Public policymaking reexamined : Yehezkel Dror, Chandler Publishing Co, San Francisco 1968, 370 pages, $7.50.

tint fi-om which people come. The expenditure of taxes is here used as an indicator &publie sewices, schools, wcifare. and other publir-supported actiGties. \Vhen ‘I’K:R ip qttd to I, the PEM is also equal to 1 indicztting that the tax per capita in the area i the ~amc as that outside; hence there is no incentive to move from the nutsidr into ,j the urkn area. It is in the identification and quantification of such mraaures by means nf t&k functions that Forrester’s contribuGon to the rmrrcyence of an urban system s&me lick. which is esJcntiallp_ what Doxiadis calls Ekirtics.:! Althouyh some of rhe curves ~nployed in the exemplary model runs might not be accurate representations of real-lift situations, they are as important for the emeryrnce of a rigorous and meaning- furl discipline for city planning as E~;ic’s law I’& the ideal gases was for chemistry more than a century ago. There is not yet enough empirical evidenre to substantiate the raw and the shapes of the assumed functions; however, this approarh might pay ofl by gettiny around Ihe inGtive and phenomenoio+al mod& used w far for simtr- lating the impact of alternative urban policies. In my view the major shortcoming of Forrester’s work is that he never explicates the criteria used in evaluating the pcrformanre of the hypothetic;11 city. The unique characteristic of the urban system is that it is the type of system where me is dealing with mdtiplr &jr&-m, multidiracraional factors and viewpoints. ‘The .set of viewpoints from which a particular urban planning prcyram is examined is of basic importance. 3-b ultintalc &&tive, of COLIIYJC, slwdrf be lo improve the quality of I&= fi,r all group2 of human wttlement dwellers. whether they live in thr country or in tier rit\. ALEKANLWR .v. f:nR6sr.+w -mp 0 1:. A. i)r*ria&u, MiWr: I~ In I~ifraMru~ 60 f/rr 51 ICW.I ej ~~WR~R ~Sellkml~ &Whinaw Puhlmhim &oup. L.mdm, i!m+.. 1968, ‘371) pages, $7.50. .._~__--_ .._-- For the last few yrrrj the name Yehezkel l>ror has been aswciated with articles am RAND C&Porcrtion reports on the subject of public policymaking. In this bm3k Ih Dror’s studies and conclusions are presented systematicali)-. His concern is not witl specific policies and rttcir content:btit with the ways in which policies arc made am the question of whether they are made as well as they ran or should be. The intended audience for thi> book inrhldes “students and tearhen of potitica science and of the social sciences in general. policy practitioners, such as plannen govcmmcnt oIMalr, and contemplative politicians, and other persons interested il policymaking and public affairs. ” The objectives the author hopes to achieve for thi audicncE are “{I) to advance the study of public policymaking as a m;?jor topic a the social sciences and of human thought in general. and (2) to contribute to th improvement of public poiicymaking.” To a large extent, the author has surreeded il writing a bouk which will bc found readable by this diverse audience. So studmt c the social sciences will bc “tuned ofl” by the feeling that the topic is treated in ruperficial manner or that the book is too insubstantial. Similarly, no practiciw poIii maker will be driven away by technical jargon or by dry presentation. While makin no ~wm~tx&scs with inteIlectual rigor, Dr. Dror presents his atyumcntr in such way that they can be fallowed easily even by those not accustomed to reading th sock4 sckncc iitcraturc. Whether the ideas pmknted will be atreprcd quaUp by a mttmbrm of this audience, ~CSWCWT, is another matter. lkmk- k-wem6iqq I (1970!, +274J 429 &f way dr3&vari~31 far w&t m the ;dt&bor rcitcrates nn glrKument whilllrh. h p&m out, bs bcm matk tnarty times in the : the growth ofscience has out?ltripprd &y’s ability trr a&pt to it. There are ic sdutions to this probkrka: (If &w M thd +pvth d s&tux, (2) rtstri~ the f&&m of d minatiorr d new winitifi~ knowi&@, (3) r&em society in the light of new Jcnowlcdge so that it catt adapt to &en+x. T&cl au&or b in GWW d the third &zrrutive, and hii book is really intended fur Thor WIW share his vkw @J presumably do must af the readers of this journr~~. To caq out the third alternativc~ however, requires better policymaking. Dr+ Dmr’s real intent iir $10 show that the requirtxt quality d plicymakking is in fan possibk and 8KhkW&k. I-&w dacs oue go about measuring the quality of policymaking ? FiPat, OT course, it is ncctza~ry ld, have mme measure uf~f?%xtiventx~, which ideally would give v&i? for the got343 the palieymaking hw w ocganiaatti at a specific pint in time. T&m it it, ry tu have w stat&& by which it is determined whetlxr the “gaadttCr5” L&9 y achicv& is ‘“good cnniqh” (c.s., is a varzbulav d I.500 wards at tbc end al’ the tit imat &CT x tkachcr hours and p pupil hours, sfvertd c-UrlWnon rtandards of “g&-‘* anal tlum it was in the past? Ibhape it if, but thih xsn’t get ,at tile vital qucsticm af whether it ir pod enough even to asurr* survivx& 14 policymal&~ in institutim, A hettcr th,m in compasabic institutions B, C and I3 at the game time? Even ifit is, this standard doesn’t get at the qriniion afwhcthtr it is as &l as it r:o,rld tx in the Ii&t af avdabk knawledgc and rzsaurtm. Ikyund t#te quc&m of a standard for judging the lpaclnrpr of the achievement c)ri the basis dime tne~~.~ure ofcffectivcn~~ howev~, Dr. &or points out the inadcquac) af avaihthiq tn~as~~t of eff’tiveness. The modt &Gus mcasut-e is net output, i.e.. policies ma$e. less the rcsourceb (manpower and money) required for the poliimaking. Howtvn; it;is difficult tu measure the input 3nm poli~~malting since such inputs a~ cttm [i.e., gnxsm& “drilre” or activity Qs poliiytnakets) and the intelligence d @icymake-rj 0Uxxnes f in time or space which arc coo lmrd to Muate. The gurput may t Ihotfopm such as “natiutud security” ar WC pub& goad,” Hence it to ~~.~WATC the output &vcn the most stt~usfitl p&y in meaning- on, the* is the vuy smiotm czotsidrmh that even the best p&y may Ml. A( best, .pdii~ involvcl unehnticr and prababi&tirrs. Hcaxc even a policv ,wh/ch wpfl; the best por&lc at the time may tu3t a&ii the desired rrnrlts. rbur. “w a policy in ‘tams d its oulcomc*, even if this were pa&& might frlecly e~&qte it tu P bad palicy. (Gntxvtxsely, although Drcu doe&t na&on it, a bad j&Y +y UllrxFd tbCW$t uMBarrvert g43od hi&. Evahtatitqg it on the hasi8 of teruf@ mi& emanrage a pali to repeat it with nn aa~ura~~ that the good luck wiiI c+inuc.) k a +syuJJt gf these -idera* psttie*y the &ttrs, Dmr coadtrwkrr that the bgt~ytO~theqwlityd~k~ocDmperraristing,pdi~ stxttm autburdidr. It appaur tutcUrrhrdl!pCtoWhkh cput tiuein t4e akeaa dtmay *t mC%$ure of input or output the use of recxmdar); criteria is incvitablc in cvahhtfg @King. li, be of M~IC, these sr~otdary criteria must have a high correlation *th hpaod policymaking. Hence, there is really no alternative to comparison with an ‘~34 of the policymaking pracess. Fur&t-more, use. of such a model allows a’lua~ a policy be$rc it has been adopted, when there is still time to cha * The optimal model is really the heart of Dror’s book. He devotes about .io La $t!ttittg the st;rKc for the made1 and then another 90 explaining it in dctai model ~an&.s of 183 distinct phases of policymaking, each of which must be carried wt iF @ policymaking is to result. Furthermore. each phase can be evaluated irr terms of ~rablc secondary critrrin, thus nuking the model an operational one. The madcI is unusuaI among so-~~lkd optimal models in that it makes extcnsivr use of ~trarational facm in well as learning and feedback. Dror cmphasizcs that inno- vativeness and creativity are ogcntial elements of eflective policymaking and that these dcmcntr arc extrarational. Hc argues that we now have enough scientific knowledge about thtse factors that WC can determine whether a given policym;lkin CDU~~CS or stifks tkn. in addition, Dror 1aj-s heavy stress on the p rutd institutionalized f&back in the policymaking process in order to provide improve- ment in puficics undergoing execution and to provide imprwemcnt in the rntire Pt-==* With the optimal model available, Dror then addresses the quality of existing policy- making and finds it wanting. He then addresses the question of how to improve existing policymaking~ He provides a number uf concrete recommendations based on his optimal model which would result in better use of availahle knowledge, better use of extrarational factors, and better learning G-am experience. The student of political science and the interested ohserver will find Dror’r cvalrw- tkms wd recommendations crxtzvmcly provocative. ISen if they do not agree with specific recommendations, they will find that Dror has provided a framework in which tniightened debate can go fmard. ‘I% practicing Ix&)-maker, howcvcr, will lily be dtippointed. Many d D&s recommendations regarding research, inliition gathering, and study can he adopted incrementally (i.e., adopting them will help even if the remainder nf the rtzcommmdations are not adopted). However, some of Dror’s recommendations will seem impractical, even if a policymaker ogrce~ with them. Ultitmttely, in a democracy elected politicians make public policy. In o cultural climate, a politician could not adopt certain of these rccammcnda continue to he ekcced. A rpcciiic example is the issue of judging a policy, not on its outcome, hut on its contbrmance with the optimal mode!. In the wake of a dispsta. can a politiciin justify himself to the voters on the grounds that his poticymakittg was optimal but he just bad bad luck? Will the ‘L(outs” allow him to get away with thii even if they privately agree that they would have used the same policymaking pra0p6 ? C&t the peopk bc educated to the point of accepting such an augumcnt even if c\‘bf? politician agrees that they should accept it? ‘I’hii is not to SX,Y &at the rcltiewcr feels Dror’s ideas are “idealistic but imprarticaI.‘* If in fact they ate correct, they must be made practical. The only alternative dtcuter, I&wcvcr% on an issue &ii important, the reader shotdd judge the corrcc ofl)rw”~ views fbr hit&f, And cvcryonc with an intcrtst in public policymaking should read this book. The topic is too important to permit this highly readabk and vwti= bc&tobemisSd. In addition, the N&O-S of this jountal will be especially interested in Phase 12 of I_ P”rrabs*b 1 (1970), 42c27-432 ibk Reiew 431