No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Manageability Despite Undercomprehension?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2014
Extract
SARTORI'S COMMENT THAT UNDERCOMPREHENSION APPLIES to the engineering of history provides a starting point for these reflections since those words suggest three familiar ideas — purpose, thought and action — as do also other expressions he uses: ‘our cognitive control of ourselves’, ‘the shaping of societies and polities’, and a ‘policy enactment which amounted to little else than allowing markets to blossom’. Purpose, thought and action can be seen as aspects of management, at least in the context of this discussion and provided it is clear that decisions not to act can often be a form of management; so can we justify equating undercomprehension with unmanageability.
Purposes with varying degrees of compatibility are pursued and both cooperation and conflict characterize the pursuit; instruments are required for planning, for conflict resolution and for damage limitation.
Information
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1989
References
1 Sartori, Giovanni, ‘Undercomprehension’, p. 392 Google Scholar of this issue.
2 Shils, Edward, ‘The Limits on the Capacities of Government’, pp. 441–57Google Scholar of this issue.
3 Ionescu, G., ‘Political Undercornprehension or the Overload of Political Cognition’, pp. 413–26Google Scholar of this issue.
4 Masefield, Thorold, ‘Co‐prosperity and Co‐security: Managing the Developed World’, international Affairs, Winter 1988–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Inoguchi, Takashi, ‘Four Japanese Scenarios for the Future’, International Affairs, Winter 1988–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Jaques, Elliott, Requisite Organisation, Arlington, Virginia, Cason Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
7 Williams, R., ‘Political Decisions Where the Technical Component is Substantial’, pp. 458–72Google Scholar of this issue.
8 Newsom, David D., ‘The New Diplomatic Agenda: Are Governments Ready?’, International Affairs, Winter 1988–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Financial Times, 3 May 1989.
10 The Economist, 18 March 1989.
11 In three lectures at LSE by Professor Peter Temin of MIT in January 1989.
12 Ionescu, op. cit.
13 Julius, Deanne and Thomson, Stephen E., Inward Investment and Foreign‐owned Firms in the G‐5, RIIA Discussion Papers, 1989.Google Scholar
14 As reported by John Pinder.
15 Jaques, , op. cit.; Hofstede, G., Culture’s Consequences, Beverly Hills, Sage, 1980 Google Scholar; Prahalad, C.K. and Doz, Y.L., The Multinational Mission, New York, The Free Press, 1987.Google Scholar
16 Derived in part from Prahalad and Doz, op. cit., in part from personal observation.
17 Shils, op. cit.
18 Streeck, Wolfgang, ‘Skills and the Limits of Neoliberalism; the Enterprise of the Future as a Place of Learning’, conference paper, Turin, 1987.Google Scholar
19 Williams, op. cit.
20 By Arthur Anderson and The Economist, 1989.
21 As reported by Sir Reginald Hibbert when Director of the Ditchley Foundation.
22 Masefield, op. cit.
23 Kindelberger, Charles, Multinational Excursions, Chicago, MIT Press, 1984.Google Scholar
24 Competition Policy and International Trade: OECD Instruments of Cooperation, OECD, 1987.
25 Minogue, K., ‘Journalism and the Public Mind’, pp. 473–88Google Scholar of this issue.
26 Shils, op. cit
27 Lasky, Melville J., ‘The Art of the Interview’, Encounter, 03 1989.Google Scholar
28 Financial Timer, 11 February 1989.
29 Kay, John, ‘Research Policy: the IFS Experience’, Policy Studies, Spring, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30 Sir Wass, Douglas in his Reith lectures; see The Listener, 15 12 1983 .Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by