2. CHAPTER ONE
1.1 Introduction
• In the first half of the 20th c, social scientists were
equipped to improve the quality of political debate by
providing methodologically exact, justifiable,
prescriptions for solving policy problems and that they
could and should do so while remaining detached,
without becoming hindered in the messy and divisive
political process.
• They offer rapidly developing techniques for making
assumptions explicit and for testing their validity in
terms of both the basic values which policy seeks to
realize and the actualities of human relations to which
policy must be applied.
3. • Charles Merriam was one of the leaders of this
movement as organizer of the Social
Science Research Council in the 1920s.
• . He saw his effort as aimed at suggesting “certain
possibilities of approach to a method, in the hope
that others may take up the task and
through reflection and experiment eventually
introduce more intelligent and scientific
technique into the study and practices of
government, and into popular attitudes toward
the governing process” (Andrew Rich,
www.cambridge.org/9780521830294)
4. 1.2 Background of Charles E. Merriam
• Charles E. Merriam was born in Hopkinton on
November 15, 1874.
• He studied social science at Columbia College,
New York City.
• He had been a political science teacher at the
University of Chicago, where he remained
until his death a total of 51 years.
5. • Merriam was preoccupied with two goals:
critically examining and perfecting democracy
and bridging the gap in political science
between theory and practice.
• Democracy, he believed, was "not merely for
basic principles of democracy but a means,
through which the highest ideals of mankind
may be achieved."
• He joined those who sought the remedy for the
ills of democracy in more democracy.
6. • Merriam's efforts to bring political science into
touch with the real world, believing that one
could learn about politics only through the
observation of "real" government and political
behaviour.
• Charles Merriam, who served as chairman of
the University of Chicago Political Science
Department from 1923 to 1940
• He pushing for the creation of an official
“School of Politics” or an “Institute of
Government” at Chicago, which might have
looked something like a modern day school of
public policy.
7. 1.3. Statement of the Problem:
• The greatest challenges facing our world today
are from globalization and nuclear
proliferation to global warming and
entrenched poverty are complex, interrelated,
and urgent. Now is the time to shift course
toward a better future.
• Real progress on global challenges demands
honest assessments of why some approaches
have worked and others have failed.
8. Michael Hallsworth, with Simon Parker and Jill
Rutter (2011) identified four main problems that
facing in the real world policy making. These are:
1. Process: the dominant model of the policy
process is unrealistic;
2. Qualities: there is clarity on the desired qualities
of policy making, but not on how to achieve
them, so attempts to embed them have failed to
make notable progress;
3. Structures: structural changes have been
incoherent and incomplete, and face new
challenges as Whitehall downsizes; and
4. Politics: past approaches neglected politics or
treated it as something to be ‘managed’.
9. 1.4. Objectives the paper
Main objective: to explore the contributions of
Charles E. Merriam to the public policy making
and its role in recent policy making problems.
Specific objectives :
• To identify contemporary public policy
problems,
• To briefly understood basic contributions of
Charles E. Merriam to the public policy making
and,
• Recommend public policy makers to fulfil
public policy gaps with the findings of Charles E.
Merriam.
10. 1.5. Paper Questions
1. Who is Charles E. Merriam?
2. What experience he had?
3. What motivated him to study about public or
social politics?
4. What are his major contributions to public
policy making?
5. How much his policy findings influencing the
world.
6. To which theoretical framework his conception is
fitting?
11. 1.6.Significance of the Study:
• The final findings of this paper are supportive
to those who are in the process of policy
making and implementations.
• The real gap countering developing countries
like Ethiopia are the interpretation of written
policies in to practice. Therefore the advices
and recommendations of Charles E. Merriam
help more fore practice.
12. 1.7.Research Methodology
• This study is mainly focuses on secondary data
that is reviewing all relevant literature and
Different written materials that include books,
journals, conference proceedings and other
literatures concerning Charles E. Merriam to
the public policy making.
13.
14. 2.1 Literature Review
• University of Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s
envisioned the model of natural science as
integral to a political science for practical use.
• The faculty of the Chicago School most
notably Charles E. Merriam, Leonard D. White,
Harold F. Gosnell, and Harold D. Lasswell were
among the first political scientists to conduct
randomized field experiments, to employ
advanced statistical techniques. (Lasswell
1927; White 1929).
15. • An unresolved question for the Chicago
School, however, was how political science as
a discipline could regularly translate these
scientific results into a form useable by
political actors (Gunnell 2006, 479).
• Charles E. Merriam believed that the science-
practice divide could be reconciled by
structuring universities to interface directly
with the public sector.
• The main ambition of Merriam was to create
a political science for practical use.
16. • After 10 years of active involvement in Chicago
politics and government, Merriam began to
advocate a more systematic role for political
science and social science more generally in the
practice of local government.
• He recognized the progress of “social politics” in
the United States including minimum wage laws,
public health standards, and workplace safety
laws to “the advance of science, whether in the
form of public sanitation or of social science”
(Merriam 1913, 685).
• Merriam believed that academic involvement
could correct public problems.
17. Theoretical Framework
• 2.1 BEHAVIOURALISM
• 2.1.1 Conceptual Clarifications of Behaviourism
• some would define behaviouralism as an attempt
to apply the methods of natural sciences to
human behavior.
• Others would define it as an excessive emphasis
upon quantification.
• Others conceive of it as individualistic
reductionism.
– Therefore, there is no clear and agreed definition for
behaviouralism .
– So instead of defining behaviouralism, it is much
easier to say what behaviouralism does or seeks to
achieve.
18. • For Britannica Encyclopedia, Behaviouralism is
the view that the subject matter of political
science should be limited to phenomena that
are independently observable and
quantifiable.
• It assumes that political institutions largely
reflect underlying social forces and that the
study of politics should begin with society,
culture, and public opinion.
• Two distinctive principles: these principles
have been known to differentiate the
behaviouralist from other social sciences.
19. 1st fact that observable behaviour, whether it be
at the level of the individual or the social
aggregate,
2nd any explanation offered for that behavior
• The central questions which the
behaviouralists seeks to answer are quite clear
and simple. In Sanders’ own words, “What do
actors involved actually do? How can we best
explain why they do it?”(Sanders, 2010:24).
20. Historical Background of Behaviouralism
• Behaviouralism rose partly as a reaction
against the traditional approaches of political
inquiry and partly as a result of the quest in
search for a more ‘Scientific Method’ of
acquiring empiric knowledge during political
analysis.
• The behavioral approach to the analysis and
explanation of political phenomena, is
particularly associated with the work of
American political scientists after the Second
World War.
21. • Charles E. Merriam was pioneer of the behavioural
approach.
• In the article ‘The Present State of The Study of
Politics’ published in American Political Science
Review (1921) and in his book ‘New Aspects of
Politics’ (1925), Merriam criticized contemporary
political science for its lack of scientific rigor.
• Despite these early attempts, Behaviouralism in
political science was systematically developed only
after the Second World War, particularly through the
writings of American Political Scientists. David B.
Truman, Robert Dahl, Evron M. Kirkpatrick, David
Easton, Heinz Eulau; are some of the most
prominent personalities of the Behavioral movement
in political science.
22. • According to Easton, (1962) the intellectual foundations of
Behaviouralism consist of eight major tenets.
1. Regularities: Discoverable uniformities in political behaviour
which can be expressed in theory-like state ments.
2. Verification: Validity of such theory like statements can be
verified.
3. Techniques: Means for acquiring and interpreting data.
4. Quantification: Precision in the recording of data
5. Values: Objective scientific inquiry has to be value free or
value neutral.
6. Systematization: Close interrelationship between theory and
research.
7. Pure Science: Directed towards forging a link between
theoretical understanding of politics and application of
theory to practical problem- solving.
8. Integration: Integration of political science with other social
sciences.
23. • Behaviouralism focused on micro level situations
rather than attempting macro level generalizations.
ANALYSIS OF SOME CRITICISM OF BEHAVIOURALISM
• One of the major criticisms of the behaviouralist
approach rests on the fact of association and
influence which the Logical Positivist School of
thought exerts on the behaviouralists approach.
• the first criticism rests on the positivist influence
claim which holds that:
First, statements which are neither definitions nor
empirical are meaningless” in its entire implication. By
implication, it has been argued by certain scholars
that since the behavioral approach share the same
mode of thought with logical positivism, it invariably
becomes vulnerable to any weakness inherent in
positivism.
24. • However, some meaningful facts and ideas
which could add very significantly to our
understanding of social behaviour and the
human condition.
• no role for normative theory, aesthetics or
hermeneutics in political and social analysis.
• Behaviouralists simply prefer to subject their
own theoretical claims to empirical tests.
• Second, There is “the tendency amongst the
behaviouralist, to incline towards mindless
empiricism” as a result of their influence from
positivism. (Sanders, 2010:30).
25. • One of the earliest claims of the positivist’s
school of thought was that theoretical
understanding could be obtained only through
the process of inquiry that began with theory-
free observations of ‘all the facts in an
experiment for instance, from which law-like
generalizations are derived from the empirical
regularities that were observed.
• Behaviouralists now thus pay closer attention
to issues such as “electorate’s social profiles’,
partisan identifications, policy preferences
and economic perceptions.
26.
27. • 3.1 Analysis of the Researcher
• As I had reviewed above, the main ambition of
Charles E. Merriam was to create a political
science for practical use. The main pushing factor
behind him was the unresolved question of
Chicago school ‘how political science as a
discipline could regularly translate these scientific
results into a form useable by political actors’
• The stand of Charles E. Merriam to solve this
problem was by instituting school which equips
scientists or scholars and policy makers who are
responsible to the scientism of public policy and
changing political science into practice.
28. • His persistence on the mere fact that observable behaviour,
whether it be at the level of the individual or the social
aggregate, should be the focus of their analysis at any point in
time.
In my point of view, specially in these days it is difficult to
experimentally approve the political behaviour of individuals or
groups. Because the motives behind politicians is hidden and not
manifested on his/her face. They seems like struggling for the
benefits of the mass but thy do every thing according to their
personal gain. Which means behaviourally they are good and the
result of their action is affecting the mass/others.
• He also insists that any explanation offered for that behaviour
should be susceptible to empirical testing.
• Here his conception about human behaviour is different of
me. My argument is that human being are dignity seeking
animals who do not want to simply summited to others. Here
the first thing is that empirically explaining human being by
itself is not accurate because of his(human) secret agenda.
29. 3.2 Major Findings of the Research
• In policy making knowing the behavior of the
society/need assessment is essential for the
achievement of intended goals.
• Interpreting theoretical policies in to practice bring
confidence between the people and government.
• Existence of school/institute that is responsible for the
awareness and advancement of policy making is very
essential. The Chicago school of politics helped more
the political development of America.
• Behaviouralism is the view that the subject matter of
political science should be limited to phenomena that
are independently observable and quantifiable.
• However it is impossible to observe and quantify every
aspect of society, observation and measuring is
important to minimize uprisings
30.
31. 4.1 Conclusion
• The career of Charles Merriam spanned a
transitional period as the states became a nation
and the nation became an international power.
• During his years as a political science professor at
the University of Chicago, Merriam actively
participated in the political process that was the
focus of his academic research.
• As a political scientist, Merriam was intrigued by
the methodology he saw emerging in the fields of
philosophy, sociology, psychology, and
anthropology.
32. Recommendation
• Developing countries should follow the footsteps
of Charles E. Merriam which is setting up
institutions which are endeavouring to capacitate
policy makers and implementers. When we
observe policy of Ethiopia in most cases are
progressive and had good vision for the future
country’s development. But the main problem
manifesting is that changing the document of
policy in to practice. This is mainly emanated from
the capacity (knowledge, skill and attitude) of
policy makers is not well matured. Therefore to
capacitate them there should be an institution or
research canter which is doing for this end.
33. • The capacity building should be given not only
for policy makers but also implementers
especially to civil servants and for the whole
resident of the country before
implementation. Deep discussion must be
taken between the policy maker and
implementer. Confusions and
misinterpretations must be removed. This may
led to effective and efficient implementation
and fully attainment of the goal. This helps to
the implementer to develop the sense of
ownership.
