The fertile soil for policy learning
Early in the 20th century, both Japan and the United States adopted isolation as the primary policy for leprosy victims. Medical science had, by mid-century, arrived at a near consensus that isolation was inappropriate. This new information filtered into the policy making soil of both nations and slowly led to the abandonment of isolation. Conceptualizations from the literature offer the bases of a policy learning model centered on the characteristics of a fertile soil for policy learning. The model considers the nature of the problem, the nature of the information, and the nature of the debate as critical factors shaping the learning of new information. Each factor added to the understanding. The problem, complex and characterized by negatively constructed targets, was not amenable to policy learning, especially in Japan with more victims, more hospitals, more researchers, and more stigmatization. It took considerable time to wrap the information in scientific integrity. In Japan the process was slowed by the war which separated researchers from professional fora at a critical time. Head on, confrontational debates in both nations failed. Success came only when strategies that moderated debate were adopted. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- John Dixon & Rhys Dogan, 2004. "The Conduct of Policy Analysis: Philosophical Points of Reference," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 21(4), pages 559-579, 07.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:38:y:2005:i:2:p:159-176. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)or (Christopher F. Baum)
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.