Abstract
This chapter examines dominant models of decision making to examine how different types of policy knowledge can impact decisions. It considers how different actors receive, interpret, and use policy knowledge through interactive dialog. First, it compares rational-comprehensive and political-incremental models—highlighting common critiques of each and reviewing models developed to address them. It argues that reliance on the evidence-based proverb stymies consideration of complex relationships between politics (Ideology, Interests, and Institutions) and policy knowledge. The chapter expands a model of interaction among these factors, developed by Carol Weiss (Weiss, C. [1995]. The four “I’s” of school reform: How interests, ideology, information, and institution affect teachers and principals. Harvard Educational Review, 65(4), 571–593.), which is used throughout the text to explore another core argument: Changes in these factors contribute to decisions that diverge from expectations set by program design, and changes to program design can drive longer-term rebalancing of these factors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.
Askim, J. (2007). How do politicians use performance information? An analysis of the Norwegian local government experience. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(3), 453–472.
Behn, R. D. (2002). The psychological barriers to performance management: Or why isn’t everyone jumping on the performance-management bandwagon? Public Performance & Management Review, 26(1), 5–25.
Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586–606.
Bertelli, A. M., & Lynn, L. E. (2006). Madison’s managers: Public administration and the constitution. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Cairney, P. (2016). The politics of evidence-based policy making. Dordrecht: Springer.
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.
D’Alessio, D., & Allen, M. (2002). Selective exposure and dissonance after decisions. Psychological Reports, 91(2), 527–532.
Durant, R. F., Legge, Jr. J. S., & Moussios, A. (1998). People, profits, and service delivery: Lessons from the privatization of British Telecom. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 117–140.
Feldman, M. S. (1989). Order without design: Information production and policy making. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Frederickson, D. G., & Frederickson, H. G. (2006). Measuring the performance of the hollow state. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Gordon, R. A. (1996). Impact of ingratiation on judgments and evaluations: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 54.
Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Macmillan.
Kingdon, J. (2003). Agendas, alternatives and public policy. Boston: Longman.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through.” Public Administration Review, 19(1), 79–88.
Lindblom, C. E., & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving (Vol. 21). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lomas, J., & Brown, A. D. (2009). Research and advice giving: A functional view of evidence-informed policy advice in a Canadian ministry of health. The Milbank Quarterly, 87(4), 903–926.
Lynn Jr., L. E. (1999). A place at the table: Policy analysis, its postpositive critics, and future of practice. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: The Journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, 18(3), 411–425.
March, J. G. (2002). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York: Free Press.
McCubbins, M. D., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 165–179.
Melkers, J., & Willoughby, K. (2005). Models of performance-measurement use in local governments: Understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 180–190.
Moynihan, D. P. (2006). Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 77–89.
Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Pollitt, C. (2006). Performance management in practice: A comparative study of executive agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 25–44.
Radin, B. A. (2006). Challenging the performance movement. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Shepsle, K. A., & Weingast, B. R. (1981). Political preferences for the pork barrel: A generalization. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 96–111.
Shulock, N. (1999). The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: The Journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, 18(2), 226–244.
Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior. New York: Free Press.
Simon, H. A. (1952). “Development of theory of democratic administration”: Replies and comments. American Political Science Review, 46(2), 494–503.
Stone, D. A. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (Vol. 13). New York: W. W. Norton.
Waldo, D. (1952a). Development of theory of democratic administration. American Political Science Review, 46(1), 81–103.
Waldo, D. (1952b). “Development of theory of democratic administration”: Replies and comments. American Political Science Review, 46(2), 494–503.
Weber, M. (2013). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. London: Routledge.
Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426–431.
Weiss, C. H. (1989). Congressional committees as users of analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 8(3), 411–431.
Weiss, C. H. (2001). What kind of evidence in evidence-based policy? Paper presented at the third international evidence-based policies and indicator systems conference, pp. 284–291. Durham, UK: CEM centre, University of Durham.
Weiss, C. H. (2002). What to do until the random assigner comes? In F. Mosteller & R. F. Boruch (Eds.), Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research (pp. 198–233). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Wildavsky, A. B. (1964). Politics of the budgetary process. Boston: Little, Brown.
Wildavsky, A. B. (1974). Budgeting: A comparative theory of budgetary processes. Boston: Little, Brown.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Putansu, S. (2020). Challenging the Proverb: A Balanced Model for Governance Decisions. In: Politics and Policy Knowledge in Federal Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38395-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38395-4_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-38394-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-38395-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)