Gadamer argued that there is a necessary prejudice at work in all understanding. The aim of this article is to make explicit the prejudice at work in public policy analysis. What is being asked, is for an answer to how public policy 'functions' in terms of it being experienced as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, a ‘failure’ or ‘success’. Most analysis merely assumes an answer to this question. To achieve this end I will introduce three possible responses
1. The technocratic account: policy is seen as an instrument for solving objective problems
2. A representational account: policy is representation for achieving strategic advantage and
3. A poetic account: policy unfolds as place disclosure. I will argue that the best answer to the question ‘how does policy mean?’ is that public policy is poetic.
|Keywords:||Public Policy, Poetics, Philosophy, Hermeneutics|
PhD Candidate, School of Political Science and International Relations, University of Queensland, Australia
There are currently no reviews of this product.Write a Review