No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
American Nuclear Energy Policy, 1945–1990: A Review Essay
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 October 2011
Extract
Political scientists have often referred to core decision-making groups in American politics as “policy communities” or, more popularly, as “the iron triangle.” Invariably, they are describing the interaction patterns of specialists in the executive and legislative branches of government and in the private sector who devote primary attention to the initiation and implementation of public policy in a particular issue area. In large measure the groups are depicted as having close-knit working relationships that result from frequent interaction, similarity in information sources and commonality in ideological predisposition. Perceptive observers such as Hedrick Smith, however, have pointed out that in some policy arenas there are critics who are not part of what is usually regarded as the cozy establishment network. These he has referred to as “dissident triangles” or rival networks that compete with varying degrees of success in the process.
- Type
- Review Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 1991
References
Notes
1. Kingdon, John W., Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (Boston, 1984), 123–28.Google Scholar
2. Smith, Hedrick, The Power Game (New York, 1988), 163–68.Google Scholar
3. Tokuhata, George K. and Digon, Edward, Cancer Mortality and Morbidity (Incidence) Around TMI Prologue and Summary (Harrisburg, Pa., 1985), 7.Google Scholar
4. Ibid., 9.
5. Weart, Spencer R., Nuclear Fear: A History of Images (Cambridge, Mass., 1988).Google Scholar
6. Gould, Leroy C., Gardner, Gerald T., DeLucal, Donald R., Tiemann, Adrian R., Dorb, Leonard W., and Stolwijk, Gau A. S., Perceptions of Technological Risks and Benefits (New York, 1987).Google Scholar
7. Morone, Joseph G. and Woodhouse, Edward J., The Demise of Nuclear Energy? Lessons for Democratic Control of Technology (New Haven, 1989).Google Scholar
8. Carter, Luther J., Nuclear Imperatives and Public Trust: Dealing with Radioactive Waste (Washington, D.C., 1987).Google Scholar
9. Weart, Nuclear Fear, book jacket.
10. Ibid., 18–35.
11. Ibid., 151.
12. Ibid., 202.
13. Ibid., 313.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid., 424–25.
16. See, for example, Slovic, Paul, Fischoff, Baruch, and Lichtenstein, Sarah, “Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk,” in Schwing, Richard C. and Albers, Walter A. Jr, eds., Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe Is Safe Enough? (New York, 1980), 181–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Slovic, Paul, “Perception of Risk,” Science, vol. 236, 17 April 1987, 280–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Friedman, Robert S., “Dealing with Public Perceptions of Health Risk in a Nuclear World,” Nuclear Technology 87 (October 1989): 509–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Gould et al., Technological Risks and Benefits, 7.
19. Ibid., 10.
20. Ibid., 46.
21. Morone and Woodhouse, Demise of Nuclear Energy?, 10–12.
22. Ibid., 19.
23. Ibid., 34.
24. Ibid., 66.
25. Carter, Nuclear Imperatives, 41.
26. Ibid., 2.
27. Ibid., 5.
28. Ibid., 157.
29. Ibid., 427–28.
30. See Slovic, Fishoff, and Lichtenstern, “Facts and Fears,” and Slovic, “Perception of Risk.”
31. Moffat, Anne Simon, “Cornell Got Out in Front,” Science, vol. 248 22 June 1990, 1480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. An illustration of this is found in Raiffa, Howard, “Creative Compensation: Maybe in My Backyard,” Negotiation Journal 1 (July 1985): 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar