IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v14y1995i1-2p3-24.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Pragmatic Framework for the Evaluation of Policy Arguments

Author

Listed:
  • William J. Ball

Abstract

A policy argument is an oral or written statement that advocates adopting a policy or justifies the decision to adopt a policy. This article advances the study of policy arguments by establishing a simple and general framework for their evaluation that is inspired by pragmatic philosophy. A pragmatic framework recognizes that all policy arguments are normative in purpose and that a good policy argument supports its normative claim with factual and value‐based “good reasons.” Establishing an argument's claim mediates these supporting reasons. A pragmatic approach delineates the nature and purpose of policy arguments more clearly than has been done in the past, providing a more suitable framework for study.

Suggested Citation

  • William J. Ball, 1995. "A Pragmatic Framework for the Evaluation of Policy Arguments," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 14(1‐2), pages 3-24, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:14:y:1995:i:1-2:p:3-24
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.1995.tb00619.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1995.tb00619.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1995.tb00619.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kurko, Terhi & Silvast, Antti & Wahlroos, Hannes & Pietilä, Kirsi & Airaksinen, Marja, 2012. "Is pharmaceutical policy evidence-informed? A case of the deregulation process of nicotine replacement therapy products in Finland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 246-255.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:14:y:1995:i:1-2:p:3-24. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.