¹ Quade, Edward S., ed., Policy Sciences (New York: American Elsevier Publishing Company 1970).Google Scholar At last count (1970), there were seven US universities with doctoral programs specifically in public policy; in Britain as far as I can tell, there are several undergraduate classes and two seminars in Masters programs devoted to policy studies. As examples of the flood of publication, one may cite, in ascending order of political ‘involvement': Bauer, Raymond and Gergen, K., The Study of Policy Formation (New York: Free Press, 1968)Google Scholar; the 1966,1967 conferences of the United States SSRC Committee on Government and Legal Processes; and the Caucus for a New Political Science Association. For attempts to develop approaches to practical policy advice in political science, see Ilchman, Warren and Uphoff, Norman, The Political Economy of Change (Berkeley: UCLA Press, 1969)Google Scholar; Dror, Yehizel, ‘Policy Analysts’, Public Administration Review, 27 (1967), 197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The policy emphasis has also spread to new government textbooks, as in J. M., and Mitchell's, W. C.Political Analysis and Public Policy (Chicago: Rand-McNally and Co., 1969).Google Scholar

² Pool, Ithiel De Sola, ed., Contemporary Political Science (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), p. xii.Google Scholar

³ The discussion is summarized in Brecht, Arnold, Political Theory: The Foundations of Twentieth Century Political Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Rose, Richard, ed., Policy Making in Britain (London: Macmillan, 1969), p. x;CrossRefGoogle ScholarEtzioni, Amitai, The Active Society (New York: The Free Press, 1968), p. 252;Google ScholarBraybrooke, David and Lindblom, Charles E., A Strategy of Decision (New York: The Free Press, 1963), footnote 1, p. 249.Google Scholar

⁵ Rosenau, James, ‘Moral Fervor, Systematic Analysis, and Scientific Consciousness in Foreign Policy Research’, in Ranney, Austin, ed., Political Science and Public Policy (Chicago: Markham Publishing Co., 1968), p. 215.Google Scholar

⁶ Lasswell, H. D. and Kaplan, M., Power and Society (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950), p. 71;Google ScholarFriedrich, Carl J., Man and His Government (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 79;Google ScholarRobinson, James, Congress and Foreign Policy-Making (Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1962), p. 3;Google ScholarRanney, , Political Science and Public Policy, p. 7.Google Scholar

⁷ Maclver’s discussion of such ‘social conjunctures’ still repays study. Maclver, R. M., Social Causation (New York: Guinn and Co., 1942), Chap. II.Google Scholar

⁸ On the centrality of policies to the meaning of political order, see Friedrich, , Man and His Government, p. 661.Google Scholar

⁹ Deutsch, Karl, The Nerves of Government, (New York: The Free Press, 1966), pp. 242–3Google Scholar; Diesing, Paul, Reason in Society (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962), p. 198.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Vernon Van Dyke, for example has warned that political scientists ‘. might soon find themselves shoulder to shoulder with professors and researchers of almost all other disciplines, trying to solve all kinds of problems. an all-out policy orientation would help take political scientists fully into the realm of normative problems and social engineering. The prospect is appalling.’ ‘Process and Policy as Focal Concept’s, in Ranney, , Political Science and Public Policy, 23–39, p. 35.Google Scholar For a current attempt to design just such a curriculum, see Jantsch, Erich, ‘Inter- and Transdisciplinary University: A Systems Approach to Education and Innovation’, Policy Sciences,1 (1970), 403–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ Merriam, Charles E., ‘The Present State of the Study of Politics,’ The American Political Science Review, XV (1921), 173–85, p. 176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² While the addition of parties and interest groups to the political scientist’s reference provided a more realistic approach, policy remained a peripheral concern, a shadowy consequence which it was the task of administrators to implement and legal scholars to study. In his monumental account of British government, Lowell devoted only his last chapter of nine pages to policy matters; Bryce, in his study of Modern Democracies in 1924Google Scholar had little to say about policy, and nothing to say about social policies in discussing the ‘results of democratic government’. Lowell, A. Lawrence, The Government of England (New York: Macmillan, 1908)Google Scholar, Chap. 22; Bryce, Lord, Modern Democracies (New York: Macmillan, 1924)Google Scholar, Chap. 73.

¹³ In comparative politics see Almond, G., Macridis, R., and Cole, R., ‘A Suggested Research Strategy in Comparative Government’, The American Political Science Review, xlix (1955), 1042–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Neumann, Sigmund, ‘Comparative Politics: A Half-Century Appraisal’, Journal of Politics, 19 (1957); 369–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Rustow, D. ‘The Study of Elites’, World Politics, 4 (1966), 690–717.Google Scholar The milestone works attempting to extend analysis beyond all-knowing individual decisionmakers are: Polanyi, Karl, The Logic of Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951)Google Scholar; Simon, Herbert, Administrative Behaviour (New York: John Wiley, 1960)Google Scholar; Lindblom, C. E. and Braybrooke, D., A Strategy of Decision (New York: Free Press, 1965)Google Scholar; Olson, Mancur, The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965).Google Scholar For a sense of the influence from other disciplines, see Boulding, Kenneth, ‘The Boundaries of Social Policy’, Social Work, 12 (1967)Google Scholar; and Rodgers, Barbara, Comparative Social Administration (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1968).Google Scholar

¹⁴ The literature concerning the correlation of political and other variables with policy outputs is extensive in the US. For reviews, see Jacob, Herbert and Lipsky, Michael, ‘Outputs, Structures, and Power: An Assessment of Changes in the Study of State and Local Polities’, Journal of Politics, 30 (1968), 510–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Fenton, John H. and Chamberlayne, Donald W., ‘The literature Dealing with the Relationships Between Political Processes, Socio-Economic Conditions and Public Policies in the American States’, Polity, 1 (1969), 388–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarFenton, 's own results are in People and Parties in Politics (Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1966).Google Scholar Work on British data has been begun by Alt, James, ‘Some Social and Political Correlates of County Borough Expenditures’, British Journal of Political Science, I (1971), 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Most early work demonstrated political variables to be of very limited significance, while later studies treating policy outputs in terms other than expenditure levels have contradicted these findings. Of the former studies, see Dawson, Richard E. and Robinson, James A., ‘Inter-party Competition, Economic Variables, and Welfare Policies in the American States,’ Journal of Politics, 25 (1963), 265–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dye, Thomas, Politics, Economics, and The Public:Policy Outcomes in the States (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969)Google Scholar; and Hofferbert, Richard, ‘The Relation Between Public Policy and Some Structural and Environmental Variables in the American States’, The American Political Science Review, LX (1966), 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For the recent rehabilitation of political variables’ independent effect, see Cnudde, Charles and Mccrone, Donald, ‘Party Competition and Welfare Policies in the American States’, The American Political Science Review, LXIII (1969), 858–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clarke, James, ‘Environment, Process and Policy: A Reconsideration’, The American Political Science Review, LXIII (1969)Google Scholar; 1172–82, and Fry, Brian and Winters, Richard, ‘The Politics of Redistribution’, The American Political Science Review, LXIV (1970), 508–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The one major international comparison of policy using correlation analysis is Pryor, Frederick's monumental work, Public Expenditure in Capitalist and Communist Nations (London: Allen and Unwin, 1968).Google Scholar

¹⁵ For a general review, see Taylor, Michael's ‘Mathematical Political Theory’, British Journal of Political Science, I (1971), 339–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar An assessment of the contribution of such formal models to substantive policy remains to be written.

¹⁶ A stimulating use of the same type of criteria to distinguish sociological and economic approaches is Olson, Mancur's, ‘Economics, Sociology, and the Best of All Possible Worlds’, The Public Interest, 12 (1968), 96–118.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Civil Service Department, Civil Service College, Course No. 11, ‘Introduction to Government Administration,’ 15 March — 2 April 1971. Bock, Edwin A. and Campbell, Alan, eds., Case Studies in American Government — Interuniversity Case Program (Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyPrentice Hall, 1962).Google Scholar For a casebook approach, see also Stein, Harold, ed., Public Administration and Policy Development: A Casebook (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1952).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Basic texts are Carter, Gwendolen and Westin, Alan, eds., Politics in Europe, Five Cases in European Government (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1965)Google Scholar; Christoph, James, ed., Cases in Comparative Politics (Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1965)Google Scholar; Stoessinger, John and Westin, Alan, eds., Power and Order: Six Cases in World Politics (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co. 1965).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Becker, Howard S., ‘Observation: Social Observations and Social Case Studies’, International Encycylopedia of the Social Sciences, II (1968), 232–8.Google Scholar

²⁰ Comprehensive bibliographies of articles can be found in Richard Rose, Policy Making in Britain.

²¹ Bailey, Stephen Kemp, Congress Makes a Law (New York: Columbia University Press 1950)Google Scholar; and Richardson, J. J., The Policy-Making Process (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1969).Google Scholar

²² Chapman, Richard, ‘The Bank Rate Decision of 19 September 1957’, Public Administration, 43 (1965), 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For other recent case studies of policy, see Simpson, John, ‘The Polaris Executive: A Case Study of a Unified Heirarchy’, Public Administration, 48 (1970), 379–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Brier, Alan, ‘The Decision Process in Local Government: A Case Study of Fluoridation in Hull’, Public Administration, 48 (1970), 153–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ Dahl, Robert, Who Governs? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961)Google Scholar. For a general review, see Polsby, Nelson, Community Power and Political Theory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963).Google Scholar

²⁴ Banfield, Edward C., Political Influence (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1961).Google Scholar Compare this with the earlier Politics, Planning and the Public Interest, by Meyerson, Martin and Banfield, Edward C. (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1955).Google Scholar

²⁵ Rosenau, James, ‘Moral Fervor, Systematic Analysis and Scientific Consciousness’, pp. 199, 236.Google Scholar

²⁶ Wohlstetter, Roberta, Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1962).Google Scholar

²⁷ Paige, Glenn D., The Korean Decision: June 24–30 (New York: The Free Press, 1968).Google Scholar

²⁸ Snyder, Richard, Bruck, H. W. and Sapin, B., Decision-Making as an Approach to International Politics (Princeton University: Foreign Policy Analysis Series no. 3,1954).Google Scholar For later developments, see Snyder, Richard, et al. , eds., Foreign Policy Decision-Making (New York: The Free Press, 1962)Google Scholar; and Sapin, Burton, The Making of US Foreign Policy (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1966).Google Scholar

²⁹ Paige, , The Korean Decision, p. 318.Google Scholar

³⁰ Bauer, Raymond, De Sola Pool, Ithiel and Dexter, Lewis, American Business and Public Policy (New York: Atherton Press, 1963).Google Scholar

³¹ Bauer, et al. , American Business, p. 472.Google Scholar

³² Schattschneider, E. E., Politics, Pressures and the Tariff (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1935).Google Scholar

³³ Froman, Lewis Jr, ‘An Analysis of Public Policies in Cities’, Journal of Politics, 29 (1967) 94–108, p. 108;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSalisbury, Robert H., ‘The Analysis of Public Policy: A Search for Theories and Roles’, in Political Science and Public Policy, p. 153;Google Scholar using the same argument Rosenau arrive at the opposite conclusion in this volume, pp. 201–5.

³⁴ See Ryder, N. B., ‘The Cohort As a Concept in the Study of Social Change’, American Sociological Review, 30 (1965), 843–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Electoral implications to this effect may be found in Butler, David and Stokes, Donald, Political Change in Britain (London: St. Martin's Press, 1969).Google Scholar

³⁵ Capek, Milic, The Philosophical Impact of Contemporary Science (Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1961), p. 122.Google Scholar

³⁶ , Capek, The Philosophical Impact, p. 371.Google Scholar

³⁷ For surveys of dimensions of policy output other than expenditures, see Salisbury, , ‘The Analysis of Public Policy’; Clarke, ‘Environment, Process, and Policy’; Robert Lineberry and Edmund Fowler, ‘Reformism and Public Policies in American Cities’, The American Political Science Review, LXI (1967), 701–16;Google ScholarJack Walker, , ‘The Diffusion of Innovation Among American States’, The American Political Science Review, LXIII (1969), 880–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁸ An interesting policy comparison across space is in Pennock, J. R., ‘Agricultural Subsidies in Britain and America’, The American Political Science Review, LVI (1962), 621–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Basically descriptive comparisons can be found in various specialized publications; for ageds’ welfare policies, for example, see the excellent article by Fisher, Paul, ‘Minimum Old-Age Pensions’, International Labour Review, 102 (1970), 277–317;Google Scholar on economic policy, Hansen, Bent, Fiscal Policy in Seven Countries, (Paris: OECD, 1969).Google Scholar Two excellent comparisons across time are Olson, Mancur, The Economics of the Wartime British Food Supplies in the Napoleonic Wars an World Wars One and Two (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1963)Google Scholar and Plowden, William, The Motor Car and Politics 1896–1970 (London: Bodley Head, 1971).Google Scholar I am ignorant of any recent rigorous case studies across subject areas.

³⁹ Rose, Arnold, The Power Structure (London: Oxford University Press, 1967).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Gamson, William A., Power and Discontent (Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1968)Google Scholar; see especially Bachrach, Peter and Baratz, Morton, ‘Decisions and Non-decisions: An Analytic Framework’, The American Political Science Review, LVII (1963), 632–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴¹ Bachrach, Peter and Baratz, Morton, Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice (London: Oxford University Press, 1970).Google Scholar For criticisms of the non-decision-making concept, particularly the empirical problems involved, see Merelman, Richard, ‘On the Neo-Elitist Critique of Community Power’, The American Political Science Review, LXII (1968) 451–60, and Letters (12, 1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Raymond E. Wolfinger, Community Power and Policy Making in American Cities, (forthcoming).

⁴² Nagel, Ernest, The Structure of Science (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961), pp. 68–73, and p. 588.Google Scholar

⁴³ Marcuse, Herbert, One Dimensional Man (Boston: Beacon Press, 1964)Google Scholar; Miliband, Ralph, The State in Capitalist Society (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Bachrach, and Baratz, , Power and Poverty, p p. 49–50.Google ScholarBanfield, , for example, can also do little beyond noting that the distribution-of-influence criterion gives no incentive to find ‘greatest total benefit solutions’, Political Influence, pp. 335–6.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Allen Schick, , ‘The Road to PPB: The Stages of Budget Reform’, Public Administration Review, 26 (1966), 243–58.Google Scholar A voluminous literature exists on the approach, but for the best source on what has happened and is happening, see the six volumes of the Subcommittee on Economy in Government of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress hearings, Economic Analysis and the Efficiency of Government, 1969Google Scholar; and compendium of papers, The Analysis and Evaluation of Public Expenditures: The PPB System, 1969. For a brief but excellent British introduction to the subject, see Bridgeman, J. M., ‘Planning, Programming, Budgeting Systems I and II, O & M Bulletin, Journal of the Government Management Services, 11 1969 and 02 1970.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Subcommittee on Economy in Government, testimony of Robert Mayo, p. 604. A reasoned assessment of PPBS's limitations by its proponents is Mckean, Roland and Anshen, Melvin, ‘Limitations, Risks, and Problems’, in Novick, David, ed., Program Budgeting: Program Analysis and the Federal Government (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ The best appraisals of the difficulties are by those who have actually worked at such analysis. See Bolner, S. B., ‘ Four Years of PPBS: An Appraisal’, Public Administration Review 30 (1970), 423–31Google Scholar; Gorham, William, ‘Notes of a Practitioner’, and Drew, Elizabeth, ‘ HEW Grapples with PPBS’, both in The Public Interest, 8 (1967), 4–2 9Google Scholar; Margolis, Julius and Havemann, Robert, Public Expenditures and Policy Analysis (London: Markham Press, 1970)Google Scholar; Merewitz, Leonard and Sosnick, Stephen, The Budget's New Clothes, A Critique of PPBS (London: Markham Press, 1970).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Wildavsky, Aaron, ‘The Political Economy of Efficiency’, Public Administration Review, vol. 26, no. 4 (1966), 292–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a reply, see Capron, William, ‘The Impact of Analysis on Bargaining in Government’, in Davis, James W. Jr,, ed., Politics Programs and Budgets (Englewood Cliffs, N. J: Prentice-Hall, 1969).Google Scholar Those interested in a more detailed political critique should also consult Wildavsky's, ‘The Practical Consequences of the Theoretical Study of Defense Policy’, Public Administration Review, 25 (1965), 90–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and ‘Toward a Radical Incrementalism’, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D. C., 1965; and Wildavsky, Aaron and Hammond, Arthur, ‘Comprehensive versus Incremental Budgeting in the Department of Agriculture’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 10 (1965), 321–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁹ Mundel, David and Steinbruner, John, A Preliminary Evaluation of PPBS, MIT, 1969.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1969 (Cmnd. 3927); Output Budgeting for the Department of Education and Science: Education Planning Paper No. 1, (HMSO, 02, 1970)Google Scholar; Wasserman, G. T., ‘Planning-Programming-Budgeting in the Police Service in England and Wales’, O & M Bulletin, 25, no. 4, (1970)Google Scholar. Note Bridgeman's, comment that ‘[ the limitations] merely [sic] mean that the structure of the programme budget… cannot be related directly to objectives’, in ‘Planning Programming Budgeting Systems’, p. 16. On the difference between performance and program budgeting, see Shick, ‘The Road to PPBS’.Google Scholar

⁵¹ McKinsey and Co., Inc., Strengthening Programming and Budgeting in the Bureau of th Budget, 06, 1969.Google Scholar For a preliminary British approach to the same issue, see SirDean, Maurice, ‘Accountable Management in the Civil Service’, Public Administration, 47 (1969), 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵² The quotations are from Pearce, B. C. G., ‘Management by Objectives — Quo Vadis’, O & M Bulletin, 26, no. I (1971), p. 24.Google Scholar Other references in this paragraph are to two cases in the same Bulletin, E. E. Goddard, ‘MBO in the GLC, and Captain G. W. Bridle, ‘MBO in HMS Collingwood’.

⁵³ Wildavsky, Aaron, ‘Rescuing Policy Analysis from PPBS’, Public Administration Review, 29 (1969), 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁴ See Self, Peter, ‘Nonsense on Stilts: Cost Benefit Analysis and the Roskill Commission’, The Political Quarterly, 41 (1970), 249–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁵ The Reorganization of Central Government (HMSO Cmnd. 4506, 10 1970).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ For the impetus given by PPBS and an introduction to the social reporting movement, see Gross, Bertram, ed., ‘Social Goals and Indicators for American Society’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 05 and 09 1967.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Olson, Mancur, ‘The Plan and Purpose of a Social Report’, The Public Interest, 15 (1969), 85–97, p. 92.Google ScholarToward a Social Report (US GPO, January 1969) gives the preliminary result of this work. For a history of the movement, see Bell, Daniel, ‘The Idea of a Social Report’, The Public Interest, 15 (1969), 72–84.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Social Trends, Nissel, Muriel, ed., Central Statistical Office, HMSO, no. 1, 1970, p. 4.Google Scholar The volume is reviewed by Crick, Bernard in The Political Quarterly, 42 (1971), 203–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also papers of the SSRC Conference on Social Indicators, Ditchley Park, Oxfordshire, 2–4 April 1971.

⁵⁹ Olson, Mancur, ‘Plan and Purpose of a Social Report’, p. 95.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Bauer, Raymond, ed., Social Indicators (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1966)Google Scholar; and Report of the National Goals Research Staff, Toward Balanced Growth: Quantity with Quality, July, 1970.

⁶¹ See Olson, 's recent formulation of the problem in terms of what he calls ‘complex systems analysis’, ‘An Analytic Framework for Social Reporting and Policy Analysis’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 388 (1970), 112–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶² Horowitz, I . L., ‘Social Science Mandarins: Policy-making as a Political Formula’, Policy Sciences, i (1970), 339–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Horowitz, I. L., ed., The Rise and Fall of Project Camelot (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1967)Google Scholar; Rainwater, Lee and Yancey, William, The Moynihan Report and the Politics of Controversy (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1967).Google Scholar For a general account of this problem, see Biderman, Albert, ‘Social Indicators and Goals’, in Bauer, , Social Indicators, pp. 99 ff.Google Scholar Richard Rose has formalized the possible calculations involved in ‘The Market for Policy Indicators’, paper for the British SSRC Conference on Social Indicators, Ditchley Park, 2–4 April 1971.

⁶³ Easton, David, A Systems Analysis of Political Life (New York: John Wiley, 1965), pp. 350–1.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Bachrach, Peter and Baratz, Morton, Power and Poverty, p. 106.Google Scholar A recent attempt by political scientists to report on the effects of public policies is Ira Sharkansky’s paper ‘Problems of Theory and Method: Environment, Policy, Output and Impact’, Conference on the Measurement of Public Policies in the American States, Ann Arbor, 28 July–3 August 1968. For a broader international perspective see the forthcoming volume to be edited by Austin Ranney based on papers to the SSRC Conference on the Impact of Public Policies, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, Dec. 3–5, 1971.

⁶⁵ Lasswell, Harold, The Decision Process, Bureau of Government and Research, College Park, Md., 1956.Google Scholar Compare the six policy-making stages in Rose, Richard, ‘The Variability of Party Government’, Political Studies, 17, no. 4 (1969), 413–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and the seven stages in Agger, R. E., et al. , The Rulers and the Ruled (New York: John Wiley, 1964).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Lasswell, Harold, ‘Policy Sciences’, International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 12, 181–9, p. 181.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ As Easton says, his analysis ‘. will not help us to understand why any specific policies are adopted. .’ A Framework for Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965), p. 89.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Froman, Lewis Jr, ‘The Categorization of Policy Contents’, in Ranney, , ed., Political Science and Public Policy, p. 45.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Lowi, Theodore, ‘American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory’, World Politics, 16 (1964), 677–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For an attempt to use the scheme, see Salisbury, ‘The Analysis of Public Policy’.

⁷⁰ Simon, Herbert, Administrative Behavior (New York: The Free Press, 1957).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Schelling, Thomas, The Strategy of Conflict (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1960)Google Scholar; Arms and Influence (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966).Google Scholar

⁷² Olson, Mancur, The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1965).Google Scholar

⁷³ Deutsch, Karl, The Nerves of Government, p. 80 ff.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Lindblom, Charles, The Intelligence of Democracy (New York: The Free Press, 1965).Google ScholarWildavsky, Aaron, The Politics of the Budgetary Process (Boston: Little Brown & Co., 1964).Google Scholar For criticisms of Lindblom's approach, see Etzioni, Amitai, The Active Society (New York: The Free Press, 1968), p. 273Google Scholar; Dror's, review article ‘Muddling Through – “Science” or Inertia’, Public Administration Review, 24 (1964), 153–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Boulding's, review in American Sociological Review, 29 (1964), 930–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁵ Polanyi, Michael, The Logic of Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Schon, Donald, Beyond the Stable State (London: Maurice Temple Smith Ltd., 1971).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ The Listener, 24 December 1970, p. 877.