Reddit Reddit reviews Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, Update Edition, with an Epilogue on Health Care (2nd Edition) (Longman Classics in Political Science)

We found 4 Reddit comments about Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, Update Edition, with an Epilogue on Health Care (2nd Edition) (Longman Classics in Political Science). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Books
U.S. Political Science
Politics & Social Sciences
Politics & Government
Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, Update Edition, with an Epilogue on Health Care (2nd Edition) (Longman Classics in Political Science)
Used Book in Good Condition
Check price on Amazon

4 Reddit comments about Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, Update Edition, with an Epilogue on Health Care (2nd Edition) (Longman Classics in Political Science):

u/socalian · 3 pointsr/AskSocialScience

Two books on the public policy process:

Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies by John W. Kingdon

Public Policymaking by James E. Anderson

u/wonkalot · 2 pointsr/AskSocialScience

I can't seem to find an ebook of either of these, but there are probably PDFs out there. The paperback copies are pretty cheap - and used copies run under $10. They're both seminal and deeply important texts (IMHO):

u/just_works_here · 1 pointr/AskSocialScience

No worries, and I appreciate the difficulty of asking a seemingly charged question but intending neutrality; the way your original question was worded brought to mind a number of different theories or areas of social science research, and it was difficult to pin down.

So, for your first point, there is not specific research I am aware of that could measure that sort of thing directly, as the causal mechanism (the leader's espousal of an opinion) would be extremely difficult to isolate from an entire universe of other potential causes.

What this does bring to mind, however, is a body of research known as Agenda Setting in Public Policy research. Broadly, this is a theory which describes how different problems or policy alternatives get pushed from the available pool to the ultimate decision making process, and leadership plays an important role in the promotion of problems. Classics in this area are Kingdon and Cobb and Elder (1983).

On your second point, while a number of other strands of social science research come to mind, I'm not sure there's anything on point that would provide much clarity.

The core of the problem with these claims (e.g. Rhetoric used in the 2016 US Presidential Election causes a spike in recruitment for extremist organizations in the Middle East), and what makes them difficult to answer is that there are too many variables to control for which makes it difficult to get leverage on the problem or a 'clean' answer.

I hope this helps!

edit: minor clarity/specificity

u/Unhelpful_Idiot · 1 pointr/unpopularopinion

As someone who believes in science as much as you do... your ideas are really unscientific.


What you basically are saying is "I don't walk because I value eating healthy more than the physical ability to walk". You are just confirming the stupid belief of r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM has that centrists are just too dumb to look into any political issues.


You haven't stated a single political issue in any of your comments. Its like saying "I'm a centrist when it comes to the debate of neanderthals being a cousin subspecies of modern man because I value the discussion of the Higgs boson."
Just identify as a-political if you have no care for politics. Centrism implies something a lot deeper than what you are saying.


Politically Center ≠ Centrist ≠ A-Political


Centrists in today's meaning implies, by definition, center right beliefs.
Its a right-wing version of a liberal.
A liberal is someone who defaults to the center left except for key issues.
A centrist is someone who defaults to the center right except for key issues.


Based on what you've said so far I, ironically, do think you are a centrist. You just never learned the definition of the term. You are a centrist because you are center right and will side with people on the right-wing on almost all issues save a few key points.


What irks me is 2 things:
1- Your use of science to defend your political position.
2- The fact that you think you admire science yet approach social issues so unscientifically


There is a rich field of Social Sciences that you can draw from but instead you look at all of it and just say "oh, who cares. Planet is dying lul".


I used to be like you. I used to say things like "social sciences aren't real sciences" without ever taking a course or reading any of the works.


This weird dichotomy between social issues and science you have is the exact one that I had... then I grew up. I went to University and left that high-school way of thinking. I don't know how old you are but as someone who is, seemingly, just getting into politics let me tell you an important piece of advice:
Your political position or opinions don't matter nearly as much as the reason you have them.


You being in favor of locking up people addicted to crack doesn't matter as much as you wanting to do it because crack users tend to be black.


You are a centrist but your reasons are juvenile and unexplored. Most centrists and a lot of liberals (less than in the past) suffer from this and this is why the idea that they are stupid has become so popular. You could have all the same view points but if you gave me a half-way decent but of reasoning I would be a lot more respectful.


I will recommend this book to you. Its about policies but its a good 101 intro into practical political science. As someone who likes science it will be a good jumping into politics so you can bridge the two and gain a new ability to judge the people you maybe voting on.