Plan is not necessarily a four-letter word
The purpose of this paper is to remove the topic of ''planning'' from being the sole property of the academic and technocrat and to bring it to the political arena in a form understandable to the principal players there--the politicians. The authors try to explain what the fuss over planning has been all about and what legacy of opinions and confusion the politician takes on when he addresses the issue. To better focus the arguments, a series of options were laid out of tasks for planning to perform and then, through the technique of recalling major Congressional and Executive programs, relating these planning options to evaluations of what might have made the programs more responsive or successful. The upshot of the analysis was that the type of planning apt to have the greatest payoff with the least political risk was a form largely dedicated toward getting the public sector's own house in order. The paper then turns to addressing where such a planning function might be housed. No option is omitted on a priori grounds, as determination and cash solve all problems. On the other hand, it does appear that some effort in this direction is necessary in the Executive Branch. The authors then move from the general to the specific and propose a strawman design for such an Executive Branch group and calculate how much it would take to put it in place. (From Summary)
- Research Organization:
- Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. (USA). Office of Institutional Research and Analyses
- OSTI ID:
- 5128837
- Report Number(s):
- DOE/EV-0001; CONF-780101-
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Congress and the International Energy Agency some structural aspects of energy policy conflicts
Nuclear waste management