No abstract

Despite the normative, political, and instrumental importance of privatizing state-owned enterprises worldwide, practitioners and researchers know little empirically about how different types of citizens feel about these efforts, how they arrive at these judgments, and how enduring these attitudes are likely to be. Using citizen attitudes toward privatization culled from the 1995 French National Election Study, this article offers practitioners and researchers an analytical framework for assessing these attitudes, for anticipating and dealing strategically with the perceived consequences of denationalization efforts, and for refining their understanding of the calculus of consent for market reforms in future survey research.

As societies worldwide struggle to address what policy analysts call “wicked problems” such as world hunger, malnutrition, and ecological sustainability, analysts from a variety of perspectives have questioned the administrative state’s abilities to deal with them. Ascendant since the early 1990s as a prescription for remedying these shortcomings is a market, technocratic, and non-deliberative theory of administration that some have called “neo-managerialism” and others the “managerialist ideology.” This study uses European attitudes toward promoting the use of genetically modified (GM) foods as a “policy window” for exploring how well or ill-suited the neo-managerialist philosophy informing the U.S. government’s promotional campaign was with the factors driving European opposition to GM foods. Causal modeling of the “calculus of dissent” that led to a the European Union (EU) moratorium on GM foods suggests that deliberative (rather than neo-managerialist) theories of administration are better suited for the “collective puzzlement of society” that wicked problems require.

Proponents of biotechnology argue that citizens' opposition to innovations such as genetically modified (GM) foods is rooted in emotionalism, media and nongovernmental organizations' distortions of good science, and scientific ignorance. Critics charge that this "risk management discursive" is too reductionist, exaggerates scientific capacity, inappropriately privileges scientific values over social and political values, and inaccurately captures how citizens evaluate biotechnology. This article uses ordered logit analysis applied to the responses of Europeans to a 2005 Eurobarometer survey to test the validity of these competing perspectives in the area of GM foods. Our analysis supports the arguments of those calling for the inclusion of broader discursive social, political, and cultural elements in deliberations over GM foods. Analysis also shows that citizens are less emotional in evaluating GM foods than proponents claim and supports this "new politics of knowledge" perspective, but citizens also cling more tightly to hopes that science can resolve debates with objective analysis. Copyright 2010 by The Policy Studies Organization.

This essay extends John Kingdon's work on predecision policy processes in US domestic policy to the foreign policy domain. While Kingdon's insights have significantly improved our understanding of predecision processes, further development is necessary for extension across both domestic and foreign policy domains. Kingdon's incremental evolutionary metaphor for alternative specification has to be revamped to include both gradualist and nonincremental policy types. Scholars must also make more explicit, elaborate, and thorough use of Cohen, March and Olsen's ‘garbage can’ model of decision making. To these ends, we offer a typology of policy alternatives that incorporates alternative metaphors premised on recent developments in evolutionary theory. The essay concludes by suggesting a research agenda amenable to pursuit in both national and cross-national contexts.