IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v5y1986i3p511-519.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policy Evaluation. Democratic Theory. And The Division Of Scholarly Labor

Author

Listed:
  • Richard I. Hofferbert

Abstract

The implicit priorities of political science have been inhospitable to policy evaluation as a scholarly endeavor. Political science, at least as practiced in the West, draws from a philosophic tradition that views political life, and especially democratic political life, as a public objective, not principally as instrumental for other social ends. Comparative policy analysis deviated from that tradition by treating political conditions as independent variables. Policy evaluation, which assesses the social consequences of governmental actions, deviated even further, adopting an explicitly and totally instrumental approach. The argument ofthis essay is that the tactics of policy evaluation should be adopted for assessing the impact of policy patterns on democratic institutions and citizenship. This recommendation flows from a diagnosis of the division of labor in policy evaluation and an identification of the optimum entry points for political science.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard I. Hofferbert, 1986. "Policy Evaluation. Democratic Theory. And The Division Of Scholarly Labor," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 5(3), pages 511-519, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:5:y:1986:i:3:p:511-519
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.1986.tb00425.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1986.tb00425.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1986.tb00425.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:5:y:1986:i:3:p:511-519. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.