In considering the impact of the binary view upon the policy world, we must acknowledge that the most interesting and important effects turn up in writers who do not begin their work with a declaration of allegiance to the view itself. Its key claims are often considered obvious, and most writers try to avoid stating the obvious. So while Part I will consider the impact of some explicit statements of the binary view, it will also proceed inferentially, examining certain types of practices and statements that can reasonably be held to flow from that view.

Note that I will be citing passages from particular authors. No claim is being made that the authors themselves are poor thinkers or that their work is without value. We are all, to a greater or lesser extent, children of our time and context. And we can all make use of the default assumptions of our time and yet do valuable work.

Chapter 1 will examine some specific effects of the binary view. Chapter 2 will consider a broader effect, one that shapes the practice of policy analysis in various ways: the dilemma created by viewing values as merely arbitrary preferences, while needing to find some source of values if policy analysis is to have any direction at all. Chapter 3 will argue that elements of the binary view prove quite durable, surviving even in intellectual milieux that appear hostile to the view. Finally, we will examine the ways in which the binary view is a very convenient one for many actors in the policy world.

Note that I make no claim concerning the precise prevalence of the binary view in the policy world. That world is too vast and heterogeneous to permit a systematic and persuasive content or discourse analysis, or anything similarly rigorous. But I urge the reader to reflect on this question, taking as your data the slice of the policy world with which you are personally familiar. Part One will present various ‘symptoms’ of the binary view at work. As you proceed through these chapters, ask yourself how often you run across these symptoms. How often, on the other hand, do you come across reasoned argumentation concerning the norms relevant to a policy? How often are normative positions explicitly argued for, as opposed to being taken for granted?