Political Science and Public Policy

Author(s): Paul A. Sabatier

Reviewed work(s):
Source: PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Jun., 1991), pp. 144-147
Published by: American Political Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/419922 .
Accessed: 25/02/2013 08:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
PS: Political Science and Politics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:04:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Toward BetterTheories of the Policy Process
Political Science and Public Policy
of California,Davis
Paul A. Sabatier,University
Politicalscientistswhoarepolicy
scholarsoftentracetheirlineage
backto thepioneering workof
Lernerand Lasswell(1951).But
publicpolicydidnotemerge as a
significant subfieldwithin thedisci-
plineof politicalscienceuntilthelate
1960sor early70s. Thisresulted
fromat leastthreeimportant stimuli:
(1) socialand politicalpressures to
applytheprofession's accumulated
knowledge to thepressing social
problems of racialdiscrimination,
poverty, thearmsrace,and environ- 2. Evaluationand impactstudies.
mentalpollution; (2) thechallenge
posedbyDawsonand Robinson
(1963),whoarguedthatgovernmen-
talpolicydecisions werelessthe
resultoftraditional disciplinary
concerns suchas publicopinionand
partycomposition thanof socioeco-
nomicfactors suchas income,educa-
tion,andunemployment levels;and
(3) theefforts of DavidEaston,
whoseSystems AnalysisofPolitical
Life(1965)provided an intellectual
framework forunderstanding the
entirepolicyprocess,fromdemand
articulation through policyformula-
tionandimplementation, to feedback
effectson society.
Overthepasttwenty years,policy
research bypoliticalscientists can be
dividedintofourtypes,depending
the
upon principal focus:
1. Substantive arearesearch. This
seeksto understand thepoliticsof
a specific policyarea, such as
health,education, transportation,
naturalresources, or foreign
policy.Mostof theworkin this
tradition has consisted of detailed,
atheoretical,case studies.
largely
Exampleswouldincludethework
of Derthick (1979)on socialsecur-
ity,Moynihan (1970)on anti-
poverty programs, and Baileyand
Mosher(1968)on federal aid to
education. Suchstudiesareuseful
to practitionersandpolicyactivists
144
This content downloaded on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:04:25 AM
in theseareas,as wellas providing areasriskedfalling intotherela-
potentiallyusefulinformation for tivelyfruitless realmof atheoreti-
inductive theory building. In terms cal case studies, whileevaluation
of theprofession as a whole, research offered littlepromisefor
however, theyareprobably less a discipline without clearnorma-
usefulthantheoretical case tivestandards of goodpolicy.A
studies-suchas Pressman and focuson thepolicyprocesswould
Wildavsky (1973)on implementa- provideopportunities forapplying
tionor Nelson(1984)on agenda- and integrating thediscipline's
setting-which use a specific case accumulated knowledge concern-
or testtheories
to illustrate of ingpoliticalbehavior in various
important aspectsof thepolicy institutional settings.Thatadvice
process. was remarkably prescient; thefirst
paperin thissymposium attempts
Mostevaluation research is based to summarize whathas been
on contributions fromotherdisci- learned.
plines,particularly welfare eco- 4. Policydesign.Withrootsin the
nomics(Stokeyand Zeckhauser policysciences tradition described
1978;Jenkins-Smith 1990).Policy bydeLeon(1988),thisapproach
scholarstrained as politicalscien- has recently focusedon such
tistshavemadeseveralcontribu- topicsas theefficacy of different
tions.Theyhavebroadened the typesof policyinstruments (Sala-
criteriaof evaluation fromtradi- mon1989;Linderand Peters
tionalsocialwelfare functions to 1989).Although somescholars
includeprocesscriteria, suchas within thisorientation proposea
opportunities foreffective citizen quiteradicaldeparture fromthe
participation (Pierceand Doerk- behavioral traditions of thedisci-
sen,1976).Theyhavefocused pline(Bobrowand Dryzek1987),
attention on distributional effects othersbuilduponworkbypolicy-
(MacRae,1989).Theyhavecriti- oriented politicalscientists over
cizedtraditional techniques of thepasttwenty years(Schneider
benefit-costanalysison many and Ingram1990)whileMiller
grounds(Meier,1984;MacRae (1989)seeksto integrate political
and Whittington, 1988).Most philosophy andthebehavioral
importantly, they have integrated sciences.
evaluation studiesintoresearch on
thepolicyprocessbyexamining Whileall havemadesomecontribu-
theuseand non-useof policy tions,thethirdhas beenthemost
fruitful.
analysisin therealworld Beforeturning to a preview of the
(Wildavsky, 1966;Dunn,1980; shouldbe
Weiss,1977). symposium, somemention
madeof tensions thathaveemerged
3. Policyprocess.Two decadesago,
and the
bothRanney(1968)and between politicalscientists
subfield of policyscholars.
Sharkansky (1970)urgedpolitical
scientistsinterested in public
Sourcesof Strain
policyto focuson thepolicyproc-
ess,i.e. thefactors affecting The first,
and mostsubtle,con-
policyformulation and implemen- cernsa difference
in thefundamental
tation,as wellas thesubsequent conceptionof thepurposeof govern-
effectsof policy.In theirview, mentand politicallife(Hofferbert
focusing on substantive policy all policyscholars
1986).Virtually
PS: PoliticalScience& Politics
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PoliticalScienceand PublicPolicy

viewgovernment in instrumental improve theperformance ofvarious policyresearch-particularly in the

terms:Governments arethereto governmental institutions(Hunting- policyprocesstradition-has been
improve thewelfare of members of ton1988). methodologically sophisticated and
society-toprotect publichealth, The third,and probably most guidedbyexplicit theory.Examples
provideforthecommondefense, serious,sourceof strainis that,in wouldincludeKingdon(1984)and
correct externalities and othermarket theeyesof manypoliticalscientists, Nelson(1984)on agenda-setting;
failures,improve publicsafety, etc. policyscholarshavemadeonly Pressman andWildavsky (1973),
Manypoliticalscientists areuncom- modestcontributions to developing Rodgersand Bullock(1976),
fortable withthisview.Havingbeen reasonably clear,generalizable, and Mazmanianand Sabatier(1981,
schooledin Plato,Aristotle, Locke, empirically verified theories of the 1989),and Goggin(1987)on imple-
and Mill,thereis a tendency to view policyprocess.See, forexample, mentation; Browning etal (1984)on
citizenship andpoliticalparticipation Eulau (1977)and Landau(1977),as long-term policychange;and Ostrom
as endsinthemselves ratherthanas wellas therelatively poorperform- (1990)on institutional arrangements
a meansof influencing policy anceof policyproposalsin NSF's formanaging commonproperty re-
decisions. PoliticalScienceProgram (Sigelman sources.In short,whilethecriticisms
Fortunately, thisstrainneednotbe and Scioli1987).In somerespects, of Eulau and Landauwerelargely
serious.Policyscholarscan certainly thisindictment strikesmeas quite justifiedin the1970s,theyareless
acknowledge thevalueof solidary valid.Muchof whatpassesas policy validtoday.
incentives and a senseof political research-particularly bysubstantive Noneof thesesourcesof strain
efficacy arisingfrompoliticalpartici- areaspecialists-shares all thedefects shouldposeseriousobstacles to close
pation,evenifthesetopicsholdno of traditional case studiesin public collaboration between "mainline"
intrinsicinterest forthem.Likewise administration: descriptive analyses politicalscientistsand thesubfield of
mostpoliticalscientists wouldadmit of specific institutions or decisions policyscholars.Bothgroupssharean
thatpeopleparticipate in politicallife relying uponverysubjective methods overwhelming commoninterest in
at leastin partto influence govern- of dataacquisition and analysis, vir- developing a better understanding of
mentaldecisions and ultimately tuallyno attention to thetheoretical thepolicyprocess,i.e. therangeof
improve socialwelfare. Thusboth assumptions underlying theresearch factors whichaffect governmental
sidesshouldbe ableto agreeon the or thetheoretical implications of the policydecisions and theimpactsof
importance of developing theories of findings,andverylittleconcern with thosedecisions on society.Sinceat
thepolicyprocesswhichfocuson as- thepotential generalizabilityofthose leastthefirst partof thatprocesshas
certaining thefactors whichaffect findings. traditionally beenthedomainof
theextent to whichgovernmental In addition, thedominant para- politicalscience,thesubfield of
policydecisions andtheirsocial digmofthepolicyprocess-the policyscholarsclearlyhavean inter-
effectsareconsistent withpopular stagesheuristic of Jones(1970), estin keeping abreastof develop-
preferences. Thisis, in fact,a well- Anderson (1975),and Peters(1986)-- mentsin therestofthediscipline. By
established tradition within many is notreallya causaltheory. Instead, thesametoken,policyscholarscan
subfields of politicalscience,includ- it dividesthepolicyprocessinto takepridein havingmademajor
ingpublicopinion(Luttbeg1968; severalstages(agendasetting, formu- contributions to ourunderstanding
Page and Shapiro1983),legislative lationand adoption,implementation,of thefunctioning ofgovernmental
representation (Millerand Stokes and evaluation), butcontains no institutionswhichshouldbe ofinter-
1963;Ingramet al. 1980),and coherent assumptions aboutwhat estto all politicalscientists,even
administrative agencies(Meier1975; forcesaredriving theprocessfrom thosewithno particular concerns
1987). stageto stageand veryfewfalsifiable withpolicyimpacts.
The secondstrainalso involves a hypotheses.1 Whilethestages
difference in normative assumptions heuristichas helpedto dividethe
whichneednotimpedecloserela- policyprocessintomanageable units Previewof the
tions.Mostpolicyscholarshavean of analysis, researchers havetended Symposium
activistbent,i.e. at somepointthey to focusexclusively on a singlestage Duringthe1970s,thestages
wishto influence policyin thearea(s) withlittlerecognition ofworkin heuristicservedto focusattention on
in whichtheyarespecialists. Con- otherstages.Theresultis weakened a number of neglected aspectsof the
versely,politicalscientists probably theoretical coherence acrossstages. policyprocess,particularly agenda-
tendto be preoccupied withbetter Evenwithin stages,suchas imple- settingand implementation. This
understanding thewaytheworld mentation, wheretherehas beena symposium synthesizes advances
operateswithin theirareasof special- greatdealof empirical research, dis- madeduring the1980stowardthe
ization,witha smaller percentage agreement existsas to howmuchhas development of severalcausal
seeking to usetheirexpertise to influ- beenlearnedoverthepast20 years theoriesof thepolicyprocess.
encepoliticalbehavior. Thatpercent- (see Sabatier1986andO'Toole 1986 In theinitialessay,I first identify
age,however, is farfromtrivial: forcontrasting reviews). Finally, a number of areasin whichpolicy
HenryKissinger and JeaneKirkpat- Nakamura(1987)and othershave scholarshavemadesignificant contri-
rickareobviousexceptions, while notedthattherealworldprocess butionsto ourunderstanding of that
votingscholarsoftenserveas cam- oftendoesnotfitthesequenceof process:theimportance of intergov-
paignconsultants and manyother stagesenvisaged. ernmental policysubsystems, therole
politicalscientists havesoughtto On theotherhand,a greatdealof of substantive policyinformation,
June1991 145

This content downloaded on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:04:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TowardBetterTheoriesofthePolicyProcess
theimportance of elitesvis-a-vis the
public,etc.I thensummarize four
promising theories of thepolicyproc-
esswhichintegrate manyof these
featureswithpoliticalscientists' tra-
ditionalknowledge of specific institu-
tionsandtypesof politicalbehavior.
Theseinclude(1) theopensystems
(or funnel of causality) modelof
RichardHofferbert (1974);(2) an
institutionalrationalchoiceapproach
developed byElinorOstromand her
colleagues; (3) JohnKingdon's(1984)
streams"
"policy approach;and (4)
myown"advocacycoalition"frame-
work(Sabatier1988).
Theremainder of thesymposium
consistsof attempts to critically
to two
applyseveralof thesetheories
differentpolicyareas.In thefirst,
HankJenkins-Smith appliestheinsti-
tutionalrationalchoiceand advocacy
coalitionmodelsto thestudyof
nuclearwastepolicyoverthepast15
years.Thisis largely a "scoping"
exercisewhichidentifies thetypesof
information required to thoroughly
testeachmodel.He concludes that
institutionalrationalchoiceis very
usefulforunderstanding specific
battlesoverinstitutional arrange-
ments,butverydifficult to applyin
overextended
complexcontroversies
periodsoftime.In contrast, the
advocacycoalitionframework is
usefulforunderstanding thegeneral
evolution of politicalconflicts overa
decadeor more,buttesting the
aboutbelief
theory'sassumptions
changein thepastis verydifficult.
JoeStewart appliesthesametwo
modelsto an understanding of
effortsto enhanceequaleducational
opportunity (particularly forblacks)
overthepastseveraldecades.2In his
view,institutional rationalchoiceis
usefulin understanding thedynamics
of stable,one-coalition subsystems
and the strategies
developedby the
NAACP to abolish segregated
schools,whiletheadvocacycoalition
approachis helpfulin understanding
the morecomplex,dynamicpolitics
after1960. Stewartalso identifies
severallimitationsof each approach.
Hopefullythissymposiumwill
stimulateotherscholarsto apply
these(and other)modelsof the
policyprocessto a varietyof policy
areas in theUnitedStatesand else-
where.It is onlythroughtheaccu-
mulationof such studiesovertime
146
This content downloaded on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:04:25 AM
thatthestrengths
andlimitationsof
variousapproaches
can be identified.
Notes
The participants would liketo expresstheir
thanksto RobertHauck forsheperding this
symposiumto publicationand to Ken Meier
foracceptingresponsibility forall errorsof
and logic.
fact,interpretation,
1. This criticismis less valid forAnderson
(1975). His firsttwo chaptersdiscussa variety
of socio-econommic conditionsand typesof
actorswhichaffectthepolicyprocess,and
he brieflyreviewsseveralapproaches.But
nowheredoes he elaborateone or moreframe-
worksand thenseekto applyit/themthrough-
out the book. Ripley(1985) proposesa some-
what similarframework, althoughhis argu-
mentsderiveprimarily fromLowi's arenas of
power.
On the otherhand, thestagesheuristic--
whichdistinguishes a major policydecision,
such as a statute,fromwhatemergesin the
and reformulation
implementation stages-is
one meansof dealingwithseveralof the prob-
lemsmentionedby Greenberget al (1977).
2. The originalintentwas not to have both
authorsapplythesame two models.But, in
dealingwiththeircases, theysimplyfound
thesetwo to be themostuseful-at least given
timeand page constraints.
References
Anderson,James.1975. Public Policy-Making.
N.Y.: Praeger.
Bailey,Stephenand Mosher,Edith. 1968.
ESEA: The Officeof Education
Administers a Law. Syracuse:Syracuse
University Press.
Bobrow,Davis and Dryzek,John.1987.
PolicyAnalysisby Design. Pittsburgh:
University of PittsburghPress.
Browning,Rufus,Dale RogersMarshall,and
David Tabb. 1984. ProtestIs Not Enough:
The Struggleof Blacks and Hispanicsfor
Equalityin UrbanPolitics.Berkeley:
University of CaliforniaPress.
Dawson, Richardand Robinson,James.1963.
"Interparty Competition,EconomicVari-
ables, and WelfarePoliciesin the
AmericanStates," Journalof Politics25
(May): 265-289.
deLeon, Peter. 1988.Advice and Consent.
New York: RussellSage.
Derthick,Martha. 1979. Policymaking for
Social Security.Washington:Brookings.
Dunn, William.1980. "The Two-Communities
Metaphorand Models of KnowledgeUse."
Knowledge1 (June):515-536.
Easton, David. 1965.A SystemsAnalysisof
PoliticalLife. N.Y.: JohnWileyand Sons.
Eulau, Heinz. 1977. "The Interventionist
Synthesis,"AmericanJournalof Political
Science21 (May): 419-423.
Goggin,Malcolm. 1987. PolicyDesign and the
Politicsof Implementation. Knoxville:
University of TennesseePress.
Greenberg,George,Jeffrey Miller,Lawrence
Mohr, and BruceVladeck. 1977. "Devel-
opingPublic PolicyTheoryPerspectives
fromEmpiricalResearch,"American
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PoliticalScienceReview71 (December):
1532-1543.
Hofferbert, Richard.1974. The Studyof
Public Policy. Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill.
1986. "Policy Evaluation,Democratic
Theory,and the Divisionof Scholarly
Labor," Policy StudiesReview5 (Feb.):
511-519.
Huntington,Samuel. 1988. "One Soul at a
Time: PoliticalScienceand Reform,"
AmericanPoliticalScienceReview82
(March): 3-10.
Ingram,Helen, Nancy Laney,and JohnMc-
Cain. 1980.A PolicyApproachto Political
LessonsfromtheFour
Representation:
CornersStates.Baltimore:JohnsHopkins
University Press.
Jenkins-Smith, Hank. 1990. Democratic
Politicsand PolicyAnalysis.PacificGrove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Jones,Charles. 1970. An Introductionto the
Studyof Public Policy. Belmont,CA:
Wadsworth.
Kingdon,John.1984.Agendas,Alternatives,
and Public Policies. Boston: Little,Brown
& Co.
Kiser,Larryand Ostrom,Elinor. 1982. "The
ThreeWorldsof Action," in Strategiesof
PoliticalInquiry,ed. E. Ostrom.Beverly
Hills: Sage, pp. 179-222.
Landau, Martin.1977. "The ProperDomain
of PolicyAnalysis,"AmericanJournalof
PoliticalScience21 (May): 423-427.
Lerner,Daniel and Lasswell,Harold, eds.
1951. The Policy Sciences.Stanford:Stan-
fordUniversity Press.
Linder,Stephenand Peters,B. Guy. 1989.
"Instruments of Government:Perceptions
and Contexts,"Journalof Public Policy 9
(1): 35-58.
Luttbeg,Norman,ed. 1968. Public Opinion
and Public Policy: Models of Political
Linkages. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
MacRae, Duncan. 1989. "Social Scienceand
PolicyAdvice," Paper presentedat the
PSO/APSA Conference,"Advances in
PolicyStudies." Atlanta.
and Whittington, Dale. 1988. "Assess-
ing Preferences in Cost-BenefitAnalysis,"
Journalof PolicyAnalysisand Manage-
ment7 (Winter):246-263.
Mazmanian,Daniel and Sabatier,Paul, eds.
1981. EffectivePolicy Implementation.
Lexington,Mass.: D.C. Heath.
1989. Implementation and Public
Policy,rev. ed. Lanham, MD: University
Press of America.
Meier,Kenneth.1975. "Representative
Bureaucracy:An EmpiricalAnalysis,"
AmericanPoliticalScienceReview69
(June):526-542.
S1984."The Limitsof Cost-Benefit
Analysis,"Decision-Makingin thePublic
Sector,ed. LloynNigro. N.Y.: Marcel
Dekker,pp. 43-63.
1987. Politicsand theBureaucracy,
2d. ed. Monterey,CA: Brooks/Cole.
Miller,Trudi. 1989. "Design Scienceas a Uni-
fyingParadigm," Paper presentedat the
PSO/APSA Conference,"Advances in
Policy Studies." Atlanta.
Miller,Warrenand Stokes,Donald. 1963.
"ConstituencyInfluenceon Congress,"
AmericanPoliticalScienceReview57
(March): 45-56.
Moynihan,Daniel. 1970. MaximumFeasible
PS: Political Science & Politics

Misunderstanding. N.Y.: Free Press.
Nakamura,Robert.1987. "The Textbook
PolicyProcessand Implementation Re-
search,"Policy StudiesReview7 (1):
142-154.
Nelson, Barbara J. 1984. Makingan Issue of
ChildAbuse. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
O'Toole, Laurence. 1986. "Policy Recommen-
dationsforMulti-Actor Implementation:
An Assessmentof the Field," Journalof
Public Policy 6 (April): 181-210.
Ostrom,Elinor. 1989. Governingthe
Commons.Cambridge:CambridgeUniver-
sityPress.
Page, Benjaminand Shapiro,Robert.1983.
"Effectsof Public Opinionon Policy,"
AmericanPoliticalScienceReview77
(March): 175-190,
Peters,B. Guy. 1986. AmericanPublic Policy:
Promiseand Performance, 2d ed.
Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process
Paul A. Sabatier,University Davis
of California,
Any theory of themanner in which
governmental policiesgetformulated
and implemented, as wellas the
effectsof thoseactionson theworld,
requiresan understanding of the
behaviorof majortypesof govern-
mentalinstitutions (legislatures,
courts,administrative agencies,chief
executives),as wellas thebehavior of
interestgroups,thegeneralpublic,
andthemedia.The dominant para-
digmof thepolicyprocess,thestages
heuristicpopularized byJones
(1970),Anderson (1975),and Peters
(1986),has outlived itsusefulness
andmustbe replaced, in largepart
becauseit is nota causaltheory. In
thecourseof theirempirical work,
policyscholarshavehighlighted a a) The importance of policycommu-
number of phenomena thatneedto
be incorporated intotheories of the
policyprocess.The development of
suchtheories requires an integration
bfbothpoliticalscientists' knowledge
of specificinstitutionsand behavior
andpolicyscholars'attention to
policycommunities, substantive
policyinformation, etc.
Innovationsby Policy Scholars
in UnderstandingthePolicy
Process
At leastsinceWorldWarII, most
politicalscientists
havetendedto
focuson eithera specifictypeof
institution thepresi-
(legislatures,
June1991
This content downloaded on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:04:25 AM
Chatham,NJ: ChathamHouse.
Pierce,Johnand Doerksen,eds. 1976. Water
Politicsand Public Involvement.Ann
Arbor:Ann ArborScience.
Pressman,Jeffrey and Wildavsky, Aaron.
1973. Implementation. Berkeley:University
of CaliforniaPress.
Ranney,Austin,ed. 1968. PoliticalScience
and Public Policy. Chicago: Markham.
Ripley,Randall. 1985. PolicyAnalysisin
PoliticalScience.Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Rodgers,Harrelland Bullock,Charles. 1976.
Coercionto Compliance.Lexington,Mass:
D.C. Heath.
Sabatier,Paul. 1986. "Top-Down and
Bottom-UpModels of PolicyImplementa-
tion: A CriticalAnalysisand Suggested
Synthesis,"Journalof Public Policy 6
(January):21-48.
1988. "An AdvocacyCoalition
Frameworkof PolicyChange and theRole
dency,courts,interest groups,
administrative
agencies, localgovern-
ments,politicalparties)or on specific
typesofpoliticalbehavior outside
thoseinstitutions(publicopinion,
voting, These
politicalsocialization).
havebecomethestandard subfields
withinthediscipline.
In contrast,
scholarsinterested in
publicpolicyhavenotbeenableto
staywithinthesesubfields because
thepolicyprocessspansall of them.
In thecourseof empirical work,
policyscholarshavehighlighted a
number of phenomena often
bypoliticalscientists
neglected
withouta policyfocus:
nities/networks/subsystems
involvingactorsfromnumerous
publicand private institutions
and
frommultiple levelsof govern-
ment;
b) The importance of substantive
policyinformation;
c) The criticalroleof policyelites
thegeneralpublic;
vis-a-vis
d) The desirabilityof longitudinal
studiesof a decadeor more;
e) Differences in politicalbehavior
acrosspolicytypes.
TheImportance
of Intergovern-
mental
PolicyCommunities/
Subsystems
politicalscientists
Traditionally,
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TowardBetter
Theories
ofthePolicyProcess
of Policy-Oriented LearningTherein,"
Policy Sciences21 (Fall): 129-168.
Salamon, Lester,ed. 1989.BeyondPrivatiza-
tion: The Tools of Government. Washing-
ton, DC: The Urban Institute.
Schneider,Anne and Ingram,Helen. 1990.
"BehavioralAssumptionsof Policy
Tools," Journalof Politics52 (May):
510-29.
Sharkansky,Ira, ed. 1970. PolicyAnalysisin
PoliticalScience. Chicago: Markham.
Stokey,Edithand Zeckhauser,Richard.1978.
A Primerfor PolicyAnalysis.NY: W. W.
Norton.
Weiss,Carol. 1977. UsingSocial Researchin
Public PolicyMaking. Lexington,Mass: D.
C. Heath.
Wildavsky,Aaron. 1966. "The PoliticalEcon-
omy of Efficiency: Cost-BenefitAnalysis,
SystemsAnalysis,and ProgramBudget-
ing," Public Administration Review26
(December):292-310.
havebeenpreoccupied witheithera
singletypeof institution
or with
"irontriangles"at a singlelevelof
government.The separate, and
fieldof intergovernmental
neglected,
relations
has focusedon legalrela-
and politicalculture
tionships (Elazar
1984).
Traditionally,
political
havebeenpreoc-
scientists
cupiedwitheithera single
typeof institution
or with
at a single
"irontriangles"
levelofgovernment.
Numerous strandsof policyre-
searchhavedemonstrated theinade-
quacyof thisfocuson single,or
smallgroupsof,institutions.Virtual-
lyall implementationresearch,from
theearlystudiesof Murphy (1973),
PressmanandWildavsky (1973),and
Van Horn(1979)to morerecent
workbyHjernand Porter(1981),
Mazmanianand Sabatier(1981,
1989),ScholzandWei (1986),and
Goggin(1987)has demonstrated that
thedevelopment and execution of
domesticpolicyintheUnitedStates
andWestern Europeinvolves numer-
ous agenciesand interest
groupsat
147