Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T16:21:29.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Policy Studies and Social Policy in Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Stuart S. Blume
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The recent debate about the establishment of a ‘British Brookings’ involved a number of fundamental issues which were not brought out. In fact the idea that the British policy-making process should be made more ‘rational’ through the development of what are sometimes called policy studies is not new. It has roots in the Heyworth Report on social studies, which recommended greater use of social research in policy-making, and in the Fulton Report on the civil service, which argued for more policy-planning. These two approaches may now be seen as basically the same, and the problem as one of changing the relationship between social science and (social) policy. However, past analyses of this relationship attribute difficulties to quite different causes and hence yield a variety of prescriptions for reform. It is argued here that the policy studies which are needed must avoid the disciplinary fragmentation of the social sciences as well as that of the current administrative structure, that they must encompass research both for policy and on policy, and that they must seek their own conceptual structure, and in addition that certain organizational requirements follow from this.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , July 1979 , pp. 311 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Report of the Committee on Social Studies (Heyworth Report), Cmnd 2660, HMSO, London, 1965, para. 19.Google Scholar

2 Ibid. para. 123.

3 Ibid. para. 127.

4 Thus in January 1977 there were 461 research officers (the main social scientists' employment category), compared with 386 members of the Economist Group – see Civil Service Department, Civil Service Statistics 1977, HMSO, London, 1977Google Scholar. In addition, the Government Social Survey employs about 600.

5 National Academy of Sciences, The Behavioural Sciences and the Federal Government, Washington D.C., 1968, p. 49.Google Scholar

6 Winch, D., Economics and Policy: A Historical Survey, Fontana, London, 1972.Google Scholar

7 Pinker, R., Social Theory and Social Policy, Heinemann, London, 1971, p. 199.Google Scholar

8 Report of the Committee on the Civil Service (Fulton Report), Vol. 1, Cmnd 3638, HMSO, London, 1968, p. 57.Google Scholar

9 Heclo, H. and Wildavsky, A., The Private Government of Public Money, Macmillan, London, 1975, ch. 6.Google Scholar

10 Wildavsky, A., ‘The Political Economy of Efficiency’, Public Administration Review, 1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Meltsner, A., Policy Analysts in the Bureaucracy, University of California Press, 1976.Google Scholar

12 Rein, M., Social Science and Public Policy, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1976.Google Scholar

13 Heclo and Wildavsky, op. cit. p. 289.

14 Report of the Committee on Social Studies, para. 128.

15 A Framework for Government Research and Development (Rothschild Report), Cmnd 4814, HMSO, London, 1971.Google Scholar

16 Smith, B. L. R., The Rand Corporation, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1966, p. 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Ibid. p. 278.

18 Rose, R., ‘Disciplined Research and Undisciplined Problems’, International Social Science Journal, 28: 1 (1976).Google Scholar

19 Sharpe, L. J., ‘Governments as Clients for Social Science Research’, Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 5: 1 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Shils, E., Foreword to his edition of Max Weber's Methodology of the Social Sciences, London, 1949, p. vii.Google Scholar

21 Hall, P., Land, H., Parker, R. and Webb, A., Change, Choice and Conflict in Social Policy, Heinemann, London, 1975, p. 151.Google Scholar

22 Self, P. J., Administrative Theories and Politics, Allen and Unwin, London, 1972, p. 40.Google Scholar

23 Blume, S. S., ‘Toward a Science Policy for the Social Welfare Field’, Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 4: 4 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Klein, R., ‘The Rise and Decline of Policy Analysis: The Strange Case of Health Policy-Making in Britain’, Policy Analysis, 2: 3 (1976).Google Scholar

25 Rose, op. cit.

26 Dror, Y., Design for Policy Sciences, Elsevier, Amsterdam and London, 1971.Google Scholar

27 Donnison, D. V., ‘Research for Policy’, Minerva, 10: 4 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Horowitz, I. L. and Katz, H. E., Social Science and Public Policy in the United States, Praeger, New York, 1975, p. 165.Google Scholar

29 Blume, S. S., ‘Policy as Theory’, Acta Sociologica, 20: 3 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Williams, W., Social Policy Research and Analysis, Elsevier, New York, 1971, p. 55.Google Scholar

31 Ibid. p. 56.

32 See especially MacRae, Duncan, ‘Policy Analysis as an Applied Social Discipline’, Administration and Society, 6: 4 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and MacRae, Duncan, ‘Technical Communities and Political Choice’, Minerva, 14: 2 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Dror, op. cit. p. 8.

34 Miller, S. M., ‘Policy and Science’, Journal of Social Policy, 3: 1 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 SirClarke, Richard, ‘The Number and Size of Government Departments’, Political Quarterly, 43: 2 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Central Policy Review Staff, Joint Framework for Social Policies, HMSO, London, 1975.Google Scholar