ABSTRACT
The approach to analyzing policy fiascoes should be viewed within the context of a broader repositioning of policy science that is going on and appropriately so. At the base of this development lies the acceptance of the interpretivist claim that all knowledge about social affairs - including public policymaking - is based on limited information and social constructions. In authors’ view, their effectiveness could be enhanced significantly if they adopt a role conception that befits such a position: explicit about their own assumptions; meticulous in developing their arguments; sensitive to context; and striving to create institutional procedures for open and pluralistic debate. At the same time, since the political world of policy fiascoes in particular is unlikely to be supportive of such frame-reflectiveness, policy analysts need a considerable amount of political astuteness in assessing their own position in the field of forces. This chapter focuses on public and academic debates about policymaking rather than on policymaking itself.
