See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/271697835

Policy Analysts: A New Professional Role in Government Service

Article  in  Public Administration Review · September 1967

DOI: 10.2307/973282

CITATIONS READS

75 1,284

1 author:

Yehezkel Dror
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
118 PUBLICATIONS   1,214 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ISRAELI SECURITY ISSUES View project

HUMANITY-CRAFT View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yehezkel Dror on 16 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Policy Analysts: A New Professional Role in Government Service
Author(s): Yehezkel Dror
Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Sep., 1967), pp. 197-203
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/973282 .
Accessed: 20/03/2014 00:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.64.35.240 on Thu, 20 Mar 2014 00:13:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 197

A New Professional
PolicyAnalysts: Role
LnGovernment Service
By YEHEZKEL DROR

The Hebrew University

> Systemsanalysis can be of only limited utility

in governmentunless it changes so as to be bet-
ter able to deal with qualitative and political

T HE MAIN contemporary
reformmove-
ment in the federal administrationof
phenomena. If systems analysis in its present
form is applied to complex political issues, it
cannot provide the hoped-for benefits; indeed,
a boomerang effectmay follow which will inhibit
the United States (and in some other necessary innovations in the future. Instead, a
countriesas well) is based on an economic new professional study of policy analysis should
approach to public decision-making.The be developed. Policy analysis should combine pres-
roots of this approach are in economic ent methods of systemsanalysis with qualitative
theory,especially micro-economicsand wel- methods and a full awareness of the special char-
acteristicsof political phenomena. Policy analysis
fare economics, and quantitative decision- should become a new professionalrole in govern-
theory;the main tools of this approach are ment, operating within the political and organ-
operations research, cost-effectivenessand izational setting as a new component which con-
cost-benefit analysis,and programbudgeting tributes to aggregate policy-makingwithout pre-
empting in any way the functionsof politicians
and systemsanalysis; and the new profession- and line executives. Development of policy anal-
als of this approach are the systemsanalysts. ysis requires changes in the present rather sterile
Together, these elements constitute main trends of the disciplines of political science and
components of the Planning-Programming- public administration and, in the longer run,
Budgeting System,as firstdeveloped in the establishmentof a new "policy science" interdis-
cipline. Immediate steps can and should be made
Department of Defense and now being ex- to move in the direction of policy analysis within
tended to most executive departmentsand the effortsto introduce a Planning-Programming-
establishments. Budgeting System in federal administration. For
In essence, these reformsconstitutean in- example, the trainingprovided in the special uni-
versity programs sponsored by the government
vasion of public decision-makingby eco-
could be modified toward that end.
nomics. Going far beyond the domain of
economic policy-making,the economic ap-
proach to decision-makingviews every deci- innovation of the Planning-Programming-
sion as an allocation of resources between Budgeting System,which is in essence a re-
alternatives,that is, as an economic prob- statementof earlier budgeting theory com-
lem. Application of suitable tools of eco- bined with systemsanalysis and put into a
nomic analysis should therefore, in this coherentand integratedframework.'
opinion, contribute to the improvementof
decision-making,whatever the subject mat- 'This is brought out both from the papers pub-
be. This lished in "Planning- Programming-Budgeting Sys-
ter of the decision may is the main
tem: A Symposium," Public Administration Review,
Vol. XXVI, No. 4 (December 1966), pp. 243-310 (here-
-The author is indebted to comments and criti- after referredto as Symposium) and from the liter-
cisms which he received from Burton H. Klein and ature on program budgeting, e.g., David Novick, ed.,
Edward S. Quade of the RAND Corporation, Gerald Program Budgeting (Cambridge: Harvard University
E. Caiden of the Hebrew University, and Moshe Press, 1965). The well-taken communication by Fred-
Shani, teaching assistant at the Hebrew University erick C. Mosher in Public Administration Review,
and now graduate student at Cornell University. The Vol. XXVI, No. 5 (March 1967), pp. 67-71, mentions
responsibility for the article is, of course, entirely this important innovation of PPBS, but does not give
the author's. it the emphasis which it deserves.

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW / SEPTEMBER 1967

This content downloaded from 132.64.35.240 on Thu, 20 Mar 2014 00:13:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
198 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW
The invasion of public decision-making which will provide the desired outputs with
by economics is both unavoidable and bene- good and hopefullyverygood, but not neces-
ficial, but fraught with danger. It is un- sarilyoutstanding,personnel.
avoidable because economics provides the When we look at the basic characteristics
only highly developed theoretical basis for of systemsanalysisas a professionaldiscipline
improvementin highlycritical decision-mak- (as distinguishedfrom the personal wisdom
ing processes. It is beneficial because the of some of its pioneers), a number of weak-
economic approach in the systemsanalysis nesses can be identified. These weaknesses
and PPBS form can contribute to the im- are not transitory featuresof a new discipline,
provementof public decision-making, if care-but seem to be endemic to the nature and
fully utilized. It is fraughtwith dangers be- origin of systemsanalysisand are introduced
cause of the inability to deal adequately throughit into PPBS.
with many criticalelementsof public policy- Some of the importantweaknessesof sys-
making and the possible distortionin deci- tems analysisfromthe point of view of pub-
sion-makingresultingtherefrom. lic decision-making can be summedup as fol-
A main question is how to reap the full lows: 2
benefits of the economic approach and to 1. Strongattachmentto quantificationand
improve public decision-makingand policy- dependence upon it, including both
making while avoiding its pitfalls. This need for quantitative models and for
question becomes more and more acute with quantitative parameters for the varia-
the present tendency to apply PPBS and bles appearingin themodels.
systems analysis throughout governmental
administration. 2. Incapacity to deal with conflictingnon-
commensurate v a 1u e s (other than
through neutralizing the issue when
Systems Analysis and possible, by seeking out value-insensi-
Decision-Making tive alternatives).
3. Requirement of clear-cutcriteriaof de-
In considering the dangers of systems cision and well-definedmissions.
analysis (by itself and as a critical part of
4. Neglect of the problems of political
PPBS), we must keep in mind an important
feasibilityand of the special character-
consideration:I accept as a fact that systems
istics of political resources (such as the
analysis has made very important, though
limited,contributionsto betterdecision-mak-
ing up to now, especiallyin the Department 2
Many of the pioneers of systems analysis are
of Defense, but much of this contribution aware of some of these weaknesses. A number of
them have left systemsanalysis and devote themselves
may have been due more to the wisdom, to development of broader tools, mainly in the area
sophistication,and open-mindednessof the of strategyand conflict studies (e.g., Herman Kahn
few outstandingpractitionersof systemsan- and Albert Wohlstetter). Others, at the RAND Corpo-
alysis and their readiness to fightorganiza- ration, continue to broaden systemsanalysis by devel-
tional inertia and muddling-through tenden- oping non-quantitative tools, such as the Delphi
Method and Operational Gaming. See, for instance,
cies than to their defined professionaltools. Olaf Helmer, Social Technology (New York: Basic
Now systemsanalysis is to become a profes- Books, 1966). Recently, some important and able
sion with d e fi n e d job responsibilities effortshave also been made to examine explicitly the
throughoutgovernment,to be practiced by relations between systems analysis and the political
process, though without adequate attention to re-
a larger group of specially trained staffof- quired and possible changes in the methods of sys-
ficers. If this is so, we cannot rely any tems analysis, so as to adjust them to broader polit-
longer on the tacit qualities and multiple ical issues. See, for instance, James R. Schlesinger,
backgrounds (including,for instance,physics Systems Analysis and the Political Process (Santa
Corp., June 1967, p. 3464). These are
and engineering,in addition to economics) Monica: RAND
important,though too timid, steps on the way from
of the small numberof highlygiftedindivid- systemsanalysis to policy analysis. But "systemsanal-
uals who pioneered systemsanalysis.Instead, ysis" as usually presented and as it appears in PPBS
we must develop institutionalarrangements, does not share the benefitsof these first-stepnew ad-
professional training, and job definitions vances.

This content downloaded from 132.64.35.240 on Thu, 20 Mar 2014 00:13:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 POLICY
power-producing effectof using political
power).3
5. Lack of significanttreatmentof essen-
tial extra-rationaldecisionelements,such
as creativity,tacit knowledge,and judg-
ment.
6. Inability to deal with large and com-
plex systemsother than through sub-
optimization,which destroysthe overall
Gestalt of the more difficultand in-
volved issues.
7. Lack of instrumentsfor taking into ac-
count individual motivations,irrational
behavior,and human idiosyncrasy.
As a result of these weaknesses,systems
analysisas such is of doubtfulutilityfordeal-
ing with political decisions,overall strategic
planning, and public policy-making. This
does not disparage the importanceof systems
analysis for operational planning and con-
trol4 or the essential contributionsof sys-
temsanalysisas one of the bases of a broader
professionaldiscipline of policy analysis.But
by itself,or as a part of PPBS, systemsan-
alysis cannot deal with issues and situations
where the problem is to move on fromone
appreciative system5 or multidimensional
space to another,or to get fromone curve to
a different curve.
Possible Boomerang Effects
Even so, a good prima facia argumentcan
be made for taking systemsanalysis as it is
1The overwhelming influence of economic
ideas
influences even highly sophisticatedpolitical scientists
to view political power as similar to economic re-
sources,while ignoring the critical differences-suchas
the often immediate power-producingeffectof using
political resources in the form of favors or coercive
moves (see Symposium, p. 309). The economic mod-
els of resources which, for instance, can either be
consumed or invented with continuous, concave, pro-
duction possibilityfrontiercurves do not apply to po-
litical power.
4 For the distinctionbetween strategicplanning, man-
agement control, and operational control, see Robert
N. Anthony,Planning and Control Systems:A Frame-
work for Analysis (Boston: Graduate School of Busi-
ness Administration, Harvard University, 1965).
6 For the concept of "appreciative system" and its
importance in public decision-making,see Sir Geoffrey
Vickers, The Art of Judgment: A Study of Policy
Making (New York: Basic Books, 1965), Chapter 4.
This content downloaded from 132.64.35.240 on Thu, 20 Mar 2014 00:13:32 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ANALYSTS 199
and applying it to public decision-making.
The principal claims in favorof this position
are that systemsanalysis will at least per-
mit some improvementsin public decision-
making. To paraphrase one of the founders
of modernsystemsanalysis,even in the situa-
tions where technologyand objectiveschange
very swiftly,good systemsanalysis will at
least tryto get on an entirelydifferentcurve
and not look for a peak of a rather flat
curve.6 Furthermore,with the help of sys-
tems analysis and PPBS - so the argument
may go-at the very least, we will begin to
get out of the rote of inertia and incre-
mental change onto the highwayof doubting
conventionalwisdom and introducingdesira-
ble innovations.
These argumentswould be valid if one
condition is met, namely,that both the pro-
fessionalsystemsanalystsand the senior staff
and line of the agencies in which theyserve
are highlysophisticatedin respectto the pos-
sibilities and limitationsof systemsanalysis.
But this is a completelyunrealisticrequire-
ment. The successes of systemsanalysis in
some domains in the Departmentof Defense,
the brilliance of its main pioneers and first
practitioners,and the exaggeratedclaims of
some of its advocates and proponentscom-
bine to create an unrealisticlevel of expec-
tation. Being evaluated in termsof such an
unrealistic level of expectation,systemsan-
alysis and PPBS will often be judged as a
failure.As a result,thereis a great risk that
the strong anti-innovation forces will be
vindicated,will become strongerentrenched,
and will be betterable to oppose significant
reformsin the future. Unsophisticated re-
liance on systemsanalysis in this way may
also impair and indeed nullifythe potential
benefitsof other important parts of PPBS,
such as future-orientation
and multiple-year
programming.
From Systems Analysis to
Policy Analysis
What is needed is a more advanced type
of professional knowledge, which can be
"See Albert Wohlstetter,"Analysis and Design of
Conflict Systems,"in Edward S. Quade, ed., Analysis
for MilitaryDecisions (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964),
p. 106.
200 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
used with significantbenefits for the im-
provementof public decision-making.This
professionalknowledge should do for pub-
lic decision-makingin various issue-areas
what systemsanalysis did in some areas of
defense decision-making.To fill this rather
difficultorder,the various orientations,ideas,
and tools of systemsanalysis must be de-
veloped so as to be applicable to complex
and nonquantifiable issues and systems.
Furthermore-andthisis more importantand
more difficult-politics and political phe-
nomena must be put into the focus of an-
alysis. The term "policy analysis" seems to
be suitable for the proposed professionaldis-
cipline, as it combines affinitywith systems
analysis with the concept of policy in the
broad and political sense.7
In essence,what is required is an integra-
tion between revised disciplines of political
science and public administrationon the one
hand and systemsanalysis, decision theory,
and economictheoryon the otherhand. This
combinationshould be in the formof a com-
pound rather than a mix, so as to provide
a more advanced formof knowledge,rather
than an eclectic collection of unrelated
items. Care must be taken to achieve a real
synthesis,rather than an uncritical subordi-
nation of the political to economic models,
in which the specificfeaturesof politics may
be lost.
To clarifythe idea, let me point out some
main featuresof policy analysis,as compared
withsystemsanalysis.
1. Much attention would be paid to the
political aspects of public decision-making
and public policy-making(instead of ignor-
ing or condescendinglyregardingpolitical as-
pects). This includes much attentionto prob-
lems of political feasibility,recruitmentof
support, accommodations of contradicting
goals, and recognitionof diversityof values.
Especially important are development of
theoriesand constructionof models which do
full justice to the special characteristicsof
7 One weakness of the term "analysis" is its calcula-
tive-logical connotation. In policy analysis a very im-
portant part of the job is to invent new alternatives
and to engage in creative and imaginative thinking.
Nevertheless,I prefer a concept which somewhat un-
derstates the role rather than too presumptuous, too
"political," and too frighteninga term,such as "policy
advertiser" or "policy consultant."
This content downloaded from 132.64.35.240 on Thu, 20 Mar 2014 00:13:32 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REVIEW
politics and political behavior and do not
tryto force them into a procrusteanbed of
economicterminology and theory.
2. A broad conception of decision-making
and policy-makingwould be involved (in-
stead of viewing all decision-making as
mainly a resources allocation). Many types
of critical decisions cannot be usefully ap-
proached from an economic resource alloca-
tion framework,e.g., determiningthe con-
tent of diplomatic notes or changing the
selectivedraftto a randomizedprocess.Here,
qualitative exploration of new alternatives
is necessary, beyond quantitative analysis
and cost-benefitestimation.
3. A main emphasis would be on crea-
tivityand search for new policy alternatives,
with explicit attention to encouragementof
innovative thinking (instead of comparative
analysis of available alternatives and syn-
thesis of new alternativesas one of the ele-
ments of analysis). A good example is the
problem of reducing smoking - where the
problem is clearly one of inventing new
promisingalternatives,ratherthan cost-bene-
fit analysis of differentknown alternatives,
none of which is good. The requirementof
creativityand innovation of alternatives
has far-reachingimplications, as there is
reason to suspect incompatibilitybetween
the personalitytraits,training,and organiza-
tional arrangementsoptimal for analysis (in
the strictmeaning of the term) and those
optimal for invention of alternatives.The
latter requires more "creative" personalities,
structuraltools for search for new ideas (for
instance, through knowledge-surveys),pro-
innovatingorganizationalarrangements(e.g.,
cross-fertilizationand stimulation through
brain trustsand interdisciplinaryt e a m s),
imaginativeand proriskentrepreneurshipat-
mosphere,and changes in overall organiza-
tional climate (e.g., raising organizational
levels of aspiration). Combining systems
analysis with budgeting, as in PPBS, may
be good for quantitativeanalysis,but is not
a way to encourage and stimulate new and
riskyand expensive-lookingpolicy ideas.
4. There would be extensive reliance on
tacit understanding,Gestalt-images,qualita-
tive models, and qualitative methods (in-
stead of main emphasison explicitknowledge
and quantitative models and tools). This
 POLICY ANALYSTS 201
involves imaginative thinking,systematicin- operating, in general, formallyas advisory
tegration of trained intuition into policy staffto top executivesand senior line posi-
analysis (e.g., throughthe Delphi Method), tions and actually establishingwith them a
development of qualitative tools (such as symbioticcooperativerelationship.Certainly,
metaphor construction, scenarios, counter- the professional staff of the federal Plan-
factual thinking),and constructionof broad ning-Programming-Budgeting System units
qualitative models of complex issues in co- should be trained also in policy analysis.
operationwith social scientistsand other pro- Policy analysis does not presume to bring
fessionals (instead of ignoring the latter,in about a radical change in policy-making.It
effect,or regarding them as passive sources does not presume to create omniscientunits,
of quantitativedata). which exist outside any socio-political-org-
5. There would be much more emphasis anizational framework and operate by a
on "futuristic"8 thinking with long-range "downward and disaggregativeflow" of top
predictions, alternative states-of-the-future,policy and policy directions.'0 Good policy
and speculative thinkingon the future (in analysiscan at best become an additionalcom-
most areas up to the year 2000) as essential ponent in aggregativepolicy-making, contrib-
backgroundforcurrentpolicy-making. utingto thatprocesssomebetteranalysis,some
6. The approach would be looser and less novel ideas, some futuristicorientation,and
rigid, but neverthelesssystematic,one which some systematicthought. Policy analystsare
would recognize the complexity of means- one of the bridges between science and pol-
ends interdependence, the multiplicity of itics," but they do not transformthe basic
relevant criteriaof decision, and the partial of "the political" and of organi-
characteristics
and tenative nature of every analysis (in- zational behavior.'2 In order to contributeto
stead of strivingfor a clear-cutcriterionand the improvement of policy-making,policy
dominant solutions). In policy analysis, se- analystsshould be dispersed throughoutthe
quential decision-makingand constantlearn- higher echelons of governmentservice (and,
ing is dominant,9and clarificationof issues, indeed,throughoutthesocial guidancecluster)
invention of new alternatives,more consid- as part of the effortto improveaggregatepoli-
eration of the future,and reduction of pri- cy-makingthroughintroducinginto the clash
mary disagreementsto secondary disagree- and interactionbetween competing partisan
mentsare main goals. interests13 an additional element.'4 Such
10Symposium, p. 258.
11 For the concept, see Don K. Price, The Scientific
Policy Analysts as Estate (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard Uni-
Government Staff Officers versityPress, 1965), esp. pp. 123-126.
12The tendency in systems analysis and PPBS to
To introduce urgently needed improve- ignore organizational behavior is illustrated by the
mentsin public decision-making, while avoid- intention to rely on planned outputs as a standard
for appraising actual outputs (Symposium, p. 275).
ing the possible boomerang effectsof sys- As is well known, both from organization theory and
tems analysis, policy analysis must become from bitter experience, the defensive tendencies of
an importantnew professionalrole in gov- organizations will operate to put planned output in
ernment service. Policy analysis staff posi- line with expected output, well below optimal or
even preferredoutputs. The DOD may have been in
tions should be established in all principal some respects an exception as a result of its special
administrativeagencies and establishments, structure,the personalityof the Secretaryof Defense,
near the senior policy-determining positions, Presidential backing, and-perhaps most important
of all-the external pressure of acute competition
"E.g., see Dennis Gabor, Inventing the Future (New with active adversaries. But in ordinaryorganizations,
York: Alfred Knopf, 1964) and Bertrand de Jouvenel, cooperation by the senior executives is essential for
The Art of Conjecture (New York: Basic Books, 1967; significantchanges in the quality of outputs. Inter-
French original published in 1964). For an applica- estinglyenough, none of the papers in the Symposium
tion to political science, see Benjamin Akzin, "On mentionsthis requisite.
Conjecture in Political Science," Political Studies, Vol. 18 Compare Charles E. Lindblom, The Intelligence
XIV, No. 1 (February 1966), pp. 1-14. of Democracy (New York: The Free Press, 1965).
9 These methods are sometmes mentioned in pass- 1 The dangers of a nonaggregativeview of policy-
ing, but are not at present actually integrated into making are illustrated by doubtful conclusions in re-
systemsanalysis and PPBS, e.g., see Symposium,p. 262. spect to the effectsof the establishmentof the Coun-

This content downloaded from 132.64.35.240 on Thu, 20 Mar 2014 00:13:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
202 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW
A TENTATIVE COMPARISON OF SOME FEATURES OF
SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND POLICY ANALYSIS

Feature SystemsAnalysis Policy Analysis

Base discipline Economics, operations research, As systemsanalysis, plus political science,public

quantitative decision sciences administration,parts of the social sciences and
psychology (in the future, new interdiscipline
of policy sciences)
Main emphasis Quantitative analysis Qualitative analysis and innovation of new al-
ternatives
Main desired qualities of Bright, nonconventional,high ana- As systemsanalysis, plus maturity,explicit and
professionals lytical capacities tacit knowledge of political and administrative
reality,imagination, and idealistic realism
Main decision criteria "Efficiency in allocation of re- Multiple criteria,including social, economic,and
sources political
Main methods Economic analyses, quantitative As systemsanalysis,plus qualitative models and
model construction analyses,imaginative and futuristicthought,and
integrationof tacit knowledge
Main location In PPBS-in Bureau of the Budget Throughout the social guidance cluster in dif-
and agency budget units ferentforms
Main outputs when ap- Clearly better decisions with respect Somewhat better decisions on highly complex
plied to public decision- to limited issues; possible boomer- and political issues; educational impact on politi-
making ang effectif applied to highly com- cal argumentationand long-rangeimprovements
plex political issues in operation of public policy-makingsystem

Requisites for develop- Already operational; furtherdevel- Changes in orientation of political science and
ment of knowledge and opment requires some changes in public administration as academic disciplines-
preparation of profes- universitycurricula establishmentof new universitycurricula and of
sionals new policy science interdisciplines

redundancy will increase the aggregate ef-
fect of policy analysis on policy-making,
while also providing a safeguard against
trained incapacities, one-sided value bias,
and professionalprejudices.
The main role of policy analysts in gov-
ernment-as parts of PPBS, in distincthigh-
level staffunits, in separate independentad-
visorycorporations,and in various other org-
anizational locations-is to contributeto pub-
lic decision-making a broad professional
competence,based simultaneouslyon systems
analysis and quantitativedecision-theory and
cil of Economic Advisors (Symposium, p. 254) and
of unrestrictedfederal grants-in-aid (Symposium, p.
268). See Edward S. Flash, Jr.,Economic Advice and
Presidential Leadership (New York: Columbia Uni-
versityPress, 1965), esp. chapters VIII, IX, and Wal-
ter W. Heller, New Dimensions of Political Economy
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966), chap-
ter III.
on a new outlook in political science and
public administration.The aim of policy
analysis is to permit improvementsin deci-
sion-makingand policy-makingby permit-
ting fuller considerationof a broader set of
alternatives,withina wider context,with the
help of more systematictools. No metamor-
phosis of policy-makingis aimed at, but im-
provementsof, say, 10 to 15 per cent in
complex public decision-makingand policy-
making can be achieved through better in-
tegration of knowledge and policy-making
with the help of policy analysis- and this is
a lot. This, I think,is certainlymuch more
than can be achieved by systemsanalysis,
outside relativelysimple issue-areasand sub-
systems.
It is premature to try and set down in
detail the characteristicsof the new pro-
fessionalrole of po 1i c y analysis in govern-
ment.These must be evolved largelythrough

This content downloaded from 132.64.35.240 on Thu, 20 Mar 2014 00:13:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 POLICY
a careful process of learning and sequential
decision-making.Nevertheless,some sugges-
tive featurescan be presentedtentativelyin
the form of a comparison between systems
analysis and policy analysis (see table).
Some Implications
The decision in 1965 to introduce PPBS
in the federaladministrationand the prepar-
ation for including a social report in the
State of the Union message15 both provide in
the United States an opportunityto intro-
duce policy analysis as a new professional
role in governmentservice and create an
urgent need to do so as expedientlyas pos-
sible. This involves a number of steps.
Immediatelyneeded is a change in concep-
tion in respect to the introductionof PPBS,
with explicit recognitionof the necessityto
move in the direction of policy analysis.As
already pointed out, the main pioneers of
systemsanalysis are highly sophisticatedin
their substantive work and often actually
practice some policy analysis. This actual
sophisticationmust be put into the formal-
ized systemand institutionalizeddirectives.
More importantstill, the schemes for train-
ing of stafffor PPBS at the various special
universityprogramsmust be changed, so as
to move from nearly exclusive preoccupa-
tion with quantitative methods to full em-
phasis of qualitative and political analysis.16
:" See Bertram M. Gross, The State of the Nation:
Social Systems Accounting (Tavistock Publications
Ltd., 1966). An earlier version is "The State of the
Nation: Social SystemsAccounting," in Raymond A.
Bauer, ed., Social Indicators (Cambridge: The M.I.T.
Press, 1966), pp. 154-271. See also Bertram M. Gross,
ed., "Social Goals and Indicators for American So-
ciety," Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, May 1967. At present, Senate
hearings have already started on S-843, which pro-
poses establishmentof a council of social advisers and
an annual social report of the President.
16"Some possibilities for doing so are illustrated by
a seven-monthgraduate course for systems-and policy-
analysis staffofficersorganized by the Israeli govern-
This content downloaded from 132.64.35.240 on Thu, 20 Mar 2014 00:13:32 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
View publication stats
ANALYSTS 203
Later on, policy analysis units of different
formsshould be establishedat focal decision
centers throughout the social guidance
cluster.
The development of policy analysis de-
pends on a numberof transformations in the
disciplinesof political science and public ad-
ministration.The one-sidedinvasion of pub-
lic decision-makingby economicswas caused
largely by the inability of modern political
science and public administrationto make
significantcontributionsto governmentalde-
cision-making.Economics developed a highly
advanced action-orientedtheoryand put it to
the test of innovatingeconomic policy-mak-
ing. At the same time, the modern studyof
political science and public administration
became sterilizedby an escape frompolitical
issues into behavioral "value-free" research
and theory,or exhausted itselfin suggestions
for insignificantincremental improvements
on the technicallevel.
This trend must be revised. A new ap-
proach in political science and public admin-
istration,oriented towardsthe studyand im-
provement of public policy-making,con-
stitutes,in the longer run, a main avenue
for the improvementof public decision-mak-
ing.17 A new interdiscipline of "policy
science" may also be necessaryto provide a
sound theoreticaland institutionalbasis for
policy analysisknowledgeand policy analysis
professionals.In the meantime,seriousboom-
erang effectsand damage can and should be
avoided and the foundationsforsuch a study
and professioncan and should be laid by
changing the present effortsto introduce
systemsanalysisin governmentservicein the
directionof policyanalysis.
ment as part of an effortto improve decision-making
and administrativeplanning. See Yehezkel Dror, "Im-
provement of Decision-Making and Administrative
Planning in the Israel Government Administration,"
in Public Administrationin Israel and Abroad 1966
(Jerusalem,1967), pp. 121-131.
lq For an effortin this direction,see my book, Pub-
lic Policy-Making Reexamined (San Francisco: Chan-
dler, 1967,in press).