The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process.
Abstract
In modern industrial democracies, the making of public policy is dependent on policy analysis--the generation, discussion, and evaluation of policy alternatives. Policy analysis is often characterized, especially by economists, as a technical, nonpartisan, objective enterprise, separate from the constraints of the political environment. however, says the eminent political scientist Giandomenico Majone, this characterization of policy analysis is seriously flawed. According to Majone, policy analysts do not engage in a purely technical analysis of alternatives open to policymakers, but instead produce policy arguments that are based on value judgments and are used in the course of public debate. In this book Majone offers his own definition of policy analysis and examines all aspects of it--from problem formulation and the choice of policy instruments to program development and policy evaluation. He argues that rhetorical skills are crucial for policy analysts when they set the norms that determine when certain conditions are to be regarded as policy problems, when they advise on technical issues, and when they evaluate policy. Policy analysts can improve the quality of public deliberation by refining the standards of appraisal of public programs and facilitating a wide-ranging dialogue among advocates of different criteria. In fact, says Majone, the essential need today is not to develop 'objective' measures of outcomes--the traditional aim of evaluation research--but to improve the methods and conditions of public discourse at all levels and stages of policy-making.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Design Principles for Policy Mixes: Cohesion and Coherence in ‘New Governance Arrangements’
Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2007) · Policy and Society · doi:10.1016/s1449-4035(07)70118-2 · Cited by 687
Public‐Value Failure: When Efficient Markets May Not Do
Bozeman, B. (2002) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00165 · Cited by 550
Reconsidering evidence-based policy: Key issues and challenges
Head, B. W. (2010) · Policy and Society · doi:10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.03.001 · Cited by 527
Hall, C. M. (2011) · Journal of Sustainable Tourism · doi:10.1080/09669582.2011.555555 · Cited by 527
The role of knowledge in the policy process
Radaelli, C. M. (1995) · Journal of European Public Policy · doi:10.1080/13501769508406981 · Cited by 489
Metadata
- Authors
- MacRae, D., & Majone, G.
- Venue
- Contemporary Sociology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1990-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 104
- ISSN
- 0094-3061 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1971306230
- Cited by
- 1,205
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 63.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2073498
- The paper
- MacRae, D., & Majone, G. (1990). Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. Contemporary Sociology. https://doi.org/10.2307/2073498
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.