No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2009
The relationship between different approaches to the study of social policy making is often ambiguous. An attempt to relate subjectivist approaches to others in order to establish their applicability and relevance to policy making requires the prior clarification of these relationships in the form of a typology. This is used to illustrate ‘category mistakes’ that occur in the literature on policy making as well as to make more explicit the differences and similarities between alternative approaches. The nature of subjectivist approaches is further explored and the limitations of such approaches illustrated in respect of a particular study of policy making. The difficulty of establishing connections between subjectivist accounts of policy making in terms of actors' constructions and meanings, and the tangible outputs of the policy process, is shown as an important problem from this study. The article then turns to the usefulness of subjectivist approaches, especially in testing assertions made about the nature of the policy process by alternative approaches, and concludes with some remarks about the epistemological status of subjectivist accounts.
1 Glaser, B. and Strauss, A., The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1967.Google Scholar
2 But see Lewis, J. and Flynn, R., ‘The Implementation of Urban and Regional Planning Policies’, Policy and Politics, 7:2 (1979), 123–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Edwards, J. and Batley, R., The Politics of Positive Discrimination, Tavistock, London, 1978.Google Scholar
3 There is a vast literature on policy making (a great deal of it American), but examples of more recent British work which have emphasized the importance and usefulness of subjectivist approaches are: Carrier, J. and Kendall, I. ‘Social Policy and Social Change – Explanations of the Development of Social Policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 2:3 (07 1973), 209–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Young, K. ‘Values in the Policy Process’, Policy and Politics, 5:3 (1977), 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Young, K. and Mills, L., ‘Assumptive World’ Research in Intergovernmental Relations: Concepts and Approaches, unpublished, School for Advanced Urban Studies, Bristol, 1979Google Scholar; Ham, C., ‘Approaches to the Study of Policy Making’, Policy and Politics, 8:1 (1980), 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 The term is borrowed from Ryle, G., The Concept of Mind, Peregrine, Harmondsworth, 1963Google Scholar. The test of category sameness used here is substitutability without change of meaning.
5 Higgins, Joan, The Poverty Business, Blackwell, Oxford, 1978, p. 21.Google Scholar
6 McKay, D. and Cox, A., ‘Confusion and Reality in Public Policy: The Case of the British Urban Programme’, Political Studies 26:4 (1978), 491–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Higgins, op. cit.
8 Carrier and Kendall, op. cit.
9 Ham, op. cit.
10 Young, op. cit.
11 Young and Mills, op. cit.
12 Jenkins, W. I., Policy Analysis: A Political and Organisational Perspective, Martin Robertson, Oxford, 1978.Google Scholar
13 Lindblom, C. E., ‘The Science of Muddling Through’, Public Administration Review, 19 (1959), 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Hall, P., Land, H., Parker, R. and Webb, A., Change Choice and Conflict in Social Policy, Heinemann, London, 1975.Google Scholar
15 Easton, D., The Political System, Knopf, New York, 1971Google Scholar; Easton, D., A Systems Analysis of Political Life, Wiley, New York, 1964Google Scholar, and Easton, D., A Framework for Political Analysis, Prentice Hall, Englewood, Cliffs, 1965.Google Scholar
16 Allison, G., Essence of Decision, Little Brown, Boston, 1971.Google Scholar
17 Hill, Dilys, ‘Political Ambiguity and Policy: The Case of Welfare’, Social and Economic Administration, 12:2 (Summer 1978), 89–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 Smith, B., Policy Making in British Government, Martin Robertson, Oxford, 1976.Google Scholar
19 Klein, R., ‘Policy Problems and Policy Perceptons in the National Health Service’, Policy and Politics, 2:3 (1974), 219–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Klein, R., ‘Policy Making in the National Health Service’, Political Studies, 22 (1974), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 Heclo, H. and Wildavsky, A., The Private Government of Public Money, Macmillan, London, 1974.Google Scholar
21 Gouldner, A., Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy, Free Press, Glencoe, 1954.Google Scholar
22 Crozier, M., The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1964.Google Scholar
23 Burns, T., ‘On the Plurality of Social Systems’, in Burns, T. (ed.), Industrial Man, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1969.Google Scholar
24 Throughout the categorization and the ensuing explication, the possessive case has been used only for reasons of economy. This does not mean and neither should it be read as implying, that, for example, Jenkins, postulatesGoogle Scholar or approves such approaches as ‘rational comprehensive’ or ‘incremental bargaining’ (though in some instances such as Allison, this might be so), but only that particular authors have used, commented upon, discussed or criticized various approaches.
25 It may well be that the literature abounds with studies that concentrate upon purposive policy tactics and, if so, the author must take the blame for having found and cited no other example.
26 Hill, op. cit. p. 90.
27 Klein, , ‘Policy Problems and Policy Perceptions in the National Health Services’Google Scholar, op. cit. pp. 219–20.
28 Ibid. pp. 219–20.
29 Ibid. p. 235.
30 Lindblom, op. cit. p. 86.
31 Ham, op. cit. p. 68, also argues the importance of linking theories of power distribution to those of policy making.
32 Higgins, op. cit. p. 21.
33 Carrier and Kendall, op. cit.
34 Ibid. p. 210.
35 Jenkins, op. cit.
36 Ibid. pp. 14–15.
37 Lindblom, op. cit. p. 86, n.7.
38 Glaser and Straus, op. cit., p. 3.
39 Ibid. p. 33. Whether or not this is epistemologically possible is discussed below.
40 Carrier and Kendall, op. cit. p. 222.
41 Ibid. p. 223.
42 Ibid. p. 221.
43 Heclo and Wildavsky, op. cit.
44 Ibid. p. XVII.
45 Ibid. p. 2.
46 Young, op. cit. pp. 2–3.
47 Young, and Mills, op. cit.
48 Ibid, p. 10 (my italics).
49 Ham, op. cit.
50 Ibid. p. 65 (my italics).
51 The research is reported in Edwards and Batley, op. cit.
52 This was not the only approach adopted; other methodological techniques were used and the organizational context within which the policy process occurred could not be ignored. The organizational structure was seen as an influence on policy process and output in its own right, but of equal importance, the interpretation of actors' perceptions and social constructions required that they (the actors) be seen as members of a number of organizations (section, division, Home Office, Civil Service, etc.).
53 This is discussed at length in Edwards and Batley, op. cit. chapter 7.
54 Ham, op. cit. p. 65.
55 Young and Mills, op. cit.
56 On collective consumption, see Lojkine, J., ‘Contribution to a Marxist Theory of Capitalist Urbanisation’, in Pickvance, C. G. (ed.), Urban Sociology, Tavistock, London, 1976, pp. 119–46.Google Scholar
57 By the ‘new urban sociology’ I refer to those developments in urban sociology which have arisen among mainly Marxist writers in Europe such as Castells, Lojkine and Olives, and the French-Canadian, Lamarche. See Pickvance, op. cit. Chapter 1; Castells, M., City, Class and Power, Macmillan, London, 1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lojkine, op. cit. and Olives, J., ‘The Struggle Against Urban Renewal in the Cité d'Aliarte (Paris)’Google Scholar, in Pickvance, op. cit. pp. 174–97.
58 Cockburn, C., The Local State: Management of Cities and People, Pluto Press, London, 1977.Google Scholar
59 Ibid. pp. 120–21.
60 McKay and Cox, op. cit.
61 Hill, op. cit.
62 Edwards and Batley, op. cit.
63 Lambert, J., Paris, C. and Blackaby, R., Housing Policy and The State, Macmillan, London, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
64 Ibid. pp. 26–7.
65 Ibid. p. 101. Similar views are cited at p. 106.
66 Ibid. p. 150.
67 Giddens, A., New Rules of Sociological Method, Hutehinson, London, 1976Google Scholar, especially chapter 4.
68 Ibid. p. 133.
69 Ibid. p. 133.