Policy Analysis is What Information Systems are Not

  • Aaron Wildavsky


The task of analysis is to create problems, preferences tempered by possibilities, which are worth solving. A difficulty is not necessarily a problem; that depends on what I can do about it, including whether it is worth my while to try. My inability to go to Mars, a famous gap between aspirations and actuality, is not a problem but a longing to overcome my limitations. My inability to explain the influence of the tides on the rise and fall of the stock market is not a problem unless I have a hypothesis suggesting how I might influence factors by which the two events might be linked. Only by suggesting solutions, such as programs linking governmental resources with social objectives, can we understand what might be done. Policy analysis involves creating problems that are solvable by specific organizations in a particular arena of action. A problem in policy analysis, then, cannot exist apart from a proposed solution, and its solution is part of an organization, a structure of incentives without which there can be no will to act.


Policy Analysis Critical Path Social Indicator Management Information System Governmental Resource 
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. 2.
    Michael Crozier, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), pp. 186–187.Google Scholar
  2. See also Martin Landau, “On the Concept of a Self-Correcting Organization,” Public Administration Review Vol. 33, No.8 (November–December 1973), pp. 533–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. R. Odom and E. Blystone, “A Case Study of CMP in a Manufacturing Situation,” Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 15 (November–December 1974), pp. 306–310Google Scholar
  4. C. P. Cray and R. Reiman, “PERT Simulation,” Journal of Systems Management Vol. 20 (March 1969), pp. 18–23;Google Scholar
  5. K. MacCrimmon and C. Ryavec, “An Analytical Study of the PERT Assumptions,” Operations Research (January–February 1964), pp. 16–37; and an excellent student paper by Jonathan Bendor, “The Seven-Fold Path to PERT.”Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    Harvey M. Sapolsky, The Polaris System Development: Bureaucratic and Programmatic Success in Government (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972 ).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. For anticipatory interpretation, see Robert K. Merton, “Manifest and Latent Functions,” Social Theory and Social Structure ( New York: Free Press, 1969 ).Google Scholar
  8. 5.
    Peter F. Drucker, “What Results Should You Expect? A User’s Guide to MBO,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 36 (January-February 1976 ), pp. 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 7.
    See Eleanor Bernert Sheldon and Howard E. Freeman, “Notes on Social Indicators: Promises and Potential,” Policy Sciences, Vol. I (Spring 1970 ), pp. 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 8.
    For evidence see Aaron Wildaysky, Budgeting: A Comparative Theory of Budgetary Processes (Boston:Little Brown, 1975), passim.Google Scholar
  11. 9.
    Jeanne Nienaber, Aaron Wildaysky, The Budgeting and Evaluation of Federal Recreation Programs, Or Money Doesn’t Grow on Trees ( New York: Basic Books, 1973 ), pp. 116–142.Google Scholar
  12. 10.
    See Martin Landau, “On the Concept of a Self-Correcting Organization,” Public Administration Review Vol. 33, No. 6 (November–December 1973), pp. 533–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 11.
    See Martin Landau, “Redundancy, Rationality, and the Problem of Duplication and Overlap,” Public Administration Review Vol. 29 (July–August 1969), pp. 346–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 12.
    Giandomenico Majone, “The Role of Constraints in Policy Analysis.” Quality and Quantity, new series, Vol. 8 (1974), pp. 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 13.
    See James S. Coleman, Policy Research in the Social Sciences ( Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1972 ).Google Scholar
  16. 14.
    David H. Stimson and Ruth H. Stimson, Operations Research in Hospitals: Diagnosis and Prognosis (Chicago: Hospital Research and Education Trust, 1972); they evaluate several hundred analyses of hospital administration and suggest that a good 90 per cent were ignored or opposed by the sponsoring agency.Google Scholar
  17. 15.
    For an informative study see Victor G. Nielsen, “Why Evaluation Does Not Improve Program Effectiveness,” Policy Studies Journal (June 1975).Google Scholar
  18. 16.
    John Brandis, “Managing and Motivating by Objectives in Practice,” Management by Objectives, Vol. 4, No. 1 (1974), p. 17.Google Scholar
  19. 17.
    Jong S. Jun, “Management by Objectives in a Governmental Agency: The Case of the Social and Rehabilitation Service,” Social and Rehabilitation Service, Department of HEW (August 1973).Google Scholar
  20. 18.
    See Wildaysky, The Politics of the Budgetary Process, 3rd edition (Boston: Little, Brown, 1978 ).Google Scholar
  21. 19.
    For numerous examples see Naomi Caiden and Aaron Wildaysky, Planning and Budgeting in Poor Countries (NewYork: John Wiley, 1974).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Aaron Wildavsky 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aaron Wildavsky

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations