Las nuevas ciencias de política pública: combinando la ciencia cognitiva de la decisión, las múltiples teorías del contexto y el análisis básico y aplicado

• Autores: Paul Cairney, Christopher Weible, Juan Guillermo Vieira, Jhoan Sebastián Olis
• Localización: Ciencia Política, ISSN-e 1909-230X, Vol. 13, Nº. 26, 2018 (Ejemplar dedicado a: Avatares de las expresiones políticas en América Latina), págs. 321-338
• Idioma: español
• DOI: 10.15446/cp.v13n26.73461
• Títulos paralelos:
  • The New Policy Sciences: Combining the Cognitive Science of Choice, Multiple Theories of Context, and Basic and Applied Analysis
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (pdf)
• Dialnet Métricas: 11 Citas
• Resumen
  • español

    Es hora de imaginar unas nuevas ciencias de política pública. El mundo de la elaboración de políticas ha avanzado desde su primer diseño. Así también nuestra comprensión del mismo. Las ciencias de políticas públicas originales fueron contextualizadas, orientadas a la solución de problemas, multi-métodos y se centraron en la utilización de la investigación científica para lograr una mejora de la dignidad humana. En este texto introducimos unas nuevas ciencias de política pública basada en tales objetivos. Exponemos la necesidad de descripciones realistas de la elección “racional” e “irracional”, de múltiples teorías para interpretar la naturaleza multifacética de contextos complejos y de la combinación de investigación aplicada y básica. Para establecer esta nueva agenda, nos basamos en dos estrategias principales: identificar los avances en la psicología de la toma de decisiones y describir cómo las teorías de política pública ilustran la psicología de la elaboración de políticas en contextos complejos.

  • English

    It is time to imagine a new policy sciences. The policymaking world has moved on since its first design. So too has our understanding of it. The original policy sciences were contextualized, problem oriented, multi-method, and focused on using scientific research towards the realization of greater human dignity. We introduce a new policy sciences that builds on such aims. We describe the need for realistic depictions of ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’ choice, multiple theories to portray the multifaceted nature of complex contexts, and the combination of applied and basic research. To set this new agenda, we build on two foundational strategies: identifying advances in the psychology of decisionmaking and describing how policy theories depict policymaking psychology in complex contexts.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Alter, A., y Oppenheimer, D. (2009). Uniting the Tribes of Fluency to Form a Metacognitive Nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review,...
  • Bardach, E., y Patashnik, E. (2015). A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving. Washington,...
  • Baumgartner, F. (2017). Endogenous Disjoint Change. Cognitive Systems Research, (44), 69-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.04.001
  • Brewer, G. (1974). The Policy Sciences Emerge: To Nurture and Structure a Discipline. Policy Sciences, 5(3), 239-244.
  • Brewer, G. y DeLeon, P. (1983). The Foundations of Policy Analysis. Chicago, IL: The Dorsey Press.
  • Cairney, P. (2012a). Understanding Public Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
  • Cairney, P. (2012b). Complexity Theory in Political Science and Public Policy. Political Studies Review, (10), 346-358.
  • Cairney, P. (2015). How can Policy Theory have an Impact on Policy Making? Teaching Public Administration, 33(1), 22-39.
  • Cairney, P. (2016). The Politics of Evidence-based Policymaking. London: Palgrave Pivot.
  • Cairney, P. y Kwiatkowski, R. (2018). How to Communicate Effectively with Policymakers. Palgrave Communications (in press).
  • Cairney, P., Oliver, K. y Wellstead, A. (2016). To Bridge the Divide Between Evidence and Policy: Reduce Ambiguity as much as Uncertainty....
  • Clark, T. (2002). The Policy Process: A Practical Guide for Natural Resources Professionals. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • DeLeon, P. (1997). Democracy and the Policy Sciences. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  • DeLeon, P., y Weible, C. (2010). Policy Process Research for Democracy: A Commentary on Lasswell’s Vision. International Journal of Policy...
  • Geyer, R., y Cairney, P. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of Complexity and Public Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • Haidt, J. (2001). The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tai. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834.
  • Haidt, J. (2007). The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology. Science, (316), 998-1000.
  • Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon.
  • Hay, C. (2004). Theory, Stylized Heuristic or Self-fulfilling Prophecy? Public Administration, 82(1), 39-62.
  • Heikkila, T., y Cairney, C. (2017). Comparison of Theories of the Policy Process. In C. Weible and P. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the Policy...
  • Hindmoor, A. (2010). “Major Combat Operations Have Ended?” Arguing about Rational Choice, 1994–2009. British Journal of Political Science,...
  • John, P. (2012). Analyzing Public Policy (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
  • Jones, B. (1999). Bounded Rationality. Annual Review of Political Science, (2), 297-321.
  • Jones, B. (2001). Politics and the Architecture of Choice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Jones, B. (2017). Behavioral Rationality as a Foundation for Public Policy Studies. Cognitive Systems Research, (43), 63-75.
  • Jones, B., y Thomas, H. (2017). The Cognitive Underpinnings of Policy Process Studies. Cognitive Systems Research, (45), 48–51.
  • Jones, B., Thomas, H. y Wolfe, M. (2014). Policy Bubbles. Policy Studies Journal, 42(1), 146-171.
  • Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking Fast and Slow. London: Penguin.
  • Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
  • Larrick, R. (2016). The Social Context of Decisions. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, (3), 441-467.
  • Lasswell, H. (1951). The Policy Orientation. In D. Lerner and H. Lasswell (Eds.), The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Methods....
  • Lasswell, H. D. (1956). The Political Science of Science. American Political Science Review, 50(4), 961-979.
  • Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A Pre-view of the Policy Sciences. New York: American Elsevier Publishing.
  • Lewis, P. (2013). Policy Thinking, Fast and Slow. American Political Science Association 2013 Annual Meeting Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2300479
  • Lindblom, C. (1959). The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review, (19), 79-88.
  • McBeth, M., Jones, M. y Shanahan, E. (2014). The Narrative Policy Framework. In P. Sabatier and C. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process...
  • Menges, J. y Kilduff, M. (2015). Group Emotions: Cutting the Gordian Knots concerning Terms, Levels of Analysis, and Processes. The Academy...
  • Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Ranney, A. (1968). The Study of Policy Content. In A. Ranney (Ed.), Political Science and Public Policy (pp. 3-21). Chicago, IL: Markham Publishing...
  • Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-oriented Learning Therein. Policy Sciences,...
  • Sabatier, P. (1992). Political Science and Public Policy: An Assessment. In W. Dunn and R. Kelly (Eds.), Advances in Policy Studies (pp. 1950-1990)....
  • Sanderson, I. (2009). Intelligent Policy Making for a Complex World. Political Studies, (57), 699-719.
  • Schneider, A., y Ingram, H. (1997). Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
  • Shipan, C. y Volden, C. (2012). Policy Diffusion: Seven Lessons for Scholars and Practitioners. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 788-796.
  • Simon, H. (1957). Models of Man. New York, NY: Wiley.
  • Simon, H. (1976). Administrative Behavior (3rd ed.). London: Macmillan.
  • Simon, H. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Teisman, G. y Klijn, E. (2008). Complexity Theory and Public Management. Public Management Review, 10(3), 287-297.
  • Weible, C. y Cairney, P. (2018). Practical Lessons from Policy Theories, Policy and Politics (in press).
  • Weible, C., Heikkila, T., DeLeon, P. y Sabatier, P. (2012). Understanding and Influencing the Policy Process. Policy Sciences, 45(1), 1–21.
  • Weimer, D. y Vining, A. (2017). Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice. London: Routledge.
  • Wildavsky, A. (1987). Choosing Preferences by Constructing Institutions: A Cultural Theory of Preference Formation. American Political Science...
  • Winne, P. y Nesbit, J. (2010). The Psychology of Academic Achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1), 653-678. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100348