Abstract
The case of the relevance of history to government policy analysis and development must contend with opposition from several sources, including the scepticism of many historians towards the idea of applied history. We argue that these objections have obscured the extent to which historical awareness can contribute to sound policy choices and cast light on the value of government intervention. We see particular value in the methods devised by Richard Neustadt and Ernest May to help policy makers think historically. By applying these methods to a case that raises questions about the pros and cons of government intervention, the privatisation of government railways in New South Wales, Australia, we show the potential of applying these methods to policy analysis.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 190-197 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | Rural Society |
| Volume | 21 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jun 2012 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 11 Sustainable Cities and Communities
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'History for policy: What is the value of history for the in-principle assessment of government intervention in rural Australia?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver