评论:风险与因果关系:政策研究者对公共决策的贡献。

Q2 Medicine
Pierre-Gerlier Forest
{"title":"评论:风险与因果关系:政策研究者对公共决策的贡献。","authors":"Pierre-Gerlier Forest","doi":"10.12927/hcpol.2025.27615","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In his introduction to the translation into French of Max Weber's famous conferences on science and politics, Raymond Aron makes the insightful suggestion that public decisions must start with two distinct <i>conjectures</i> (Aron 1963: 11). One concerns the risks arising from policy action, or inaction, in a situation or context that is always unique and peculiar, and the other, the uncertainty attached to the results of the action. Greatly simplified, because a decision is rarely made by only one person, outside an institution and the constraints that follow, a decision maker's first order of business is to consider the many consequences that may stem from intervening (or not) to change a situation or solve a problem (Tong 1987). In parallel, the decision maker will want evidence that the measures that are considered can succeed, based on experience or by default, on some plausible \"theory\" of social action (Edenhofer and Kowarsch 2019).</p>","PeriodicalId":39389,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare Policy","volume":"20 3","pages":"35-39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12280355/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Commentary: Risk and Causality: The Contribution of Policy Researchers to Public Decisions.\",\"authors\":\"Pierre-Gerlier Forest\",\"doi\":\"10.12927/hcpol.2025.27615\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In his introduction to the translation into French of Max Weber's famous conferences on science and politics, Raymond Aron makes the insightful suggestion that public decisions must start with two distinct <i>conjectures</i> (Aron 1963: 11). One concerns the risks arising from policy action, or inaction, in a situation or context that is always unique and peculiar, and the other, the uncertainty attached to the results of the action. Greatly simplified, because a decision is rarely made by only one person, outside an institution and the constraints that follow, a decision maker's first order of business is to consider the many consequences that may stem from intervening (or not) to change a situation or solve a problem (Tong 1987). In parallel, the decision maker will want evidence that the measures that are considered can succeed, based on experience or by default, on some plausible \\\"theory\\\" of social action (Edenhofer and Kowarsch 2019).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39389,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Healthcare Policy\",\"volume\":\"20 3\",\"pages\":\"35-39\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12280355/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Healthcare Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12927/hcpol.2025.27615\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Healthcare Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12927/hcpol.2025.27615","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在将马克斯·韦伯著名的科学和政治会议翻译成法语的引言中,雷蒙德·阿隆提出了深刻的建议,即公共决策必须从两个不同的猜想开始(阿隆1963:11)。一种是在总是独特和特殊的情况或背景下采取政策行动或不采取行动所产生的风险,另一种是行动结果的不确定性。简而言之,因为决策很少是由一个人在一个机构及其约束之外做出的,决策者的首要任务是考虑干预(或不干预)可能导致的许多后果,以改变一种情况或解决一个问题(Tong 1987)。与此同时,决策者将希望有证据表明,根据经验或默认情况,根据一些似是而非的社会行动“理论”,所考虑的措施能够成功(Edenhofer和Kowarsch 2019)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Commentary: Risk and Causality: The Contribution of Policy Researchers to Public Decisions.

In his introduction to the translation into French of Max Weber's famous conferences on science and politics, Raymond Aron makes the insightful suggestion that public decisions must start with two distinct conjectures (Aron 1963: 11). One concerns the risks arising from policy action, or inaction, in a situation or context that is always unique and peculiar, and the other, the uncertainty attached to the results of the action. Greatly simplified, because a decision is rarely made by only one person, outside an institution and the constraints that follow, a decision maker's first order of business is to consider the many consequences that may stem from intervening (or not) to change a situation or solve a problem (Tong 1987). In parallel, the decision maker will want evidence that the measures that are considered can succeed, based on experience or by default, on some plausible "theory" of social action (Edenhofer and Kowarsch 2019).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Healthcare Policy
Healthcare Policy Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信