Policy Analysis in the Good Society
Policy Analysis in the Good Society
复制标题
美好社会的政策分析
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2002
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Ralph C. Longobardi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Deleon;Ralph C. Longobardi
在过去的十年里，学者和（后来的）政治家们采纳了“良好社会”的概念，几乎就像他们发明了--或者至少是专利--它。（科尔曼，1980年）和谴责“保龄球独自”（Putnam，1995; 2000）就像是一个号角（而且，对一些人来说，毫无疑问），人们期待着一些学术场所对这一指控做出可行的回应。事实上，一些著名的美国人已经对“公民社会”的言论不再抱有幻想，以至于最近他们一直在特别反对这一概念。最高法院大法官克拉伦斯托马斯最近在美国企业研究所的一次演讲中说，有一种“过分的礼貌”。. . [and文明不能成为公民或领导的主导原则。”实现良好社会的一个关键问题是，虽然这一概念肯定是诱人的，但其实现充满了困扰当代社会的许多问题。社会有太多的“正确”答案来解决好社会的问题和好处，这些答案在很大程度上取决于提出建议的群体的功能，而且，这些想法总是相互对立的。虽然目标可能是明确的，但手段却不是。因此，让我们提出一种特殊的方法--政策分析在良好社会中的效用，特别是“参与性政策分析”的使用--通过提出四点：第一，我们看待问题的方式;第二，相当明确地，我们选择追求什么目标;第三，我们的决议来自什么学科或思维方式;第四，我们建议如何最好地实现这些目标。顺序如下：
In the past decade, academicians and (later) politicians have adopted the concept of a “good society” almost as if they invented—or at least patented—it. Drawing upon the analogous ideas of social capitalism (Coleman, 1980) and decrying “bowling alone” (Putnam, 1995; 2000) as if it were a clarion (and, to some, unquestioned) call, people have looked to a number of academic venues for a viable response to that charge. Indeed, a few noted Americans have become so disenchanted by the “civil society” rhetoric that, of late, they have been arguing specifically against the concept. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently was quoted as saying (in an address to the American Enterprise Institute) that there was an “overemphasis of civility . . . [and that] civility cannot be the governing principle of citizenship or leadership.” One pivotal problem in the realization of a good society is that while the concept is certainly enticing, its realization is fraught with many of the problems that beset contemporary society. Society has too many “correct” answers addressing the issues and benefits of the good society, determined largely as a function of the proposing group, and, invariably, these ideas stand in opposition to one another. While the goals may be apodictic, the means are anything but. Let us therefore propose one particular means—the utility of policy analysis in the good society and especially the use of “participatory policy analysis”—by making four points: first, the problem as we view it; second, rather explicitly, what goals we choose to pursue; third, from what discipline or manner of thinking our resolutions are emanating; and, fourth, how we propose they can best be obtained. In order: