陳建強的動向研究所

Democracy and the Policy Sciences: Aspirations and operations. By Peter deLeon Policy Studies Journal, Vol.22, No. 2, Summer, 1994,200-213.

In Lasswell's words (1951, p. 15), "the policy sciences of democracy" were "directed towards knowledge needed to improve the practice of democracy." p.200

Lasswell's proposed relationship seemingly has vanished -- indeed, been fundamentally warped -- by subsequent proponents for a number of reasons (for instance, the prevalent influence of economics in policy research [Stone, 1988], the dominance of behavioralism in political science [Ascher, 1987], and, most worrisome, the metastatic growth of the technocratic state [Fischer, 1990]). p.200

First, Lasswell, clearly reacting against the dangers he articulated in his warnings of the "garrison state," never intended his conception of the policy sciences to be associated with any kind of tyranny, especially an authoritarianism of the bureaucracy to which Dryzek alludes (Torgerson, 1985).(2) Second, the cutting edge of the policy sciences' research agenda is now attempting to distance itself conceptually and practically from such an ungainly predicament. Both observations reflect -- in the past tense and the present, respectively -- a fundamental concern, in the words of Lasswell and Kaplan (190, p. xxiv), for "human dignity" rather than "the glory of the depersonalized state or the efficiency of social mechanisms." p.200

Therefore, this essay's admittedly exploratory thrusts are imperative if policy research is to escape the analytic trap many of its most ardent, visible practitioners unwittingly have designed for it.(3) p.200

Under such circumstances, technical concerns would displace political and ethical concerns as the basis for public decision making, thereby transforming normative issues into technical problems...  p.201

Stone (1988), for instance, cogently demonstrated how the objective criteria (such as efficiency) posed by the rationalistic proponents (in her words, the "rationality project were rife with ambiguity and internal contradictions. Torgerson (1986, p. 40), referring to what he cans "the third face of policy analysis," concurred: "It becomes apparent that the narrow, positivist conception of reason has fostered an intellectual style which is insensitive to its own nature and context -- which is, in a word, irrational." p.202

We are again reminded of Wildavsky's (1979) depiction of good policy analysis as two-thirds "social interaction," compared to one-third "intellectual cogitation." only wondering now if he might have overestimated the contributions of the latter. p.202

Participatory policy analysis builds upon "the central issue of the democratic wish: the direct participation of a united people pursuing a shared communal interest" (Morone, 1990, p. 5), but abstracts it in a statistically chosen, representative manner. p.204

At its operational base, participatory policy analysis consciously is designed to incorporate in a proactive manner those publics' informed participation, rather than reactively incorporating e view of self-selected elites (as was the case in Lasswell's decision seminars)(12) or established interest groups. This process thereby subscribes u, Fishkin's three dimensions of democracy: deliberation, nontyranny, and political equality (1991, chap. 4). Urban planners have used such approaches, termed "participatory design," "transactive planning," or "advocacy planning" (inter alia, Friedmann [1973], and Forester [1988]). p.205

Nevertheless, critical theory and participatory policy analysis, if forged carefully, can significantly address many of the ills facing contemporary policy research. The combination seeks to conjoin the participatory ideas embodied in the analytic forum (Jenkins-Smith, 1988) with the critical theory-derived concept of "communicative rationality" Dryzek, 1990). The former serves as the medium for the policy discussion and consensus via communicative competence: the latter clearly obtains to the degree social interaction is free from domination (the exercise of power), strategizing by the actors involved, and (self-) deception ... [and] is oriented towards intersubjective understanding and the generation of action-oriented consensus (Dryzek, 1990, pp. 15, 70) and becomes the theoretical basis for Dryzek's "discursive democracy."(13) p.205

[A] critical approach would emphasize the conditions of power and dependence which characterize contemporary organizational life and the considerable potential for conflict and disorder which these conditions portend.... Moreover ... by specifying the ways in which current relationships of power and dependence result in alienation and estrangement. a critical theory of public organizations would suggest more direct attempts to improve the quality of organizational life. p.207

At its best, critical policy analysis might return the policy sciences to Lasswell's original formulation: a problem-oriented, multidisciplinary, explicitly normative field of inquiry that directly confronts and bridges the growing chasm between policy recipients and policy analysts (and, by extension, policymakers), thus reducing their mutual disenchantments; in short, a viable policy sciences predicated on human dignity and serving democracy. p.209