Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-thh2z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-23T10:41:52.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policy: Lessons from the U.S. Foreign Policy Arena*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Robert F. Durant  and
Paul F. Diehl
Robert F. Durant
Affiliation:
Political Science, University of Georgia
Paul F. Diehl
Affiliation:
Political Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay extends John Kingdon's work on predecision policy processes in US domestic policy to the foreign policy domain. While Kingdon's insights have significantly improved our understanding of predecision processes, further development is necessary for extension across both domestic and foreign policy domains. Kingdon's incremental evolutionary metaphor for alternative specification has to be revamped to include both gradualist and nonincremental policy types. Scholars must also make more explicit, elaborate, and thorough use of Cohen, March and Olsen's ‘garbage can’ model of decision making. To these ends, we offer a typology of policy alternatives that incorporates alternative metaphors premised on recent developments in evolutionary theory. The essay concludes by suggesting a research agenda amenable to pursuit in both national and cross-national contexts.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , April 1989 , pp. 179 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allison, Graham T. 1971. Essence of Decision. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bauer, Raymond A., de Sola Pool, Ithiel, and Dexter, Lewis Anthony. 1972. American Business and Public Policy. Chicago: Aldine, Atherton.Google Scholar
Bobrow, David, and John, Dryzek. 1987. Policy Analysis by Design. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Chittick, William O., 1988. ‘The Politicization of Security Policy‘, Journal of Politics 50: 180–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, Roger W., and Elder, Charles D.. 1972. Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda Building. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Michael D., March, James G., and Olsen, Johan P.. 1972. ‘A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice’. Administrative Science Quarterly 17: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dery, David. 1984. Problem Definition in Policy Analysis, Lawrence, Kan.: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Deutsch, Karl W. 1963. The Nerves of Government. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Diehl, Paul F., 1989. ‘Ghosts of Arms Control Past: SALT II and the Reagan Administration 1981–1984’, Political Science Quarterly. (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1972. ‘Up and Down with Ecology –the Issue–Attention Cycle’. The Public Interest, Summer: 39–41.Google Scholar
Dror, Yehezkel, 1984. ‘Policy Gambling: A Preliminary Exploration’. Policy Studies Journal 12: 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldredge, Niles, and Gould, Stephen Jay. 1972. ‘Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism’. In Models in Paleobiology, Schopf, T. J. M.. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper and Co.Google Scholar
Eldredge, Niles. 1982. The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism. New York: Washington Square Press (Pocket).Google Scholar
Eldredge, Niles. 1985. Unfinished Synthesis. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyestone, Robert. 1978. From Social Issues to Public Policy. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Fleisher, Richard, and Bond, Jon R.. 1988. ‘Are There Two Presidencies?: Only for the Republicans’, Journal of Politics 50: 747–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1980. The Panda's Thumb. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1983. Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
Heclo, Hugh. 1978. ‘Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment’. In The New American Political System, ed. Anthony, King. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Holsti, Ole R., and Rosenau, James N.. 1984. American Leadership in World Affairs: Vietnam and the Breakdown of Consensus. Boston: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Hood, Christopher. 1986. The Tools of Government. Chatham, N. J.: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1973. Congressman's Voting Decisions. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Lewis, E. B. 1978. ‘A Gene Controlling Segmentation in Drosophilia’. Nature 275: 565–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Light, Paul C. 1982. The President's Agenda: Domestic Policy Choice from Kennedy to Carter. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Charles E. 1959. ‘The Science of “Muddling Through”’. Public Administration Review 19: 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowi, Theodore. 1964. ‘American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies, and Political Theory’. World Politics, 6: 675–715.Google Scholar
Mansbach, Richard W., and Vasquez, John A.. 1981. In Search of Theory: A New Paradigm for Global Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
March, James and Simon, Herbert. 1958. Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Milbrath, Lester W. 1967. ‘Interest Groups and Foreign Policy’. In Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy, ed. Rosenau, James N.. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Nathan, Richard. 1983. The Administrative Presidency. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Ouchi, William G. 1980. ‘Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans’, Administrative Science Quarterly 25: 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, Peters B. and Hogwood, Brian. 1985. ‘In Search of the Issue-Attention Cycle’ Journal of Politics 47: 238–253.Google Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W. 1984. Political Innovation in America: The Politics of Policy Initiation. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripley, Randall and Franklin, Grace. 1986. Policy Implementation and Bureaucracy. Chicago: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard. 1988. The Postmodern President. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard and Suleiman, Ezra N.. eds. 1980. Presidents and Prime Ministers. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Rourke, Francis and Schulman, Paul. 1989. ‘Adhocracy in Policy Development’. The Social Science Journal, 26: 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, Elmer Eric. 1960. The Semisovereign People. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Schulman, Paul R. 1976. ‘The Reflexive Organization: On Decision, Boundaries, and the Policy Process’, Journal of Politics, 38: 1014–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulman, Paul R. 1988. The Politics of ‘Ideational Policy’. Journal of Politics 50: 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Herbert. 1976. Administrative Behavior. 3rd edition. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1944. Tempo and Mode in Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Hedrick. 1988. The Power Game: How Washington Works. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Thompson, James. 1980. Rolling Thunder: Understanding Policy and Program Failure. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.Google Scholar
Walker, Jack L. 1977. ‘Setting the Agenda in the U.S. Senate: A Theory of Problem Selection’, British Journal of Political Science 7: 423–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wildaysky, Aaron, 1966. ‘The Two Presidencies’. Trans-Action. 4: 7–14.Google Scholar