The interpenetration of politics and planning
Abstract This paper argues that judgement on the wider claims of systems planning should be suspended until a fuller evaluation has been completed. As part of this evaluation, it is argued that the relation between the activities of politics and of planning will remain ambivalent so long as the two concepts retain their elastic definitions. In this context this paper examines the British literature on systems planning and concludes that conflicts generated in the formulation of goals cannot be imploded, from the political arena into planning and resolved there through the application of deductive logic. It is argued that goal formulation needs to be reconceived as an activity where the deductive logic of systems planning and the interactive logic of politics interpenetrate and permeate each other. It is argued that neither is it desirable that deductive logic should dominate political activity, nor is it feasible that the interactive logic of politics should dominate the activity of planning. Interpenetration may be seen in the activity of representation, where although the represented are capable of acting, their representatives act for them (not instead of them) in other arenas. It is argued that ultimately, though politics is a logically prior activity and though planning is instrumental, they need to be conceived as interdependent but semi-autonomous activities, linked by the process of formulating desirable goals which are also feasible.
A policy-selection/ goal-formulation model for public systems
This paper attempts to present an analytical framework of analysis of problems relating to public systems. Current optimization models, which originated in the private sector, are not adequate to handle the complexity of the decision making processes in public policy analysis. The proposed model aims at lessening ideological debates over statements of goals, and it emphasizes policy selection through goal redefinitions where both goals and policies are formulated simultaneously. The model is based on an iterative process where consensus over policies is arrived at between the policy maker and the constituents of the public system. The principal feature of the model is that it incorporates political debates and bargains, and provides for the development of insight.
Do Arab public opinion support policies of regional powers in MENA? View from Tunisia
ABSTRACT The Arab Uprisings and subsequent events continue to transform policies of regional and major powers toward the Middle East and North Africa. These powers have shown different approaches toward the Uprisings, ranging from support for the status quo to endorsing regime changes. Their policies have also exerted a significant impact on the course of events. Despite this growing importance and implications of policies of regional powers on the Uprisings and the Syrian conflict, we still do not know much about how the public assesses these policies and to what extent domestic cleavages shape these assessments. Using a nationally representative original survey conducted in 2014 in Tunisia, this study examines the perceptions of the policies of France, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia towards the Uprisings and the Syrian conflict. It finds that French and Turkish policies about the Uprisings have garnered substantial support among citizens, whereas most citizens negatively assess the Saudi policies. On the other hand, the majority of Tunisians negatively assess all these countries’ policies toward the Syrian conflict. Another major finding suggests that political identity reflecting secular/religious cleavages shapes how citizens view the policies of these three countries toward both issues, but its effect is higher in assessing the Uprisings.