Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T12:20:20.367Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Policy, Politics and Political Science

Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Victoria, June 5, 2013

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2013

Michael M. Atkinson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. Political scientists are increasingly studying public policy in interdisciplinary environments where they are challenged by the political and normative agenda of other disciplines. Political science has unique perspectives to offer, including a stress on the political feasibility of policy in an environment of power differentials. Our contributions should be informed by the insights of cognitive psychology and we should focus on improving governance, in particular the competence and integrity of decision makers. The discipline's stress on legitimacy and acceptability provides a normative anchor, but we should not over invest in the idea that incentives will achieve normative goals. Creating decision situations that overcome cognitive deficiencies is ultimately the most important strategy.

Résumé. Les politologues étudient les politiques publiques dans des contextes de plus en plus interdisciplinaires, où ils sont remis en question par les préoccupations politique et normatives d'autres disciplines. La science politique a des perspectives uniques à offrir, y compris un accent sur la faisabilité politique des politiques publiques dans un contexte de relations de pouvoir asymétriques. Nos contributions doivent être informées par les idées associées à la psychologie cognitive et nous devrions nous concentrer sur l'amélioration de la gouvernance, et notamment la compétence et l'intégrité des décideurs. L'accent de notre discipline sur la légitimité et l'acceptabilité fournit un point d'ancrage normatif, mais il ne faut pas trop investir dans l'idée que des mesures incitatives permettront nécessairement d'atteindre des objectifs normatifs. Créer des situations de décision qui surmontent les lacunes cognitives des acteurs est finalement la stratégie la plus importante à adopter.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 751 - 772
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2013 

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

Acemoglu, Daron and Robinson, James A.. 2013. “Economics versus Politics: The Pitfalls of Policy Advice.” NBER Working Papers Series. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Michael. M. 2011. “Discrepancies in Perceptions of Corruption, or Why Is Canada So Corrupt?” Political Science Quarterly 126 (3): 445–64.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Michael M. and Fulton, Murray. 2013. “Understanding Public Sector Ethics: Beyond Agency Theory in Canada's Sponsorship Scandal.” International Public Management Journal 16 (3): 386–412.Google Scholar
Aucoin, Peter and Bakvis, Herman. 2005. “Public Service Reform and Policy Capacity: Recruiting the Best and the Brightest.” In Challenges to State Capacity, ed. Pierre, M. and Pierre, J.. Basingstoke UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bargh, John A. and Chartrand, Tanya. L.. 1999. “The Unbearable Automaticity of Being.” American Psychologist 54: 462–79.Google Scholar
Baron, Jonathan. 1998. Judgment Misguided: Intuition and Error in Public Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bazerman, Max. H., White, S.B. and Loewenstein, George F.. 1995. “Perceptions of fairness in interpersonal and individual choice situations.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 4 (2): 39–43.Google Scholar
Beck, Mathias, Asinova, Darinka and Dickson, Gordon. 2005. “Public Administration, Science and Risk Assessment: A Case Study of the UK Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Crisis.” Public Administration Review 65 (4): 396–408.Google Scholar
Becker, Gary S. 1995. The Economics of Life: From Baseball to Affirmative Action to Immigration: How Real-World Issues Affect our Everyday Life. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Bendor, Jonathan. 2003. “Herbert A. Simon: Political Scientist.” Annual Review of Political Science 6 (1): 433–71.Google Scholar
Bendor, Jonathan and Hammond, Thomas H.. 1992. “Rethinking Allison's Models.” American Political Science Review 86 (2): 310–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, T. 2006. Principled Agents? The Political Economy of Good Government. The Lindahl Lectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blunkett, David. 2000. “Influence or Irrelevance: Can Social Science Improve Government?” British Educational Research Association Newsletter 71 (March): 12–21.Google Scholar
Brest, Paul. 2013. “Quis custodiet ipsos custodies? Debiasing the Policy Makers Themselves.” In The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy, ed. Eldar Shafir Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Callander, Steven. 2011. “Searching for Good Policies.” American Political Science Review 105 (4): 643–62.Google Scholar
Chugh, Dolly, Bazerman, Max H., and Banaji, Mahzarin R.. 2005. “Bounded Ethicality as a Psychological Barrier to Recognizing Conflicts of Interest.” In Conflicts of Interest: Challenges and Solutions in Business, Law, Medicine, and Public Policy, ed. Moore, D.A., Cain, D.M., Loewenstein, G. and Bazerman, M.H.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Delli Carpini, Michael X., Cook, Fay Lomax and Jacobs, Lawrence. 2004. “Public Deliberation, Discursive Participation and Citizen Engagement: A Review of the Empirical Literature.” Annual Review of Political Science 7: 315–44.Google Scholar
Dixit, Avinash K. 1996. The Making of Economic Policy: A Transaction-Cost Politics Perspective. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2004. “Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects.” American Political Science Review 98 (4): 671–86.Google Scholar
Einhorn, Hillel J. and Hogarth, Robin W.. 1981. “Behavioral Decision Theory: Processes of Judgment and Choice.” Journal of Accounting Research 19 (1): 1–31.Google Scholar
Epley, N. and Caruso, E.. 2004. “Egocentric Ethics.” Social Justice Research 17 (2): 171–87.Google Scholar
Farr, James, Hacker, Jacob S. and Kazee, Nicole. 2006. “The Policy Scientist of Democracy: The Discipline of Harold D. Lasswell.” American Political Science Review 100 (4): 579–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2009. “Survival of the unfittest: Why the worst infrastructure gets built—and what we can do about it.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 25 (3): 344–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, D.T. and Gill, M.J.. 2000. “The Momentary Realist.” Psychological Science 11 (5): 394–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, Joshua and Haidt, Jonathan. 2002. “How (and Where) Does Moral Judgment Work?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6 (12): 517–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Hughes, D. Alex and Victor, David G.. 2013. “The Cognitive Revolution and the Political Psychology of Elite Decision Making.” Perspectives on Politics 11 (2): 368–86.Google Scholar
Hetherington, Marc. 2004. Why Trust Matters: Declining Trust and the Demise of Liberalism. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hibbing, John R. and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. 2002. Stealth Democracy: Americans' Beliefs about How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Soren and Rothstein, Bo, eds. 2012. Good Government: The Relevance of Political Science. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoppe, Robert. 2011. The Governance of Problems: Puzzling, Powering and Participation. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Howlett, Michael. 2009. “Policy Analytical Capacity and Evidence-Based Policy: Lessons from Canada.” Canadian Public Administration 52: 153–75.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D. 1999. “Bounded Rationality.” Annual Review of Political Science 2: 297–321.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D. 2003. “Bounded rationality and political science: Lessons from public administration and public policy.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13 (4): 395–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Bryan D. and Baumgartner, Frank. 2005. “A Model of Choice for Public Policy.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15 (3): 325–51.Google Scholar
Juillet, Luc and Rasmussen, Ken. 2008. Defending a Contested Ideal: The Public Service Commission of Canada and Merit, 1908–2008. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow. Toronto: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel. 2003. “Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics.” The American Economic Review 93 (5):1449–75.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel and Tversky, Amos. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica 47: 263–91.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel and Lovallo, Dan. 1993. “Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking.” Management Science 39 (1): 17–31.Google Scholar
Kundra, Ziva and Sinclair, Lisa. 1999. “Motivated Reasoning With Stereotypes: Activation, Application, and Inhibition.” Psychological Inquiry 10 (1): 12–22.Google Scholar
Levi, Margaret. 2013. “Can Nations Succeed?” Perspectives on Politics 11 (1): 187–98.Google Scholar
Majone, Giandomenico. 1989. Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
May, Peter. J. 1986. “Politics and Policy Analysis.” Political Science Quarterly 101 (1): 109–25.Google Scholar
Mercer, Jonathan. 2005. “Prospect theory and political science.” Annual Review of Political Science 8: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1968. Social Structure and Social Theory. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Milkman, Katherine. L., Chugh, Dolly, and Bazerman, Max H.. 2009. “How can decision making be improved?” Perspectives on Psychological Science 4 (4): 379–83.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry. 2005. “Power and Political Institutions.” Perspectives on Politics 3 (2): 215–33.Google Scholar
Montpetit, Eric. 2008. “Policy Design for Legitimacy: Expert Knowledge, Citizens, Time, and Inclusion in United Kingdom's Biotechnology Sector.” Public Administration 86 (1): 259–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Celia. 2008. “Moral Disengagement in Processes of Organizational Corruption.” Journal of Business Ethics 80 (1): 129–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbett, R.E. and Ross, L.. 1980. Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Nye, Joseph S. 1997. “Introduction: The Decline of Confidence in Government.” In Why People Don't Trust Government, ed. Nye, Joseph. S., Zelikow, Philip D. and King, David C.. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pawson, Ray. 2006. Evidence-based Policy: A Realist Perspective. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, Guy B and Savoie, Donald J.. 2012. “In Search of Good Governance.” In From New Public Management to New Political Governance, ed. Bakvis, Herman and Jarvis, Mark D.. Montréal: McGill-Queen's Press.Google Scholar
Philp, Mark. 2007. Political Conduct. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 2012. “For Ethics and Economics without the Dichotomies.” In The End of Value-Free Economics, ed. Putnam, Hilary and Walsh, Vivian. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Bo and Teorell, J. 2008. “What is quality of government? A theory of impartial government institutions.” Governance 21 (2): 165–90.Google Scholar
Sabl, Andrew. 2002. Ruling passions: Political offices and democratic ethics. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Barry. 2011. “Practical Wisdom and Organizations.” Research in Organizational Behavior 31: 3–11.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya. 1985. “The Moral Standing of the Market.” Social Philosophy and Policy 2 (2): 1–19.Google Scholar
Simeon, Richard. 1976. “Studying Public Policy.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 9 (4): 548–80.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1955. “A Behavioral Theory of Rational Choice.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 9: 99–118.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert. 1997 [1945]. Administrative Behavior, 4th ed. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Soroka, Stuart. N. and Wlezien, Christopher. 2004. “Opinion Representation and Policy Feedback: Canada in Comparative Perspective.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 37 (3): 531–59.Google Scholar
Stanovich, Keith E. and West, Richard F.. 2000. “Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23: 645–726.Google Scholar
Steinberger, Peter. 1993. The Concept of Political Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stone, Deborah. 1988. Policy Paradox and Political Reason. New York: Scott Foresman.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2013. “If Misfearing Is the Problem, Is Cost-Benefit Analysis the Solution?” In The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy, ed. Eldar Shafir Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tetlock, Philip E. 1985. “Accountability: The Neglected Social Context of Judgment and Choice.” Research in Organizational Behavior 7: 297–332.Google Scholar
Thaler, Richard H. and Sunstein, Cass R.. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Thaler, Richard H., Sunstein, Cass R. and Balz, John P.. 2013. “Choice Architecture.” In The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy, ed. Shafir, Eldar. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Thiele, Leslie Paul. 2006. The Heart of Judgment: Practical Wisdom, Neuroscience, and Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Townsend, Thomas and Kunimoto, Bob. 2009. “”Capacity, Collaboration and Culture: The Future of the Policy Research Function in the Government of Canada.” Government of Canada. Policy Research Initiative. http://www.horizons.gc.ca/sites/default/files/Publication-alt-format/2009-0010-eng.pdf Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos and Kahneman, Daniel. 1974. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 185 (4157): 1124–31.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 2006. “Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation.” Annual Review of Psychology 57: 375–400.Google Scholar
Vaughan, Diane. 1999. “The Dark Side of Organizations: Mistake, Misconduct, and Disaster.” Annual Review of Sociology 25: 271–305.Google Scholar
Weyland, Kurt. 2005. “Theories of Policy Diffusion: Lessons from Latin American Pension Reform.” World Politics 57: 262–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, James. Q. 1974. “The politics of regulation.” In The Political Economy: Readings in the Politics and Economics of American Public Policy, ed. Ferguson, Thomas and Rogers, Joel. New York: M.J. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Wittman, Donald. 1995. The Myth of Democratic Failure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar