Policy Sciences

, Volume 37, Issue 3–4, pp 237–245 | Cite as

Sustainability of the policy sciences: Alternatives and strategies

  • David Pelletier


Economic Policy Policy Science 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bamford, J. (2004). A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  2. Barker, A. and B. G. Peters, eds. (1993). The Politics of Expert Advice Creating, Using and Manipulating Scientific Knowledge for Public Policy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bobrow, D. B. and J. S. Dryzek (1987). Policy Analysis by Design. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bogason, P. (2000). Public Policy and Local Governance Institutions in Postmodern Society. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  5. Bok, D. (2003) Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bovens, M. and P. Hart (1998). Understanding Policy Fiascoes. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
  7. Chambers, R. (1997). Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. London: Intermediate Technology.Google Scholar
  8. Chetkovich, C and D. L. Kirp (2001). ‘Cases and controversies: How novitiates are trained to be masters of the public policy universe,’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20: 283–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. deLeon, P and T. Steelman (2001). ‘Making public policy programs effective and relevant: The role of the policy sciences,’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20: 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dery, D. (1984). Problem Definition in Policy Analysis. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dickson, D. (1984). The New Politics of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dunn, W. N. (2004). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Fasanoff, S. (1990). The Fifth Branch Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fischer, F. (1990). Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Hammond, K. R. (1996). Human Judgment and Social Policy: Incredible Uncertainty, Inevitable Error, Unavoidable Injustice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hoffman, L. M. (1989). The Politics of Knowledge: Activist Movements in Medicine and Planning. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  17. Johnston, B. F. and W. C. Clark (1982). Redesigning Rural Development: A Strategic Perspective. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  18. Lindblom, C. E. (1993). The Policy-Making Process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Lynn, L. E., ed. (1978). Knowledge and Policy: The Uncertain Connection. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  20. Majone, G. and E. S. Quade, eds. (1980). Pitfalls of Analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Meffe, G. K., L. A. Nielsen, R. L. Knight, and D. A. Schenborn, eds. (2004). Ecosystems Management: Adaptive, Community-Based Conservation. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  22. Montgomery, D. C. (2003). Marketing Science, Marketing Ourselves. Academe Dartmouth.Google Scholar
  23. National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) (2004). Inadequate Funding Limits Food and Agricultural Research Breakthroughs. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  24. NRC (1996). Understanding? Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  25. National Research Council (NRC) (1978). Knowledge and Policy: The Uncertain Connection. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  26. National Research Council (1994). Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. Committee on Risk Assessment of Hazardous Air Pollutants, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on Life Science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  27. Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler (1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  28. Peat, F. D. (2002). From Certainty to Uncertainty: The Story of Sciences and Ideas in the Twentieth Century. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.Google Scholar
  29. Peters, B. G. (1996). The Future of Governing: Four Emerging Models. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  30. Renn, O., T. Webler and P. Wiedemann, eds. (1995). Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Rochefort, D. A. and R. W. Cobb (1994). The Politics of Problem Definition. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  32. Romero, F. S. (2001). ‘The policy analysis course: Toward a discipline consensus,’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20: 771–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  34. Tenner, E. (1996). Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  35. UNDP (2003). Human Development Report 2003 – Millennium Development Goals: A Compact among Nations to End Human Poverty. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Union of Concerned Scientists (2004). Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists.Google Scholar
  37. Von Schomberg, R. ed. (1993). Science, Politics and Morality. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  38. Williams, W. (1998). Honest Numbers and Democracy. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  39. World Bank (2000). World Development Poverty Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Nutritional SciencesCornell UniversityIthacaU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations