This paper discusses the implications of the sciences of complexity for public policy and administration. It is argued that the sciences of complexity have implications for our thinking in mainly three areas. First, they revise our conceptions of systems, causal relations, and determinism and depict a picture of mostly indeterministic reality composed of open systems. Second, they offer an “endophysical” and phenomenological view of system - observer relations. Third, although they are heavily quantitative, they illustrate the importance of qualitative interpretations in quantitative analyses and thus bridge the chasm between quantitative and qualitative methodologies. The insights of the sciences of complexity can help us improve our understanding of the complexities of public policy and administrative processes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbertAlain (Ed.) (1995). Chaos and Society.Amsterdam: IOS Press.
2.
AndersonPhilip (1999). “Complexity Theory and Organization Science.” Organization Science10: 216–232.
3.
ArtigianiRobert (1987). “Revolution and Evolution: Applying Prigogine's Dissipative Structures Model.” Journal of Social and Biological Structures10: 249–264.
4.
BerryBrian J. L. and HejaKim (1999). “Has the Fed Reduced Chaos.” In ElliottEuel and DouglasKiel (Eds.). Nonlinear Dynamics, Complexity and Public Policy (pp. 47–56). Commack, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
5.
BrunnerRonald D. (1991). “The Policy Movement as a Policy Problem.” Policy Sciences24: 65–98.
6.
CastiJohn L. (1994). Complexification: Explaining A Paradoxical World Through The Science Of Surprise.New York: HarperPerennial.
7.
CilliersPaul. (1998). Complexity And Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems. London: Routledge.
8.
DentEric B. (1999). “Complexity Science: A Woldview Shift.” Emergence: A Journal Of Complexity Issues In Organizations And Management1: 5–19.
9.
DobuzinskisLaurent (1992). “Modernist and Postmodernist Metaphors of the Policy Process: Control and Stability vs. Chaos and Reflexive Understanding.” Policy Sciences25: 355–380.
10.
DunnWilliam N. (1994). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11.
DuongDeborah V. and KevinD. Reilly (1995). “A System of IAC Neural Networks as the Basis for Self-organization in a Sociological Dynamical System Simulation.” Behavioral Science40: 275–303.
12.
EpsteinJoshua M. and RobertAxtell (1996). Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science From The Bottom Up.Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
13.
EveRaymond A. (1997). “Afterword: So Where Are We Now? A Final Word.” In EveRaymond A., SaraHorsfall, and MaryE. Lee (Eds.). Chaos, Complexity, And Sociology: Myths, Models, and Theories (pp. 269–280). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
FischerFrank (1990). Technocracy And The Politics Of Expertise.Newbury park, CA: Sage.
15.
FischerFrank (1995). Evaluating Public Policy.Chicago: Nelson Hall Publishers.
16.
Gell-MannMurray (1995). “What is Complexity?” Complexity1: 16–19.
17.
GemmillGary and CharlesSmith (1985). “A Dissipative Structure Model of Organization Transformation.” Human Relations38: 751–766.
18.
GleickJames (1987). Chaos: Making A New Science. New York: Penguin Books.
19.
GoldsteinJeffrey (1988). “A Far-from-Equilibrium Systems Approach to Resistance to Change.” Organizational Dynamics17: 16–26.
20.
HonderichTed (1995). The Oxford Companion To Philosophy.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
KauffmanStuart (1993). The Origins Of Order: Self-Organization And Selection In Evolution.New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
KauffmanStuart (1995). At Home In The Universe: The Search For Laws Of Self-Organization And Complexity.New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
KellertStuart H. (1993). In The Wake Of Chaos: Unpredictable Order In Dynamical Systems.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
25.
KielL. Douglas (1992). “The Nonlinear Paradigm: Advancing Paradigmatic Process in the Policy Sciences.Systems Research9: 27–42.
26.
LeiferRichard (1989). “Understanding Organizational Transformation Using a Dissipative Structure Model.” Human Relations42: 899–916.
27.
MakarykIrena R. (1993). Encyclopaedia Of Contemporary Literary Theory.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
28.
MarionRuss (1999). The Edge Of Organization: Chaos And Complexity Theories Of Formal Social Systems.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
MorçölGöktu (2000). “A Meno Paradox for Public Administration: Have We Acquired a Radically New Knowledge from the New Sciences.” In GöktugMorçöl and LindaS. Dennard (Eds.), New Sciences For Public Administration And Policy: Connections And Reflections (pp. 45–61). Burke, VA: Chatelaine Press.
30.
MorçölGöktug (in press). “What is Complexity Science: Postmodernist or Postpositivist.” Emergence: A Journal Of Complexity Issues In Organizations And Management.
31.
PasseriniEve and DavidBahr (1997). “Collective Behavior Following Disasters: A Cellular Automaton Model.” In EveRaymond A., SaraHorsfall, and MaryE. Lee (Eds.), Chaos, Complexity, And Sociology: Myths, Models, And Theories (pp. 215–228). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
PressmanJeffrey L. and AaronWildavsky (1973). Implementation.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
33.
PrigogineIlya and IsabelleStengers (1984). Order Out Of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue With Nature.New York: Bantam Books.
34.
PrigogineIlya and IsabelleStengers (1996). The End Of Certainty: Time Chaos, And The New Laws Of Nature.New York: The Free Press.
35.
QuadeE. S. (1989). Analysis For Public Decisions (3rd Ed.).New York: North Holland.
36.
RösslerO. E. (1986). “How chaotic is the universe?” In HoldenA. V. (Ed.), Chaos.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37.
SabatierPaul A. (1999). “The Need for Better Theories.” In PaulSabatier (Ed.), Theories Of The Policy Process (pp. 3–18). Boulder, CO: Westview.
38.
StockeyEdith and RichardZeckhauser (1978). A Primer For Policy Analysis.New York: W. W. Norton and Co.
39.
StrauchRalph E. (1976). “A Critical Look at Quantitative Methodology.” Policy Analysis2: 121–144.
40.
“Twenty Ideas That Will Rule Research in the Next Twenty Years” (2000). Discover21 (October): 88–91.
41.
WaldropM. Mitchell (1992). Complexity: The Emerging Science At The Edge Of Chaos.New York: Touchstone.
42.
WilsonEdward O. (1998). Consilience: The Unity Of Knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
