Abstract
The new discipline of policy analysis applies the specialized knowledge of economics, sociology, organization theory, and all the other social sciences to the task of designing and implementing viable socio-economics programs. This paper is a contribution to the methodology of policy analysis.
Contrary to widely held views, social scientists can usefully participate in the making of public policy not by setting goals or giving expression to the “needs” of particular groups, but rather, by pointing out all the constraints (economic, sociological, organizational, etc.), which effectively limit the set of feasible alternatives. The theoretical explanation of these limitations is a fundamental task of applied social science.
The systematic exploration of the region of feasibility should form the core of all policy analyses. This exploration can be assisted by the proposed distinction between logical, empirical and policy constraints corresponding, respectively, to impossibility theorems, empirical theories or hypotheses, and preliminary decisions or conventions. The significance of the distinction is indicated by some examples, and the different conditions of testability are noted.
Some methodological problems of socio-economic planning are also examined. It is shown that the nature of a program is determined by the character of the crucial constraints rather than by the ostensible objectives. Questions of program implementation cannot be treated separately from planning and resources allocation. All the constraints, including organizational and administrative ones, must be considered in the moment of decision. An alternative which appears satisfactory in relation to a limited number of conditions may turn out to be quite bad with respect to the complete set of constraints.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
ArrowK.J. (1963). Social Choice and Individual Values. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
AshbyW.R. (1963). An Introduction to Cybernetics, New ed. New York: Science Editions.
BlackD. (1958). The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BuchananJ.M. and G.Tullock (1962). The Calculus of Consent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
BuchananJ.M. (1965). The Inconsistencies of the National Health Service. Occasional Paper 7. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
DownsA. (1967). Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
HagenbuchW. (1958). Social Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayek, F.A. (1933). Quoted in Popper, 1960.
HayekF.A. (1952). The Counter-revolution of Science. Glencoe; Free Press.
KneeseA.V. and R.C.d'Arge (1969). “Pervasive External Costs and the Response of Society,” in Joint Economic Committee, US Congress, The Analysis and Evaluation of Public Expenditures. Vol. I, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
LindblomC.E., and D.Braybrooke (1963). A Strategy of Decission. New York: Free Press.
LindblomC.E. (1965). The Intelligence of Democracy. New York: Free Press.
MajoneG. (1971). Il Sistema Planning Programming Budgeting Come Tecnologia Sociale.” Politica Sociale e Pianificazione. Roma: Istituto Studi Sui Servizi Sociali.
MajoneG. (1973a). Decisione e Controllo nella Programmazione Sociale. Roma: Pubblicazioni dell'Instituto di Scienze Attuariali dell'Università.
Majone, G. (1973b). Decision Technology for Public Decision Making. Paper presented at the Fourth Research Conference on Subjective Probability, Utility and Decision Making, Rome.
PopperK.R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Dicovery, London: Hutchinson.
PopperK.R. (1960). The Poverty of Historicism. 2nd ed., London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
PopperK.R. (1966). The Open Society and Its Enemies 5th ed., London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Russell, L.J. (1948). “Propositions and Proposals,” in Library of the Tenth International Congress of Philosophy. Vol. I, Proceedings of the Congress, Amsterdam.
SchultzeC.L. (1969). “The Role of Incentives, Penalties and Rewards in Attaining Effective Policy,” in Joint Economic Committee US Congress, The Analysis and Evaluation of Public Expenditures, Vol. I, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
SimonH.A. (1964). “On the Concept of Organizational Goal,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 9: 1–22.
UN Economic and Social Council (1972). Report on a Unified Approach to Development Analysis and Planning, Geneva: Commission for Social Development.
WildvskyA. (1966) “The Political Economy of Efficiency,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 26: 292–310.
WildavskyA. (1969) “Rescuing Policy Analysis from PPBS,” in Joint Economic Committee, US Congress, The Analysis and Evaluation of Public Expenditures, Vol. 3, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
WilliamsW. (1971) Social Policy Research and Analysis, New York: American Elsevier Publishing Company.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Majone, G. The role of constraints in policy analysis. Qual Quant 8, 65–76 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00205865
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00205865