conclusions she draws, such as 'because numbers are political instruments meant to convince, they are just one way amid many to practice and so, and not at all holy, and may even go out of fashion again at some after date,' which just seems silly. Potential for abuse because people don't notice that they're beingness misused/misled/shown an incomplete pic does not equat Machiavelli for the 21rst century. (It applies more often than not/best to American politics.)
Although I sort of dislike some of the cheap relativist conclusions she draws, such as 'considering numbers are political instruments meant to convince, they are just one way amid many to practice and so, and non at all holy, and may fifty-fifty get out of fashion once more at some later date,' which but seems silly. Potential for abuse because people don't notice that they're being misused/misled/shown an incomplete motion-picture show does not equate to the tool beingness bad, information technology simply means the tool has a manual, and we demand more people to accept read it.
Anyway, small gripes like these aside, it really is a quite comprehensive policy assay book, even though I got the feeling information technology could practise with a bit more structure yet (in later revisions than this one). ...more
I did savour the diverse comparisons between the Rationality/Market place model and and then her Polis model, which I read mostly every bit Ms. Rock gently reminding free market economists that reality works somewhat differently than their Invisible Manus fantasy.
In that sense the book is solid: it mildly chides political and economic theorists for worki
I was hoping for prescription but wound up instead with a whole lot of description. This would be good as a textbook, just only for an introductory policy course.I did enjoy the various comparisons between the Rationality/Marketplace model and and then her Polis model, which I read generally as Ms. Stone gently reminding free market economists that reality works somewhat differently than their Invisible Hand fantasy.
In that sense the volume is solid: it mildly chides political and economic theorists for working with a model that is largely divorced from reality. It just doesn't go far enough in advising solutions to these discrepancies.
Neat Reviews
@pointblaek
...more
Chapter 2- the famous example of the chocolate block division among few recipients.
https://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/....
I was very well impressed with Deborah'south thoughtful assay for each course of action.
A good book for all those interested to learn about how the values of freedom, efficiency, disinterestedness, security and welfare of a customs conflict in a policy implementation. Below is the link for
Affiliate 2- the famous example of the chocolate block sectionalization among few recipients.
https://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/....
I was very well impressed with Deborah's thoughtful assay for each course of activeness.
...more
PART 1 (THE Market AND POLIS MODELS)
Its nigh sorting out the Market place and Polis globe view or mental model as she would say. As the ascendant intellectual mural thinks the domain of public policy would resemble something as simple as 2 individuals trading goods in a market, the author hither wants to paint the real picture. The polis model. where everything is political. people don't acquit rationally most of the fourth dimension. I would like to requite a brief overview on this seminal work on public policy.
PART 1 (THE Market place AND POLIS MODELS)
Its nearly sorting out the Marketplace and Polis earth view or mental model as she would say. As the dominant intellectual landscape thinks the domain of public policy would resemble something as uncomplicated equally two individuals trading appurtenances in a market place, the author here wants to pigment the real movie. The polis model. where everything is political. people don't behave rationally most of the fourth dimension. Feelings of altruism and opportunism, the forces of collective action, formulating political narratives are far more important things than gaining economical efficiencies.
PART ii (GOALS)
These include the elusive goals in the polis. This include the delusion of EQUITY, EFFICIENCY, WELFARE, Liberty and SECURITY in the famous Polis setting. Here you can see the true nature of the game. The Polis is in firm grip of formulating or building a firm narrative towards these goals. But as it turns out these are all very vague, poorly defined and confusing. And the political actors play in the realm of narrative and trying to concenter people'southward attention towards their own policy models citing to achieve these goals.
Function three (PROBLEMS)
In this part the author throws you off balance by throwing light on the modus operandi of the political actors, their main instrument through which they mainly effort to confuse the masses and lures them into achieving their own vested interests. These problem areas are: Political SYMBOLS, Misrepresented or skewed or doctored NUMBERS, how to avoid CAUSES of your misleading actions in public domain and transferring blame on your opponents, how to safeguard your company or lobby INTERESTS past portraying a chivalrous picture of your company or involvement groups, and finally how the DECISIONS are made in polis. It is actually the meat of the book where the writer throws light in the muddied world of lobbyists, interest groups, corrupt and powerful businesses etc.
Function four (SOLUTIONS)
In this part the author elaborates regarding the defence mechanism of the polis to achieving a resemblance of club and rule of law. These are: designing effective INCENTIVES to make the policies work, making RULES to ensure that everything is written down and the defoliation is a trivial bit reduced, presenting FACTS and attempting to give a resemblance of rationality, most importantly giving of legal and constitutional RIGHTS to safeguard people from oppression and POWERS to various federal, state and local governments to attain the policy goals.
I have given you a brief film of what this volume is. It is a lot to take in if information technology is your first book on public policy. Its a rebellion against rationalistic school of thought where everything is so simple and tin can exist micromanaged. Here everything is chaos and the confused and total of dust. Fifty-fifty then you take to endeavour to understand the various elements of government policy making process, motives and instruments of implementation.
...more than
Overall, Stone'south volume is an exercise in helping to explicate the irrationality and inconsistency in our political preferences and decisions. She provides a "model" that contrasts with the common one that rests upon objective cost-benefit analysis. In curt, costs and benefits are not objective - pregnant that everything depends on perspective.
...more
I didn't hate reading it and I learned a lot, which speaks volumes. ...more
News & Interviews
Need is probably the most key political claim. Even toddlers know that demand carries more weight than want or deservingness. They learn early to counter a rejected asking past pleading, "I need it." To merits need is to merits that i should be given the resource or help considering they are essential. Of grade, this raises the question "essential for what?" In conflicts over security, the central issues are what kind of security government should attempt to provide; what kinds of needs it should endeavour to come across; and how the burdens of making security a collective responsibleness should exist distributed.
Just every bit most people are all for equity and efficiency in the abstract, most people believe that gild should help individuals and families when they are in dire need. But below this consensus is a turbulent and intense conflict over how to distinguish need from mere desire, and how to preserve a work - or - merit based system of economical distribution in the confront of distribution co-ordinate to need. Defining need for purposes of public programs get much an exercise like defining equity and efficiency. People endeavor to portray their needs as being objective, and policymakers seek to portray their program criteria every bit objective, in order to put programs across political dispute. As with equity and efficiency, there are sure recurring strategies of argument that can be used to expand or contract a needs claim.
In defence policy, relative need is far more of import than absolute. Our sense of national security (and hence our need for weapons) depends entirely on comparison with the countries nosotros perceive as enemies. And here Keynes is probably correct: The need for weapons can simply be satisfied by feeling superior to "them." Thus, it doesn't thing how many people our warheads can kill or how many cities they can destroy. What matters is what retaliatory chapters we have left after an attack by the other side, or whether our chapters to sustain an criminal offense is greater than their capacity to destroy it. The paradox of nuclear weapons is that the more security nosotros gain in terms of absolute capability (i.e., kill potential), the more insecure nosotros brand ourselves with respect to the consequences of nuclear explosions. Nosotros gain superiority only by producing weapons we ourselves are terrified to use."
Welcome dorsum. Just a moment while nosotros sign you in to your Goodreads account.
yuranighprehopecon.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/48569.Policy_Paradox
0 Response to "ââ⢠Policy Paradox the Art of Political Decision Making 3rd Edition by Deborah Stone"
Post a Comment