Advances in Policy Studies Since 1950;

This is an edited volume of 15 commissioned papers delivered at a 1989 Policy Studies Organization conference addressing advances in policy studies since 1950. The volume seeks to provide a "critical synthesis of theoretical, methodological, and substantive developments in policy studies" (p.2) with special attention to post-positivist perspectives in addressing core assumptions of policy studies. The vantage point for most of the papers is the image of policy studies set forth by Harold Lasswell in advocating a science of democracy.

Much of this volume's collective assessment of policy studies rests on acceptance of this vantage point, leading to a series of laments over the failure of scholars to live up to the Lasswellian ideal. The assessment of trends over the past four decades is summarized by the co- editors in characterizing policy studies that have become "at once more all-encompassing and synoptic and yet more narrow, technical, and isolated from real-life contexts of politics and policymaking" (p.7). The preferred direction is one of developing knowledge that "not only enhances our understanding of social reality but that is also useful to citizens and decision makers. We need a reliable, valid, accountable policy analysis for a postpositivist and postmodern world" (p. 518).

One sub-theme of the volume is the contributions of political science to policy studies. Paul Sabatier provides a cautiously optimistic perspective in reviewing political scientists' advances in understanding policy processes. This perspective is at odds with other assessments in this volume that find study of policy processes to be too far removed from practical policymaking. For example, Dennis Palumbo suggests in his chapter that despite much attention in political science to policy, "the discipline has failed to produce a distinctive approach to policy, nor one that is useful by policymakers" (p. 59). Others, notably Duncan MacRae, Jr. and David Webber, attempt to delineate differences between applied policy work and scholarly work leading to judgements about the comparative advantage of political science. MacRae sees potential contributions of the discipline to institutional policy analysis, the assessment of political feasibility, and understanding knowledge utilization.

With few exceptions, the contributors are much stronger in providing critiques of policy studies than in providing concrete suggestions for promising directions for scholarly research. Elinor Ostrom advocates attention to institutional design in presenting her work on self-governing institutions. Trudi Miller advocates a rigorous science of democracy in attempting to use analytic political theory to inform policy. Paul Sabatier calls for more systematic, empirical research about policy processes.

Some might read the volume as a clarion wake-up call for policy studies. Yet rather than providing an assessment of policy studies, much of the volume consists of advocacy of the need to reclaim Lasswell's lost vision. This familiar message set forth in earlier work by the many of the contributors to the volume. Although providing a useful summary of that perspective, the volume fails to engage a debate over future directions for political science contributions to policy studies.

Peter J. May
Professor
University of Washington