Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (Revised Edition) [Paperback]

Deborah Stone (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: July 20, 2001 | ISBN-10: 0393976254 | ISBN-13: 978-0393976250 | Edition: 3rd

Since its debut, Policy Paradox has been widely acclaimed as the most accessible policy text available.

Unlike most texts, which treat policy analysis and policy making as different enterprises, Policy Paradox demonstrates that "you can’t take politics out of analysis." Through a uniquely rich and comprehensive model, this revised edition continues to show how real-world policy grows out of differing ideals, even definitions, of basic societal goals like security, equality, and liberty. The book also demonstrates how these ideals often conflict in policy implementation.

In this revised edition, Stone has added a full-length case study as an appendix, taking up the issue of affirmative action. Clear, provocative, and engaging, Policy Paradox conveys the richness of public policy making and analysis.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Deborah Stone holds appointments as Research Professor of Government at Dartmouth College and Honorary Professor of Political Science at Aarhus University in Denmark. She has taught in undergraduate and graduate programs at Brandeis, MIT, Yale, Tulane, and Duke, as well as in universities worldwide where Policy Paradox is used.

Product Details

• Paperback: 448 pages
• Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company; 3rd edition (July 20, 2001)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0393976254
• ISBN-13: 978-0393976250
• Product Dimensions: 6.1 x 0.9 x 9.3 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (16 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #95,146 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #52 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Public Affairs & Policy > Public Affairs & Administration
  • #56 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Public Affairs & Policy > Social Policy

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

28 of 29 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars A provocative and rewarding examination of policy making June 15, 2007

By Steven A. Peterson TOP 500 REVIEWERVINE™ VOICE

Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase

Deborah Stone's "Policy Paradox" is an important work in the field of policy analysis. The subtitle is illuminating: "The Art of Political Decision Making." Her takeoff point is the following statement (pages x-xi): "This new field of policy analysis supposedly devoted to improving governance, was based on a profound disgust for the ambiguities and paradoxes of politics. . . . In rational analysis, everything has one and only one meaning." In her own words, she (page xi) ". . .wrote this book to critique the field and to capture, I hope, a more inspiring and humane kind of policy analysis."

Her basic point is that the rational models drawn from economics do not explain very well how policy analysis works. Nor, in her view, should it be the actual model for decision making. She contends that economic rationality often gives way to political reality, to accommodation to conflicting interests, to compromise, to values other than economic efficiency (such as liberty, fairness, and so on).

The introduction opens the book strongly, with Stone noting policy paradoxes, where the economic rational model does not prevail and explain how things work. She argues (page 13) that "each type of policy instrument [e.g., inducements, rules, rights, for example] is a kind of sports arena, each with its peculiar ground rules, within which political conflicts are continued." The first chapter continues the theme, by speaking of the market (economics) and the polis (politics), with a nice table summarizing key points on page 33). She concludes that (page 34) "Problems in the polis are never `solved' in the way that economic needs are met in the market model." Two different realms, and what works in the market may or may not work in the polis....

The book proceeds in three major sections: Part II focuses on broad goals (e.g., equity, efficiency, security, liberty); Part III examines problems (with chapters labeled as follows: symbols, numbers, causes, interests, decisions); Part IV focuses on solutions (or tools or instruments, such as inducements, rules, facts).

In the end, the book examines nicely the tensions between economic rational analysis of policy ideas and the messier but inescapable political process as it addresses policy issues. The reader will be provoked to think about important issues upon encountering Stone's perspective. A very useful work on the bigger picture of policy analysis. Read more ›

9 of 11 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars In-Depth, Realistic and Readable October 23, 2001

By "unfinis"

Format:Paperback

A most useful book, full of insightful theories that are backed up by realistic analysis and applications. Highly recommended and would very likely be delightful to anybody who is not a die-hard ideologue.

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Extremely interesting & valid - very stimulating reading August 3, 2008

By Bruce_in_LA VINE™ VOICE

Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase

Very stimulating reading and very applicable in many kinds of negotiations & meetings, not just "policy making" as in government. Her thesis is the "most books" assume policy should be rational and analyze when it is not. She argues that policy is INTRINSICALLY a paradoxical, conflicting process where (to greatly simplify) some people see A and others see B and others see C no matter how much data and rationality are tossed about, and that is HER starting point for discussing "policy making." I found it very stimulating and see wide ranging applications in my work and even outside work for these ideas. It's a fairly long book and not to be skimmed so it defies easy summary.

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars A new policy paradigm & important contribution to political science and public administration October 31, 2011

By T.B.

Format:Paperback

Deborah Stone's Policy Paradox is an exercise in analyzing and describing how and why public policy is made in the United States. Her book is an invaluable contribution to political science and public administration.

Stone presents us with the paradox of two apparently contradictory models of policy-making: a rational-analytic model and a polis model. The two models seem to exclude each other, yet we can observe the processes of both in policy making. Stone examines and attempts to resolve the paradox by analyzing public policy through the perspectives of both models.

The rational-analytic model is the perspective and methodology of the professional policy analyst. The policy analyst examines a problem and then generates and evaluates possible solutions. He weighs the costs, benefits, and feasibility of each option. He selects and recommends a solution which he expects (or hopes) lawmakers and officials will implement. Stone describes the rational-analytic model as a "market model" because it mirrors the decision-making process made by individual consumers and business people. In the idealized marketplace, buyers and sellers carefully compare costs and benefits before agreeing to a trade.

Stone offers the polis model as the other perspective on how policy is made. In the polis model, different interest groups compete and cooperate to define problems and decide on solutions. As a society, we acknowledge common values, needs, and wants. Collectively, we recognize problems and crises when they arise. Unfortunately, individuals often hold different definitions of those supposedly "common" values, needs, and wants. The polis model recognizes that values, wants, and needs are abstract. A crisis or problem may be ill-defined. Groups (e.g...., ethnic voting blocs, labor unions, business associations, single-issue advocacy groups) consolidate and define the values, wants, and needs of the individuals they represent. Advancing their members' interests, groups not only make claims on resources, but also on how wants should be defined, ranked, compared, and satisfied for all.

In the polis model, claims are weighed according to the influence of the groups advancing them. These influences are like the gravitational forces of planets within our solar system. Depending on their size and density, planets exert differing forces, but each one, even the smallest, exerts some influence on the movement and position of all others. Although an interest group may dominate policy, less influential groups often bound or redirect policy efforts and outcomes.

In the final chapter, Dr. Stone concludes that we need not choose between the two models as normative or positive representations of policy making. Stone argues, instead, that public policy making is both. It is a single, integrated, but complex process involving rational decision-making and political dialogue and negotiation (polis model). The two "opposing models" that she investigates and describes in great detail are simply different perspectives on the same activity. We need to examine public policy through two different lenses in order to describe and understand the policy paradox, but a photograph using one lens or the other will provide us with an incomplete view. It is probably impossible to develop a template for the policy process; indeed, Stone does not provide a normative model or investigate the implications for the richly-detailed policy paradigm she offers.

My analogy for Stone's policy paradigm is that of two rivers from different sources flowing into a single channel. The rivers, one brown with silt and the other blue and clear, join but do not quite merge until they reach a common destination. Standing on one bank of the wide channel, we see only a brown stream and describe the whole river as muddy and fertile (as some might describe democracy). From the other bank, we view a clear stream and observe with clarity the river bottom with fish darting among the rocks. The perspective from either bank is accurate but incomplete. We can wade into the river to take in both perspectives, but as Heraclitus noted, we cannot step into the same river twice. Yet, the river continues flowing, doing its work--creative and destructive--as it reaches towards the sea. Read more ›

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars A very well thought-out book. January 27, 2010

By 0spinBoson

Format:Paperback

This is a splendid book for trying to understand the interaction between different parts of the policy-making process. The emphasis put on ideal types in most textbooks is certainly nice from the idealist perspective, but even if you could eliminate personal gain considerations from the agenda of most political entities, it would still say very little about the actual dynamics of decision formation/issue framing, etc., while this book does that in spades. I wouldn't go so far as to call Stone the Machiavelli of the 21rst century, but she's certainly trying for an empirical turn.
While I take issue with some of the normative statements/personal reflections she puts in the book (especially when it comes to the power/relevance of statistics, which she says she hopes will be of transient importance, and which just seems silly to me, as though she's confounding political uses of said things with actual uses they can be put to, given that people know how to interpret statements that contain 'facts'.. Although it does seem to be a feature of American politics that political people can safely choose to ignore any and all data in their considerations/deliberations without anyone reprimanding them for it; why everyone is allowed to invent his/her own truth is unclear to me, but it seems to me to come from some idiotic belief in 'relativism' and voter/media cynicism if anything. Anyway, continuing:) they're mostly minor quibbles that could easily be fixed in a new edition. On the whole I think this is a very useful book, though, especially for people who are hoping to gain some insight into the deliberative processes surrounding policy-making/setting. (Though it's probably not for people who can't look past the superficial shock value of the contents.)