J

I

Aaron Wildavsky: A Memorial 1930-1993

Working Paper 94-2

INSTITUTE OF GO ERNMENTAL STUDIES UNI ERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY : A Memorial 1930-1993

Working Paper 94-2

Working Papers published by the Institute of Governmental Studies provide quick dissemination of draft reports and papers, preliminary analysis, and papers with a limited audience. The objective is to assist authors in refining their ideas by circulating research results and to stimulate discussion about public policy. Working Papers are reproduced unedited directly from the author's pages. Aaron Wildavsky

1930-1993

Class of 1940 Professor of and Pnblic Policy University of California, Berkeley

From The Independent (London), Friday, IO, September 1993

Professor Aaron Wildavsky

Aaron Wi/davsky, political scientist, writer on public affairs; horn New York City 31 May 1930; Assistant Professor, Oberlin College 1958-62; Professor, University ()f California, Berkeley 1963-93; Dean, School of Public Policy, Berkeley 1969-77; Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences 1973- 93; President, Russell Sage Foundation, New York 1977-78; books include The Private Government of Public Money 1974; married 1955 Carol Shirk(deceased; three sons, one daughter; marriage dissolved), 1973 Mary Cadman; died Oakland, California 4 September 1993.

To describe Aaron Wildavsky as the world's leading scholar in makes him sound dry as dust; nothing could be further from the truth. He was as warm and earthy as the kasha that he made each Sunday for brunch at his home overlooking San Francisco Bay. Wildavsky was a professor of political science because he cared passionately about politics. For him, it was not a spectator sport but the serious business of setting conditions in which people lived or were killed, as his Russian immigrant parents taught him. The Private Government of Public Money (1974) was a great book about public expenditure in Britain because it was not about money. It was about "village life inside Whitehall." With his co-author, Hugh Heclo, Wildavsky interviewed scores of "villagers" and saw that they were not so much concerned with money as with maintaining political consensus among barons in charge of different Cabinet departments. Consensus was achieved by excluding the public from decisions about billions of pounds. Budgeting fascinated Wildavsky because it was where money, politics, and people combined to resolve differences. Since there could never be enough money to go around, budgets required decisions about political priorities. Since politics is about conflicting opinions, there were bound to be disagreements. The task of politicians, including Treasury civil servants and the Prime Minister, is to balance conflicting interests. The approach was an explicit rejection of technocratic and ultimately undemocratic ideas about how public expenditure ought to be detennined. As a young assistant professor Wildavsky wrote the leading political text on budgeting in Washington, The Politics of the Budgetary Process (1964). Implementation (1973) opened a whole new field of studies worldwide; its message is contained in its subtitle: "How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland, or Why It's Amazing that Federal Programs Work at All." Planning and Budgeting in Poor Countries (1974), co-authored with Naomi Caiden, is a magnificent analysis of how administrators behave in situations of chronic fiscal crisis. As a realist, Wildavsky did not dismiss the problems of 100 member states of the United Nations as "impossible." Instead, he outlined the stratagems used when finance is uncertain. The book would repay reading by British university administrators today. Whether walking down a street in , strolling around St. James's Park, or reading political journalism, Wildavsky had an eye for underlying patterns and anomalies. He collaborated with the quintessentially English in two decades of work on culture. Their co-authored book and Culture (1982), was subtitled "an essay on the selection of technologies and environmental dangers." It illustrates Wildavsky's concern with why people choose to regard some activities as "polluting" in the moral as well as chemical sense. Wildavsky began the study of social science in the Brownsville district of Brooklyn, going down to Borough Hall to help his father, a Yiddish-speaking immigrant, deal with the local bureaucracy. Initially, he wanted to study Russian politics, for his parents had experienced at first hand the pogroms and the 4

Communist revolution. However, he reckoned that if ever he were allowed into the Soviet Union, he would immediately be thrown out, Hence, he turned to American politics. Wildavsky became an academic by accident. Brooklyn College, where he took his B.A. in I 954, was not for the elite of New York City, but since he did not know it was '"non-U" he happily obtained a great education there. A scholarship to Australia drew him into teaching, and led to his first book. After a Ph.D. at Yale, he went to the University of California, Berkeley, in 1963, and remained there for the rest of his life, except for a brief period as President of the Russell Sage Foundation, in New York. Among many campus contributions, Wildavsky was the founder dean of Berkeley"s celebrated School of Public Policy. No management consultant trying to account for an academic's paid employment could have made sense of Wildavsky. To him, teaching and research were not mutually exclusive alternatives but intertwined. Undergraduates were encouraged to work as carefully as he did. Students could enter one Berkeley course only if they did a good first-semester research project. Their second semester assignment was to rewrite the paper to make it better. Many graduate students ended up co-authors, benefiting from his unusual rule that authors' names should always appear in alphabetical order. Wildavsky was a speaker in the best Brooklyn style: clear, vivid in imagery, and firm in conclusions. In a lecture hall, Wildavsky had an imposing appearance, bald and bearded like an Old Testament prophet. Like the prophets, he was a natural communicator. Many of his remarks were couched in phrases whose full force drew upon Yiddish inflections. In Paris I once heard an OECD translator with impeccable French and English abandon an attempt to translate his keynote address because she could not cope with his inimitable manner of speaking. The title of one of his books-Speaking Truth to Power (l 979)-was applied in professional life. Wildavsky was ready to vote for Ronald Reagan in l 980 when this was unfashionable on campuses. He also raised topics that other social scientists usually avoid. At a Nobel Prize symposium in Stockholm on the growth of government, he silenced a roomful of candidates for the Economics Prize by asking the simple question: "Where do values come from?" In London, Wildavsky was a frequent visitor and member of the Reform Club, and had been a visiting fellow at Nuffield College, Oxford. His widow, Mary Cadman, is an Englishwoman turned landscape gardener. The final word on Wildavsky can come from another political scientist, Leo Rosten, better known as the author of The Joys of Yiddish. That book defines a mensch as follows: "To be a mensch has nothing to do with success, wealth, status. The key to being a real mensch is nothing less than character, rectitude, dignity, a sense of what is right." Aaron Wildavsky was a real mensch.

Richard Rose University of Strathclyde

Richard Rose is professor of politics and founder and director ,,f the Cell/re for Studies of Public Policy, University of Strathclyde, Scotland. A funeral service for Aaron Wildavsky was held in Lafayette, California, on September 6, 1993, with remarks by Adam Wildavsky, Austin Ranney, ). Merrill Sha11ks,Bernard Gifford, Percy Ta11ne11baum,, and Nelso11 W. Po/shy. Remarks at the Funeral 7

Remarks by Adam Wildavsky

Aaron was a wonderful father and a great scholar. rn remember him as a champion; a champion of liberty, of capitalism, and of intellectual honesty. I remember my father's favorite kind of speech ... a short one.

Adam Wildavsky, of Queens, New York, born March 24, 1960, in Oberlin, Ohio, is the eldest son of Aaron and Carol Wildavsky.

Remarks by Austin Ranney University of California, Berkeley

I learned long ago that in Aaron Wildavsky·s presence l was well-advised to think before speaking and to choose my words rather carefully. It will be especially hard to live up to that rule on this occasion, but I will do my best. How favored are all of us in this room! We are here because we knew Aaron. A specially favored few are members of his family. The rest of us are his students and his friends-although it has to be said that for Aaron, the distinction between those two categories was never very clear or very important. After all, many people here today arc students who became his friends. But many others are friends who became his students. I know, because I am one of them. I have been ever since I first met him at the Democratic National Convention in 1960. He was a newly minted Ph.D. from Yale and in his first teaching job at Oberlin, and I was acting as the Citizenship Clearing House's amanuensis for Aaron and the other young professors whom CCH was paying to observe the convention. Before I had known Aaron more than a day or two, I learned from him that what the scholarly literature then said about how delegates to national party conventions get their information was wrong. That lesson was not easy for me to learn, for I had written some of that literature myself. Nevertheless, he was right, and he convinced me. But then and on many subsequent occasions I also learned from Aaron something important about teaching. Aaron and I saw a lot of each other since 1960. In 1974-75 we were both fellows at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, and--despite the strong egos of all the other fellows, including me-Aaron was universally recognized as the most powerful and creative person there. And we didn't even mind admitting it! Many times that year and since I have asked Aaron what he thought about this political scientist or that economist or the other cultural anthropologist. ls she bright? Is he dim? Are they crazy? And every time Aaron said, "Don't ask me about the person; ask me about the work." In print and in person Aaron has criticized a good deal of scholarly work, and every one of his students, including me, will tell you that his criticisms were always to the point and usually correct. But we will also tell you that he criticized our work in such a way that he never seemed to us to be saying that because our work has flaws we arc somehow unworthy persons-that it is okay to be less than perfect as long as we never give up trying to make it better. Thus, when I became chair of the Berkeley department in 1987, Aaron, who is by unanimous agreement the best chair the department ever had, tried hard to teach me to be the second-best. 8

I had my most recent lesson the last time I saw him, a week before he died. After a meeting on the Berkeley campus, Nelson Polsby took Bob Dahl and me to see Aaron at his home. (Bob, as many of you know, was one of Aaron's teachers at Yale and is widely regarded as the greatest political scientist of the academic generation before Aaron· s.) After we sat down, we asked Aaron how he was feeling. But Aaron wasn't much interested in the question and didn't answer it. Instead, he asked Bob, "What are you working on these days?" Bob said, well, he had just published an article on the impossibility of generating and identifying a true majority will in a pluralist society. And Aaron said, "Yes-I read that article, and l think your argument is not quite right." For the next hour Aaron and Bob had a good-humored but sharp argument over the concepts and the evidence used in Bob's article, leavened by occasional brilliant and witty side remarks from Nelson and me. As we drove away afterward, I was struck by the fact that Aaron did not want to talk about his cancer or his pain. He wanted to talk about important scholarly work and ideas. That was what was important to him. And l said to myself, that the cancer and its devastation are unspeakably terrible-and yet they are not bigger than Aaron. And I was right. Aaron continued to be Aaron right up to the end. And I thought then, as I think now, that we students of Aaron learned a lot from him. We learned never to be satisfied with the state of our knowledge. We learned how to criticize scholarly work without demeaning scholars. And, in the end, we learned how to live until we die.

Austin Ranney came to the Berkeley political science department in 1986 and served as chair 1987-90. His distinguished career ill political science includes the presidency of the American Political Scie!lce Association in 1974-75 and service on the faculties of the University of Illinois and the University of Wisconsin and the staff of the American Enterprise institute in Washington D.C. His friendship with Aaron Wildavsky dates, as he describes, from 1960.

Remarks by Merrill Shanks University of California, Berkeley

For several who arc here today, and many more who arc not, one of the most important aspects of Aaron Wildavsky has always been his personal impact on the lives and careers of others, in addition to his intellectual influence through the classroom and his written work. He was very important for several turns in my own career, including a change of field after graduating from college, the fact that he sent me to the Political Behavior Program at the University of Michigan, and his insistence that I must at least look at Berkeley before joining the faculty at Yale-as a courtesy to a friend. I am not alone in having responded to his efforts as a recruiter, for the percentage of the Berkeley faculty (in Political Science) that had been hired during his brief tenure as Chairman once reached 50 percent. In addition to his impact at Berkeley, however, I would like to say a few words on behalf of the many students that Aaron influenced during his four years at Oberlin College in the early 1960s. To be sure, several of those students would probably have gone on to graduate work in politics, government, or political science anyway. Most of us, however, have always been convinced that Aaron played a crucial role in developing a commitment to political argument and the desire to pursue an academic career in some aspect of our complex discipline. Specifically, I note that the following regular participants in the American Political Science Association share that connection to Aaron with me and would want to acknowledge the Oberlin portion of his career: James Eisenstein Peter Gourevitch John Kingdon Michael Lipsky Laurence Langley Andrew McFarland Michael Margolis Tracy Strong liter Toran Sidney Waldman This list is incomplete and will grow considerably, including many Oberlin graduates in other academic fields, as we come to terms with the end of Aaron's career as teacher-but not his influence.

J. Meni/1 Shanks is Professor of Political Science at the University of Califomia, Berkeley, and Director of Berkeley's Social Science Computing Laboratory. He met Aaron W ildavsky as a junior at Oberlin College in 1959. At the time he was a mathematics major. His only course with Aaron was Comparative Politics in 1961. Aaron advised Menill to change fields, which Menill promptly did. He encouroged M enill to do groduate w01* in the Michigan Political Behavior progrorn and hired him 011 to the Berkeley faculty as soon as he decemly could, in 1968, where Menill has remained.

Remarks by Bernard R. Gifford University of Califomia, Berkeley

The first time I ever met Aaron was through a phone call he placed to me in the spring of 1972, a few months after I had assumed the presidency of the New York City-RAND Institute, established in 1969 by John Lindsay, then mayor of New York City, and Henry Rowen, then president of the RAND Corpora­ tion, to conduct systematic studies of municipal governmental operations. Following the briefest exchange of background information and social niceties, Aaron got down to business; he wanted me to hire a few Graduate School of Public Policy (GSPP) students for the upcoming summer. I explained to Aaron that New York-RAND did not have a summer employment program for aspiring policy analysts, even if they were products of "best public policy program in the country." Well, if you knew Aaron, you know the rest of the story. I ended up hiring two GSPP students, agreeing to function as their mentor and advisor. The two students arrived in New York, rolled up their sleeves, and did a heck of a job. Since no good deed goes unrewarded, Aaron invited me to visit the School of Public Policy-at my own expense, I might add. l accepted Aaron's invitation, paid my first visit to GSPP in the fall of 1972, delivering a few informal lectures to student and faculty groups on the perils of trying to do analysis in New York's overheated political hothouse. lO

I also got to know Aaron, up-front and personal for the first time. He and his wife took me and the other employers, who also had been "volunteered" by Aaron to pony up summer jobs for GSPP students, to the best Chinese restaurant in San Francisco. It was a great evening, filled with loud arguments, sharp repartee, and ingenious put-downs. No topic was out of range of our fusillade of sound bites. We talked about the future of Mayor Lindsay, affirmative action, placed bets on the size of Rfohard Nixon's margin of victory over George McGovern, our differing notions of equality, what it meant to be Black or Jewish in New York during the 1950s and 1960s, Israel, the New Left, and a host of other noncontroversial topics! I recall a heated discussion of the issue of racial equality and public policy. In his direct manner, Aaron insisted that the proponents of public policies designed to promote equality acknowledge the unintended consequences of laws and regulations designed to guarantee equality of outcomes. On this subject, Aaron"s views were no different from those of most of his GSPP colleagues. But Aaron also fervently embraced the idea of equality of opportunity in the political and economic marketplace, and backed his fever with a string of thoughtful policy suggestions designed to support and promote this outcome. In making these arguments, in my mind Aaron distinguished himself from most of his GSPP colleagues, who began and ended their conversations with the attendant evils of guaranteeing equality of outcome. It was one of the great dinners of all time. Good food and great debates. It was as if I had never left New York City! My initial impression of Aaron, following our first two days together, was: "here was an individual with temperate values and liberal passions." Aaron was a world-class scholar, but he had not forgotten his roots in Brooklyn, nor the history of the successive generations of racial and ethnic groups that arrived in Brooklyn with clocklike regularity, in search of the American dream of liberty, equality, and steady economic progress. The next day, while driving me to the airport, Aaron suggested that I should give some thought to moving to Berkeley at some point in my career. I acknowledged Aaron's gracious suggestion, but informed him that I did not think California was in my future. I reminded Aaron that I was a died-in-the - wool New York street-rat, who required a minimum daily intake of urban pollutants to survive. He listened to me carefully, but I'm not sure what he heard.

Moving On

In the summer of 1973, I took in two more GSPP students, worked them as hard as I could, and made my second trip to Berkeley in the fall of 1973. By the time I made my second trip to Berkeley, I was on my way out of NYC-RAND. In the summer of 1973, I was drafted by my "friends" in the Lindsay administration to become the deputy chancellor of the New York City public schools. (By the way, the draft was artfully conducted in typical New York fashion: the NYC of Education announced my appointment to the press before they inforn1ed me of their plans.) I recall talking to Aaron and Martin Trow about the challenges ahead of me, wondering if I had taken on, at the ripe age of 30, more than I could handle. In his polite, clipped academic accent, Marty told me that I was admirably nuts. Aaron was a bit more reserved, telling me that I if I limited my objectives, wore armor every day, and hired some GSPP students to help me out, I might do some small measure of good for the children of our native city. Following my exit from the hyper-rational world of RAND and into the hyper-irrational world of the New York City Board of Education, I lost regular contact with Aaron. I did, however, continue to hire GSPP graduates. II

Black and Jewish and Human

I next time I heard from Aaron was in the fall of 1975, when he sent me a hand-written note, scrawled all over a page ripped from . The page contained a large ad placed by the Black Americans to Support Israel Committee (BASIC), which had been organized by Bayard Rustin-the organizational genius behind the 1963 March on Washington-myself, a number of distinguished Black academics and trade unionists. The purpose of the ad wa, to register BASIC's forceful condemnation of the infamous United Nations resolution equating Zionism with Racism. The note read: "Bernie, you've done a good thing. Aaron." I had mixed feelings when I received Aaron's novel note; I was pleased that he was pleased, but I also remember feeling somewhat sad. I recall thinking: "How could Aaron expect me to do anything else? Was he really surprised that I had stood up to such a stupid act?" Aaron's note served as a harsh reminder of how much distance the Jewish and African-American communities had managed to put between their common history of struggle against racism. I phoned Aaron, thanked him for the novel note, and informed him that I was surprised that he was surprised at my involvement in BASIC! l think Aaron understood what I was trying to communicate, but at the time I was not so sure. We briefly chatted about the deeper meaning of the UN resolution. We also discussed the accidental presidency of Gerald Ford, and promised to keep in touch. Near the end of our conversation, Aaron shared a secret with me; he told me that his middle name was "Bernard," just like my first name. I never quite understood why Aaron picked that particular moment to tell me his secret, but I have since interpreted Aaron's gesture as being somewhat akin to a secret friendship ritual-the prototypic gesture of a Brooklyn street kid. I would have preferred something more orthodox, like seeing who could polish off the largest number of Nathan's hot dogs in 90 seconds, but I accepted the deeper meaning of Aaron's gesture.

Predicting the Past

The next time Aaron and I spoke at any length was during the late summer of 1976. I was still working in the NYC public schools, and I had collected a few scars to prove it. I also was serving as co­ chair of the senatorial campaign for Daniel Patrick Moynihan, another professor with strong ideas about the making of public policies. The other co-chair of the campaign was Bess Meyerson, the former Miss America. I can assure you that during the campaign Miss Meycrson's role in the campaign received a great deal more attention than my own involvement. Intensely interested in the Moynihan campaign, Aaron spoke with me at great length about Pat's prospects. Witnessing him process the bits and fragments of information he was getting from me was an incredible experience; Aaron wasted no time in probing for the campaign's core strategy, which he casually announced to me, while I was in mid-explanation. He, of course, was right. Only, we in the campaign did not know this was the case until we stumbled across the strategy, in the waning days of the campaign.'

1Aaron's prediction was that in a four person race for the Democratic nomination, in a primary dominated by three anti-party renegades and one college professor who had worked for Richard Nixon, the nomination would go the candidate who struck the hard-core party faithful as being the most loyal Democrat. Aaron's predictions proved to be absolutely on the money, as Pat Moynihan pulled ahead of pack two days after he announced that he would support the nominee of the party, no matter who that individual might be. This was a pledge that the odds-on front runner refused to make, until she wa.s pounded to pieces in the press by party bigwigs, fearful that the bitter senatorial primary fight would carry over into the general election, jeopardizing New York's chances of electing a 12

I also recall Aaron sharing with me his early analysis of Jimmy Carter's theory of governing. l remember wondering why Aaron was thinking so far ahead of himself. Certainly Carter was then running ahead of the pack for the democratic presidential nomination, but his nomination and election was anything but pre-ordained. For those of you who have read Aaron's article on Carter, you know how right Aaron was. Too bad President Carter did not read Aaron's analysis of his governing philosophy and do something to change it before it was too late. But then, if the president had been capable of acting in this way, he would not have been Jimmy Carter, but Aaron Wildavsky.

Russell Sage Foundation

In the late spring of 1977 Aaron asked me to join him at the Russell Sage Foundation (RSF), where he was scheduled to assume the presidency in the summer of 1977. I joined Russell Sage in September 1977, as resident scholar and head of the foundation's new program on public policymaking in New York City. At last, I thought to myself, Aaron and I would be on the same team, in the same city-in New York City. Aaron had so much to teach me, and I had so much to learn. The euphoria that Aaron had generated at RSF-with the recruitment of outstanding scholars like Mary Douglas, Steven Feldman, Nathan Glazer, Herman van Gunsteren, Giandomenico Majone, Robert Merton, Byron Shafer, and Seymour Spilcrman--quickly dissipated, as the long-time chair of the foundation's board of directors, who had been criticized by his fellow board members in the past for unfairly dominating the day-to-day operations of the foundation, re-asserted his power. Aaron, who had been hired to revitalize the foundation, spent less than two years at the helm of the organization. When he departed he took with him the dashed hopes of his new colleagues, including mine.

From Brooklyn to Berkeley

Between early 1979, when Aaron left Russell Sage, and the winter quarter of the 1981-82 academic-year, when I commuted between the University of Rochester and GSPP, where I was a visiting professor, my contact with Aaron was sporadic. But that quickly changed when Aaron, joined by Allan Sindler, then dean of GSPP, and other co-conspirators on the Berkeley faculty, decided that I would make a good dean for the troubled Graduate School of Education. The rest of the story is history. I joined Berkeley as dean in January 1983, serving a full six-year term. Over the course of the last decade, Aaron helped me in so many ways, serving as an advisor on the trials and tribulations of deaning, as a reviewer of my plans and proposals, and as a friend. We have shared many meals. We shared walks across the campus. And we have shared dreams for the future. ! loved to talk to Aaron about the potential impact of technology on the way we work, play, and learn. I even coerced Aaron into using a personal computer-a task whose difficulty should not be underestimated by any of you. Aaron talked to me about his views on as a political leader, the role of vision in change-making organizations, and the importance of short-term tactics. I had hoped there would be more. Aaron and I never taught a class together, as we said we would when I returned from my recent leave of absence. Aaron and I never wrote an article or book together, as we said we would when I returned from my recent leave of absence. I now know that Aaron and I will never do anything together again.

Democrat president and reaping its fair share of the political spoils. 13

But I am not too sad, because Aaron lived a good life, and he left good works. Still, I want you to know that Aaron was my friend, and I will miss him greatly.

Aaron the Father

This may come as a surprise to many of you, who saw Aaron mainly in his role as a thinker, scholar, colleague, and academic administrator, but Aaron and I talked often about our children and what it meant to be a father in the last two decades of the twentieth century. Aaron loved his children deeply, but like so many parents of his generation, he was not always sure how to tell them about his feelings. Therefore, Aaron told me how he felt about his children, never directly, but in a way that got the message through. This was one of the virtues that made Aaron so special to me-his profound love for his children. That he would share his feelings with me made our friendship special, because I knew how hard Aaron-the man who wrote endlessly, with great insight about so many issues-tried to tell his children how much he loved and cared for them. I believe Aaron thought I knew more then he did about fatherhood. I can't imagine why. Jokes aside, whatever the reason, over the years Aaron sent every one of his three oldest children to me for advice and counse!--on a range of issues, most of them having to do with the mysteries of making career and life choices. Sara-I have discussed with Sara, Aaron's only daughter, her interests in architecture, design, literature, and the differences between mass transportation in New York City and London. Sara never talked to me about going into business for herself, but I vividly remember telling her in 1982 that she might have missed her calling after I witnessed the way she doled out assignments to the team of Berkeley athletes she recruited to help her paint my house. Following Sara's orders to the last letter, they did a great job, and I imagine that Sara managed to generate a fair measure of profitability on the deal. Ben-A few years back, not too Jong after he graduated from Yale, I had a series of delightful conversations with Ben about his life and career plans. I believe Aaron had hopes that Ben would become a college professor, or an attorney, and I suspect that Aaron wanted me to convince Ben that his father's desires made great sense. As I got to know Ben better, I took great joy in telling Aaron that whatever Ben did with his life, he would do it well, with "Aaroncsquc" insight, and with great distinction. The more I know about Ben, the more I know this to be the case. I never shared the full conversations I had with Sara and Ben with their father, but I always took great pleasure in telling Aaron that his children were fine and predicting that Sara's and Ben's confusion over career choices was not fatal. Danny--1 did not have many conversations with Danny, Aaron's youngest son, but I talked to him as much as I could. The youngest of my two sons, Nelson, loved to play with Danny, and he with Nelson. Whenever we visited Aaron's house, the first person Nelson would beg to sec was Danny. Nelson's actions embodied my feelings for Danny. When Danny left home a few years ago, to take up residence in an independent home in Oakland, my son, Nelson, then 10 years old, asked me if Danny was OK outside of the safe harbor provided by Aaron and Mary. Danny did not have his father's power of voice, but he did inherit his father's capacity to touch the sensibilities of another member of the Gifford family. Adam-Aaron's oldest son, Adam the MIT-trained computer whiz who lives in New York City and advocates libertarian politics, I know Jess well. Nevertheless, consistent with the nature of our friendship, the last time I saw Aaron back in July, when his body was being ravaged by cancer, Aaron requested that I talk to Adam about my latest attempt to harness the potential of the computer for instructional purposes. 14

Aaron was intrigued with the notion that the latest computational and communications technologies could be harnessed to help learning-impaired students to learn more effectively and efficiently. Aaron wanted Adam to see if there was anything in what I was doing that could be used by Adam to assist Danny. When Adam visited me in my lab, we spoke at great length about the possibility of my efforts benefiting Danny and other students who require focused, targeted, instructional support. But I also talked to Adam about his plans, about his hopes, and his experiences as a programmer. Aware that I might be carrying out Aaron's last request, I tried to do what I knew Aaron wanted me to do-to talk to Adam about his career plans and his long-term hopes. We had a delightful visit. All of my colleagues were thoroughly impressed with Adam's knowledge of networking and communications technologies. Two of them wanted to hire Adam on the spot. At the end of his visit, I also told Adam that his father loved him very much. Therefore, Adam, Sara, Ben, and Danny, I want all four of you to know that your father, Aaron, loved you more than anything else in the world. Aaron has prepared you for this moment of permanent physical separation by being a good and decent father-not the perfect father, not the father who was there every time you needed him to be with you--but a good and decent father who loved the four of you with all of his heart and soul. You should know this to be the truth, and never forget it. Let this truth ease your pain. Let this truth nourish your spirit. Let this truth give you strength. Let this truth be with you forever.

Mary Wildavsky

Aaron and I use to remind each other that parenting is always a vexatious chore, because you never know how well or how poorly you have done until after it is too late to do anything with your new knowledge. Parenting is the ultimate test of faith's power over everyday commonsense! Partnering is different. In loving partnerships, you know how well, or how poorly, you are doing, because if you're lucky you receive constant feedback from your partner. (For those of you unfamiliar with the term, feedback is a term that Aaron regularly used in his many thoughtful articles and pioneering books on the analysis and implementation of public policies. In my old neighborhood in Brooklyn we called this sort of feedback, "constructive kvetching.") Well, Aaron was blessed during the last two decades of his life because he had a partner and wife in Mary Wildavsky who not only provided constant feedback, but constructive, corrective, and loving feedback. Mary's love for Aaron was evident to anyone who spent any time with the two of them. But Mary was no shrinking violet, satisfied doing the bidding of a great and talented intellect. Mary was a powerful force in Aaron's life. She often smoothed Aaron's Brooklyn-bred gruffness with her artful asides and humorous interventions. More important, Mary had a way of encouraging Aaron to notice the obvious, when all those around Aaron could sec only the grand theorics--connecting abstraction to abstraction to abstraction. Drawing from her hard-won expertise in the art and craft of modem horticulture, Mary introduced Aaron to new and useful metaphors that he could draw upon to explain the evolution and interconnectedness of all public policies. I remain convinced that Aaron's recent path-breaking work on the political theories of Moses and Joseph stemmed directly from Mary's impact on his way of conceptualizing the world. In a manner of 15

spealdng, Mary inspired Aaron to look more deeply into the root causes of today's political dilemmas and policy puzzles. For this alone, the academic community owes Mary its gratitude. Nevertheless, Mary's greatest contribution to Aaron was the uncompromising love she gave to Aaron and his four children. Mary was not the biological parent of Adam, Sara, Ben, or Danny, but over the course of her nearly two-decade long partnership with Aaron, she became their most generous and loving guide. In the case of Danny, whose need for care and support are unique and potentially taxing, Mary was and continues to be his greatest source of purposeful empathy. Aaron knew this. He never ceased marveling at Mary's compassion towards Danny. He told me this on many occasions, but he really didn't have to call Mary's specialness to my attention. Everyone who knew Aaron and Mary-who witnessed Mary's interactions with Danny and the impact Mary had on Aaron's interactions with Danny-knew how important Mary's Jove was for both Danny and Aaron. As much as he loved Danny, Aaron knew that Mary was the element he needed to make his love for Danny manifest. Ben's new daughter, Eva Miriam, Aaron's first grandchild, was born less than 24 hours after Aaron left this world. I suspect, however, that Eva Miriam will come to know her grandfather; it will be through her interactions with Mary. Eva Miriam could not have a better teacher, or better grandmother. As he prepared to meet his maker, Aaron knew this to be the truth. And Aaron drew great comfort from this truth. All of us who love Aaron should be thankful that Mary entered his life when she did. Acknowledging that my feelings for Aaron cannot be as deeply rooted as the love of his four children and his wonderful partner and wife, Mary-I still want you to know that Aaron was my friend, and I will miss him greatly.

This is an extension [!{ remarks originally delivered at the funeral. Bernard R. Gifford is professor and former dean of education, University of California, Berkeley.

Remarks by Percy Tannenbaum University c,f California, Berkeley

Situations like this are defined by the sense of bereavement inherent in funerals and by the particular characteristics of the individual involved. Because of the kind of person that Aaron was there is bound to be considerable redundancy in the various comments this morning. Mine are very personal-they have to be because I genuinely love the man-but l am sure they represent the feelings of many other people here today and elsewhere. All who were privileged to be associated with Aaron in one capacity or another realize full well that he was a rare and special individual who stood out in many ways from others we are apt to encounter. One of these is, of course, his record of accomplishment as a scholar in his chosen fields of political science and public policy. It is an astonishing, incomparable record, virtually impossible for one individual to achieve, in temis of scope, quantity, and quality.! leave it to others here today to document that record more completely, except to emphasize that his style was notably different from most academics in that !6 it was clear and to the point, without ambiguity or ambivalence. One knew directly where he stood on a given issue and why. One could readily agree or disagree with his reasoning and conclusions, and he accepted both types of reactions with grace. It is a most enviable record and a rather intimidating one for others to match, Many of his qualities as a scholar were reflected in Aaron as an academic administrator. He served with distinction as chairman of the political science department and followed that with being the founding dean of the Graduate School of Public Policy, one of several such hybrid programs that emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The fact that Berkeley's public policy program ranks on at least a par with other larger, more endowed programs at Harvard and Princeton is largely due to Aaron's original vision of what such a school should be on a campus such a~ Berkeley's and the persistence with which he, and the others he drew to him, pursued that blueprint. Similar qualities-forthrightness, honesty, integrity, responsibility, dedication very much among thern--were evident in his role as a colleague, which is how most of us knew him. His vividness sparked many a conversation or group meetings. His ideas were always provocative, his discussions always stimulating. You could always count on Aaron for a lucid and unusually quick reaction to anything .you would ask him to read, often with a pithy comment or two that cut to the heart of the issue. He accepted various committee assignments because he recognized that this was a legitimate price to pay for the virtues of faculty governance, and he reminded others of this fact of academic life. He did most of his research and writing privately in his office, keeping a secretary, sometimes two, fully occupied with his voluminous output. His collegial exchanges were mostly during daily morning and afternoon walks or over lunch. These were often full of animated discussion, sometimes vigorous arguments, never dull. He could also be exasperating at times because they could be cut off abruptly because it was time for him to get back to work. I remember one such stroll when there was an uncommon silence from Aaron. I asked what was on his mind. He answered that the pages he had completed just before the walk were all wrong; he wheeled around and went back to his desk leaving me with a good argument to make but no one to hear it. Aaron was unusually disciplined handling his various activities-there was a time and place for each that he organized assiduously: so many minutes for correspondence, so many hours for writing, 15-20 minutes for the ritualistic stroll and back to the assignment at hand. In that respect, too, he was a model for many of us to aspire to but few can achieve. For similar reasons, Aaron had a reputation as a superb teacher and as a master mentor of numerous graduate students. He took these activities seriously and with great responsibility. There are several here today, and many more throughout the nation and abroad, whose careers were shaped by apprenticing with Aaron. He made good use of their efforts and gave them full credit for their contributions, mostly as listed co-authors on chapters and papers. 1 was not a formal student of his, but he taught me a lot, not least in how to relate to colleagues and students. On another of our walks, some years after he had joined our group at the Survey Research Center, where I was director at the time, he mentioned that he should be doing something to compensate for the space and research assistance the center was providing. I assured him that the fact he was being so productive and training graduate students at the center was quite sufficient. Leave it to Aaron to scold me, reminding me that if I were doing my job properly I would insist that he do something more for the general good of the center. Out of that exchange emerged our most successful faculty seminar, dealing with risk, that attracted an overflow audience from across the campus each week for two semesters. Co!Jeagueship has a way of blossoming into friendship, and that is another way in which many of us knew Aaron. While most of our exchanges were of the academic shop-talk variety or on issues of the day, there were quite a few more personal intimate interactions. I regarded him as a devoted and loyal friend, as someone I could turn to if some personal problem arose, someone to count on in a moment of need. I have good reason to believe that that feeling is shared by many others. I personally know of countless 17 instances when he came to the aid of people in need or in some kind of distress-acts of sheer human kindness and consideration- and there are more I did not know of. My own research and Aaron's differed substantially, especially in terms of methodology, but we shared many interests, and new ones developed over the years, usually with Aaron as the instigator. One source of commonality was that we both came from immigrant Jewish backgrounds. Aaron was not a devout Jew, but he was devoutly Jewish, very much in the emotional as well as the intellectual sense. As with everything else, he took his Jewishness seriously, and it infused and informed a lot of his work. In certain ways he was like a Talmudic scholar, but with a broader range of interests. Although the rationales for his biblical studies--of Moses as a model political leader and Joseph as the ideal bureaucrat-are cast in political terms, their deep involvement in contested biblical scholarship is like a Talmudic exercise. One measure of Aaron's intellectual chutzpah is presenting his iconoclastic view of the book of Moses before a meeting of biblical scholars in Jerusalem, of all places. They almost ran him out of town. Aaron was the principal person responsible for my being at Berkeley, although I suspect that Nelson Polsby also played a significant role. I was spending the summer of 1969 in Berkeley (I was at the University of Pennsylvania at the time), which happened to be when the new program in public policy was being formulated with Aaron at its head. We had only a single, rather casual conversation of his plans when he knocked on the door of the office I was using one day and said that maybe we should discuss salary-Aaron's way of making an offer. He convinced me that his vision was a valid one and that it was worth my making a rather major career switch from being an experimental social psychologist whose research included working with rhesus monkeys and the use of physiological equipment of all things, to the still unformed area of public policy-not to mention those repeated walks on the north and south sides of the campus. Wanting some protection in case the new program did not develop as planned, I pressed for a joint appointment. He would have none of that, convincing me, and the others he had attracted, that we had to invest all our efforts into the new program to insure its success. Of course, he was perfectly correct. Some years later I had the opportunity to pay him back, in a way. Aaron had left Berkeley for a period (fortunately, on leave) and was contemplating other possibilities elsewhere. I was one of several of his colleagues urging him to return to Berkeley-partly out of a selfish desire to have a valued colleague on hand but mainly because we felt that Aaron should do what he did best-to think and to write without distractions-and that Berkeley would be the best place for him. At the time, I was considering taking on the directorship of the Survey Research Center. When I examined the budget structure and knew the space availability I realized that it could be a perfect venue for him to do his work. We could readily support what Aaron needed-essentially a good-sized office for him to spread out in and an even larger one for a secretary and his files-and support for graduate students. He moved in, got to work immediately, and a phenomenal flow of publications has continued ever since. And it will continue for some time to come, since there are numerous co-authored books and papers currently in progress. I am also proud I was in a position to play a role in Aaron being granted a chair on the campus a few years ago. That would have guaranteed him proper support for the rest of his active career-all the more the pity that he cannot complete its full term. He was a rare and special individual-as a private aside: a real mensch with the touch of a tzadek, two Yiddish terms we would both understand-whose loss we will feel at many times and in many ways in the years to come.

Percy H. Tannenbaum, Professor Emeritus of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, is a social psychologist who was recruited hy Aaron Wildavsky to he a part of the founding faculty at the Graduate School of Public Policy. Previously he taught at the University of lliinois, Michigan State 18

University, the University of Wisconsin, and the University of Pennsylvania. He recently retired as director of the Survey Research Center at Berkeley.

Remarks by Seymour Martin Lipset George Mason University and Hoover Institution

Aaron Wildavsky was a proud committed Jew who sought to interpret the meaning of his tradition. He was equally proud of being an American. Robert Park, an important Chicago sociologist writing in the 1920s, proposed that all American high schools should have a required course on Jewish culture and values. He did not advocate this because of his concern for tolerance or equal rights. Rather, Park felt that Jews were the prototypical Americans, the most American ethnic group. And, therefore, the best way to understand this country, was to study the Jews. Aaron is the best example I know of what Park was trying to say. Corning out of Brooklyn and New York, he was the epitome of the American version of the Judaic Protestant ethic. He worked hard. Boy did he work hard-37 books, innumerable articles, endless hours spent with students and scholars needing advice, travel to conferences, and involvement in administration. He was a great son, father, and husband. He, of course, had a great helpmate in Mary. They were a real team. He was proud of all his children. The knowledge that his granddaughter, Eva Miriam, born literally hours after his death, was on the way, helped to make his final days more bearable. And in the American tradition, he was an egalitarian. He was the faculty member who was most likely to take on students whose record or cultural background made them doubtful candidates for completing a dissertation. But, given his brilliance, commitment, and originality, he also attracted first-rate students. He worked and collaborated with them as much as any faculty member ever did. One secret to his productivity was his ability to get so much from his students as collaborators. He had time to advise. If you sent him a manuscript, you got back comments. If you proposed a project, he was ready to join in. He illustrated what I have called Riesman's Law. Dave Riesman once said that if a chairman of a group ever needs to find someone to take over an onerous and time consuming job, he should look around the table for the busiest person and ask him to do it. He will accept. If you ask someone who does not seem to be doing much, he will probably decline, saying he is too busy. He will be right. Aaron was never too busy to help, although he had an intellectual agenda that he never could have finished in three lifetimes. But, though he always had books and articles to do, he would find the time to be sidetracked, to write on Moses, and Joseph, as well as a variety of politically relevant articles. Aaron, as we know, had grown pessimistic about America, because of the growth of what he called radical egalitarianism, which challenges our historic emphasis on equality of opportunity and respect for each individual. Aaron opposed efforts to replace universalism and individualism by particularistic group­ cultural-ethnic identities. In what the Left calls the post-modern world, the stress on universalism and achievement in the American national tradition, as well as the constitutional guarantees for all ideas, no matter how objectionable, appeared to him to be crumbling. He was especially concerned that the university was giving way, was dropping its commitment to excellence, to meritocratic achievement. He felt Berkeley, the best example of the creativity that has flowed from these emphases, was declining. But the reaction of the university world to his life proves him wrong, for once. For Aaron was the most politically incorrect of all scholars at Berkeley. He fearlessly stood up against radical egalitarianism, 19 group quotas, as well as the decline of tolerance, that had flowed from the trends set in motion in the '60s. And, therefore, he should have been the most disliked, the most discriminated against, of American political scientists, of intellectuals. Yet America and the meritocratic university are still strong. Aaron, the deviant, the politically incorrect, was beloved, was accepted, was recognized, was highly rewarded. He told me just a few weeks ago, when I suggested some things we were thinking of doing to honor him after this year's APSA convention, the one which just ended, he did not need more honors, that he had had his surfeit of them. Last June, his graduate school, Yale, awarded him an honorary degree. Aaron proved you do not have to be P.C. to achieve, that there still is free speech in American academe, even if there are many around who would suppress it. Let everyone know that the intolerants could not shut up, intimidate, or dishonor Aaron. In this country, in all universities, his life shows the way to honor is to follow his example, to speak the truth. Perhaps the best lesson Aaron gave us was on how to die. I will not go into detail here, since Austin Ranney has already given an excellent report. But, I cannot resist reiterating that Aaron demonstrated using one's life, one's time here, on what is important. To ignore death no matter how close, is the way to go. Aaron has left us, much too early. But if you listen closely, you may hear at a great distance the sounds of argument. For Moses and Joseph arc already trying to convince him that he really did not understand some things they said and did. But, Aaron is not letting them get away with it. They may have written the law, but he, like all Jews, can interpret it, and he is telling them, as he told us, what it means, what they really had to say.

Seymour Martin Lipset is Hazel Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Sta,!ford. He was on the Berkeley faculty from 1956-1966. He and Aaron Wildavsky became friends in 1963, when Aaron first came to Berkeley. Their friendship was cemented during the eventful year of the Free Speech Movement, 1964-65. Although never formal colleagues after Lipset left the university, they interacted frequently and found much to agree about in politics, cultural analysis, and methodology. They were hoping to collaborate on a book dealing with culture and politics.

Remarks by Nelson W. Polsby University of California, Berkeley

Just about 30 years ago our young family lived in Middletown, Connecticut, and, as Wesleyan families frequently did, we shopped at the West Side Market. This was a small but well-established family business, in my time run by two brothers and a sister, the children of Mr. and Mrs. Schlein, the original owners. Sadly, in our second or third year in town, the younger and livelier of the two brothers, Harold, passed away in his early thirties. The Schleins observed the custom of sitting shiva, and at the first opportunity I called at the family home to join them. The older brother of the clan, Hymie, didn't expect to see me. "Gee whiz, Mr. Polsby," he said, "I didn't know you were Jewish." "That's funny," I said, 'Tm sure Harold knew." "Ah that Harold," Hymie sighed, in fond remembrance of his kid brother, "always sticking his nose in other people's business." 20

At the time I believe I was just barely smart enough to feel grateful to Hymie Schlein for his sharp reminder that this business of dying is a social as well as a biological process. I can't say it has been a tremendous comfort, but it does seem to me a tiny piece of good fortune in amongst the calamity if it should be given to us to die more or less in the character in which we have lived our lives. Which of course brings me to Aaron, whose busy and productive life touched all of us here today. When Aaron learned in late June of his desperate illness, with utterly characteristic brusqueness he faced facts, disclosed them as he saw them to one and all, and went back to work. In our society, one of the duties of the sick is to help to allay the anxieties of their friends. This therapy Aaron mostly refused us since it entailed drawing attention to the obvious and away from world affairs, from Bosnia and the futilities of the Clinton budget, from the prospects for peace in the Middle East, and from the politics of environmental risk and cultural theory and its manifold manifestations in the daily newspapers. To Grace Li he said, "cook me a Chinese dinner." To many of the rest of us, he said: "I have no regrets." The priorities he had established in his work and his life seemed about right to him: to finish the University of California Press book on the safety of nuclear power with Elizabeth Nichols, and to press on with the book on American presidents with Richard Ellis, and to receive with pleasure from Ed Artinian at Chatham House the newly printed book on the new world order that he wrote with Max Singer and, with an assist from Mary Douglas, the scholar whose work most influenced him in his later years, to show that Freud could not explain jokes as well as cultural theory could, and, with Arnold Meltsner's help, to polish off But Is It True? for Harvard University Press. I am certain I have left out some of his projects of this summer. As Mary Wildavsky pointed out to Linda and me not Jong ago, Aaron was to be cut off at a time when he had a great many plans, projects, things to do. I daresay that would have been true for Aaron no matter how many his days. There can, l think, be no sense of regret that when the end came his agenda was full. Who can imagine Aaron without a full agenda? He was a scholar who liked to paint in big, vivid, primary colors, but heaven knows he neither feared nor shrank from loose ends. Nor should we: he disclosed to us, as thoroughly, as frequently, and as forcefully as any social scientist of his generation, what was on his mind. There is plenty of material for his friends, colleagues, students, and collaborators-he is survived, after all, by dozens of us-to work on, and to think about. Those of us who knew Aaron well can attest that there was not a lot of difference between the public and the private Wildavsky. When a scholarly matter occupied his mind, there was a tendency for it to take over lock, stock, and barrel. I recall an example recounted to Linda and me at the time by Carol Wildavsky when Aaron was writing his doctoral dissertation. As was his habit when he was concentrating hard, Aaron would take periodic walks through the streets of New Haven, sometimes with Carol along for company. During one such walk, Aaron was particularly uncommunicative, but he would pause periodically and vigorously make a rubbing motion in the air in front of his face. "Aaron," Carol said, "what are you doing." His reply was: 'Tm erasing." More than 30 years later, and a continent away, he was still at it. By then Aaron was developing his cultural theory of politics, in which cgalitmians, individualists, and hierarchs contested over all manner of things in the American political system. Aaron and Mary, Linda and I went out to dinner at a local restaurant. Aaron looked at the menu: "You sec?" he said to a completely mystified Mary, "It all fits! Here in Berkeley, as I would expect, we have a radical egalitarian menu in which meat is equal to vegetables, soup to salad." He went on in this vein. "Don't worry about it Mary," l said. "In the old days when Aaron looked at a menu he would see ... the budgetary process." As we all know, many honors and responsibilities came to Aaron in tribute to the compelling vitality of his presence and the importance of his work on a great many topics. He served on a dozen or so editorial boards, in the fields of public administration, policy studies, budgeting and accounting, the presidency and so on. He was a trustee of the Hudson Institute; a director of the Institute for Contemporary Studies; a director, at one time, of three different private sector corporations; president of the Policy 21

Studies Association, the Russell Sage Foundation, and the American Political Science Association. His honorary degrees came from Brooklyn College, his alma mater; from the during the celebration of that university's ninth centenary; and from just this last May, 34 years after he received his Ph.D. from that venerable institution. He also, at one time or another, received academic and scholarly prizes or awards named after John Gaus, , Dwight Waldo, Paul Lazarsfeld, Charles E. Merriam, William E. Mosher, and John Simon Guggenheim. He wrote or co-wrote, edited or co-edited some 39 books, some of which have seen multiple editions and a couple more seem likely to follow. He also wrote a few hundred articles, beginning in 1955 with an essay in the Australian Outlook entitled "Exploring the Content of McCarthyism" There is an astonishing amplitude in all of this. It annoyed Aaron when people called attention to his scholarly productivity. He considered it perfectly normal for anyone who worked diligently most days, as he did, and who managed time carefully, producing written work, for example, while on the airplane. He flatly denied writing an article while participating in a meeting of the Council of the American Political Science Association, but that is something I saw with my own eyes. The style with which he accomplished all this was, as all of us recognize, an utterly distinctive combination of inspired imagination and hard work. Nobody banished distraction from his focus of attention more definitively than Aaron. Yet at one time or another that fierce and focused laser beam probed in all sorts of places: in the Bible, for example, not the likeliest location to find stimulus for the writing of modem political science. I believe most of what he wrote, and stood for, show an uncommon allegiance to two great norms: to truth, of course, as befits a lifelong scholar; and to human freedom. Aaron's approach to truth was incremental, a distillation of the method of successive approximations. One of the secrets of his productivity was that he tended to publish each approximation. Scholarship for Aaron was a public process, a social process, fit for many hands. It's a powerful idea, and a very sensible solution to the classic problem of the blind men and the elephant: If you get enough blind men working on the problem, and coordinate them properly, the elephant actually emerges. And so in Aaron's style of work we see not onJy multiple approximations but also many collaborators, disciples, and correspondents drawn into the scholarly enterprise. As for his devotion to freedom, I think he understood freedom at its most basic level as the necessary social condition facilitating his own volcanic need to express himself, as the necessary condition of his own family's rescue from the grim meat grinder of recent Russian and European history, as a necessary condition to sustain the Jewish people, with whom he identified totally, and also to make possible reward for individual hard work and individual talent. At Yale, last May, the certificate granting him his honorary degree said:

Your prolific pen has brought real politics to the study of budgeting, to the analysis of myriad public policies, and to the discovery of the values underlying the political cultures by which peoples live. You have improved every institution with which you have been associated, notably Berkeley's Graduate School of Public Policy, which as Founding Dean you quickened with your restless innovative energy. Advocate of freedom, mentor to policy analysts everywhere, your alma mater takes great pleasure in conferring upon you the degree of Doctor of Social Science.

This was very much the life Aaron wanted to lead: he frequently expressed great satisfaction with the opportunities he had to express himself, to work in collaboration with others, to influence the thinking of students and colleagues with his teaching and writing. "Not bad," he said to me just a few weeks ago, as he looked around at the comforts of his house and garden, "for somebody from 2130 Union Street in Brownsville." 22

For many years Aaron and I conducted a running skirmish about his telephone manners, which were terrible. For him it was a matter of practical necessity: "Do not do anything for yourself others can do for you," goes a line in his book Craftways: "Do not make your own phone calls." We fought this one to a draw: As Doris Patton will testify, I finally became accustomed-more or less-to hearing her voice when told Wildavsky was on the line. And, on the other end of the transaction, he got used to saying goodbye before hanging up on me. I'm afraid I cannot escape the feeling that in some cosmic sense, Aaron has reverted just one more time to his long-standing habit of impatiently hanging up while we still had a lot to say.

Nelson W. Polsby, Director of the Institute of Governmental Studies and Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, first encountered Aaron Wildavsky as a fellow student in a graduate seminar at Yale taught by in the fall of 1956. The next semester Polsby and Wildavsky collaborated on a term paper submitted to Allan P. Sindler. This paper was later incorporated in a chapter of their book, Presidential Elections, published in J 964, and every four years thereafter. The book is now in its eighth edition. Polsby and Wildavsky became colleagues at Berkeley in the fall of 1967. 23

In 1985, Aaron Wildavsky was elected president of the American Political Science Association for a term of one year. The following article was published in PS (volume 18, Fall 1985), a journal of the association, to commemorate his election.

The Contributions of President Aaron Wildavsky

Nelson W. Polsby University of California, Berkeley

To those legions of political scientists who have in one way or another been touched by Aaron Wildavsky's prodigious scholarly output, or fallen under the influence of his immensely persuasive teach­ ing, or read his arresting essays in newspapers and magazines, his election as President of the American Political Science Association must, no doubt, have been a matter not of whether, but of when. The Association's presidency exists primarily to honor distinguished scholarship, teaching, and service to our learned profession. On all these dimensions, Wildavsky's accomplishments have been extraordinary. Aaron Bernard Wildavsky was born on May 31, 1930, in Brooklyn, New York, the third child and only son to live to adulthood of Eva and Sender Wildavsky, who had immigrated to America from Poltava, in the Ukraine, a dozen years earlier.' Having seen the Czarist and Bolshevik alternatives, as Wildavsky later remarked, his parents had no doubt of their preference for democracy. 2 The senior Wildavsky was originally a bookbinder by trade, who bought, fixed up, and managed a small apartment building. During [World War II, Wildavsky writes] we rented an apartment in a house we did not own. I learned to live with a situation in which our tenanL, complained about their landlord, we com­ plained about ours, my father complained about his boss, and the superintendent he hired to take care of the building complained about him. I cannot think of a better way to get an objective view of social relations than to be landlord and tenant, employer and employee all at once.3 Wildavsky was educated in the public schools of Brooklyn, graduating from P.S. 89, and Erasmus Hall High School, where his academic record was undistinguished. Readers may take comfort from the fact that by at least some standards, Wildavsky was a late bloomer. By the time he arrived at Brooklyn College, however, in 1950, his interests in politics were well formed. He reports: Politics was an avid subject of conversation in our house. My mother used to read me stories from the New York Daily News, an early experience which taught me how selective perception can make one comfortable with a newspaper whose editorial views are utterly opposed to one's

1Wildavsky has written movingly of his parents in an essay, "The Richest Boy in Poltava," Society 13 (NovJDec. 1975) on which I have drawn. Other autobiographicalmaterials include the prefatory matter to various of his books, cited below, and "Rationality in Writing: Linear and Curvilinear,"Journal of Public Policy I (February 1981): 125-140.

'The Revolt Against the Masses and Other Essays on Politics and Public Policy (New York: Basic Books, 1971), 22.

3The Revolt Against the Masses, 23. 24

beliefs. My father vigorously argued with his friends over foreign policy questions. There was no debate about the New Deal because we were all Democrats. I was 14 before I met a live Republican.' I did not learn about Communists and fellow travelers from books; I learned by observing their behavior in student politics. I was amazed to discover that one of the cliches about them was true: they were subject to outside guidance by the Communist party and they did all say the same thing. 5 Among the academic influences on Wildavsky at Brooklyn College in the early 50s-as on many of the gifted students who gathered there-were Samuel Konefsky, Charles Ascher, Arthur Charles Cole, A. F. K. Organski, and Jesse Clarkson, who evidently taught him considerably more than the rudiments of his craft. This rapidly became apparent during a year as a Fulbright scholar at the University of Sydney (1954-55). Asked by Rufus Davis to satisfy Australian curiosity about contemporary American politics, Wildavsky undertook a lecture series on the political system of the United States to university students in Brisbane. His first scholarly publication, "Exploring the Content of McCarthyism," appeared in 1955 in The Australian Out/ook.6 Meanwhile, structural analogies between Australia and the United States awakened an interest in federalism, leading to a second journal article, 7 and an investigation of a key epi­ sode in Australian political history-the 1926 referendum--lcd to the publication in Melbourne of Wildavsky's first hardcover book-the first of 26 to date.8 And so, by the time the late-blooming Wildavsky returned in the fall of 1955 to begin graduate studies at Yale he had already written approximately as much publishable scholarly material as an assistant professor of better-than-average productivity. As the years have gone by, Wildavsky's instinct for the scholarly occasion has sharpened. Just as he was able to come forward in a timely fashion with an overview of American politics to meet the needs of Australian audiences, Wildavsky has readily responded to the more recent demands of American audiences of all sorts. Articles by Wildavsky on current foreign

'His own four children are not so underprivileged:Wildavsky himself switched his registration to the Republican party a few years ago. This move was prompted by a complicated interaction of influences on his thinking: a belief that the Republicans were more hospitable to his individualistic, near-libertarian convictions about human freedom and the efficacy of self-help, a feeling that they were, as he is, strong for national defense and less emharrassed about openly patriotic sentiment. His sort of Democrat.s, meanwhile, had been losing a lot of intra-party battles. The dominant branch of the party, so it seemed, had become heedless of the costs of social programs and inattentive to many of their real consequences. Moreover, while left-Democrats made very heavy demands on the political system, they appeared to have no compunctions about withdrawing support from it by making unreasonable and thoughtless criticisms. Wildavsky did not leave the Democratic party, however, while his parents, both admirers of Roosevelt, were alive.

5 The Revolt Against the Masses, 23.

6"Exploring the Content of McCarthyism," The Australian Outumk 9 (June 1955): 88-104.

7 "Housing and Slum Clearance under the American Federal System," Puhlic Administration, The Journal of the Australian Regional Group of 1he Royal lns1i1ureof Public Administration, 14 (Dec. 1955): 229-236.

8 Studies in Aus/ralian Politics: The 1926 Referendum (Melbourne/London: F. W. Cheshire, 1958). Half of this book is Wildavsky's study; the other half is an essay by Dagmar Carboch. Wildavsky's vitae lists eight edited volumes and 17 (actually there are 18) books that he has written, alone or with collaborators. 25

and defense issues, 9 party politics, 10 the presidency," and diverse problems of social policy 12 have

'"Nuclear Clubs or Nuclear Wars," Yale Review 61 (March 1962): 345-362. "Practical Consequences of the Theoretical Study of Defense Policy," Public Administration Review 25 (March 1965): 90-103. "A Third World Averaging Strategy," with Max Singer, U.S. Foreign Policy: Perspectives and Proposals for the I970s, Paul Seabury and Aaron Wildavsky, eds. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969), 15-35. "ABM as an Issue or You Can't Tell the Strangeloves Without a Scorecard," Commentary 48 (Nov. 1969): 55-63. "Oil and the Decline of Western Power," with Edward Friedland and Paul Seabury, Political Science Quarterly 90 (Fall 1975): 437-450. "What's In It For Us? America's National Interest in Israel," Middle East Review JO (Fall 1977): 5-13. "Dilemmas of American Foreign Policy," "The Soviet System," and "Containment Plus Pluralization" in Beyond Containment, Wildavsky, ed. (Institute for Contemporary Studies Press, 1983), 11-24, 25-38, 125-146.

10"A Methodological Critique of Duverger' s Political Parties," Journal of Politics 21 (May 1959): 303-318. "What Can I Do? Ohio Delegates View the Democratic Convention," Inside Politics: The National Conventions, Paul Tillett, ed. (Dobbs Ferry: Oceana Publications, 1960), 112-130. "On the Superiority of National Conventions," Review of Politics 24 (July 1962): 307-319. "The Intelligent Citizen's Guide to the Abuses of Statistics: The Kettnedy Document and the Catholic Vote," and "Uncertainty and Decision Making at the National Conventions," with Nelson W. Polsby, in Politics and Social Life, Polsby ct al., eds. (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1963), 370-389, 825-844. "The Goldwater Phenomenon: Purists, Politicians and the Two-Party System," Review of Politics 27 (July 1965): 386-413. "Richard Nixon, President of the United States," Transaction 5 (Oct.1968): 8-15. "The Meaning of 'Youth' in the Struggle for Control of the Democratic Party," in Revolt Against the Masses, 270-287. "The Three-Party System-1980 and After," The Puhlic illterest 64 (Summer 1981): 47-57. "The Party of Government, the Party of Opposition, and the Party of Balance: An American View of the Consequences of the 1980 Election," in The American Elections of 1980, Austin Ranney, ed. (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1981), 329-350.

''"Choosing the Lesser Evil: The Policy-Maker and the Problem of Presidential Disability," Parliamentary Affairs 13 (Winter 1959- 60): 25-37. "The Two Presidencies," Transaction (Dec. 1966): 7-14. "Presidential Succession and Disability: Policy Analysis for Unique Cases," The Presidency, Wildavsky, ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1969), 777-795. "The Past and Future Presidency," The Public Interest 41 (Fall 1975): 56-76. "Jimmy Carter's Theory of Governing," with Jack Knott, T1,e WiLwn Quarterly (Winter 1977): 49-67. "The Prophylactic Presidency," with Sanford Weiner, The Public Interest 52 (Summer 1978): 3-19. "Was Nixon Tough'? Dilemmas of American Statecraft," Society 16 (NovJDec. 1978): 25-35. "The Plebiscitary Presidency: Direct Election as Class Legislation," Common Sense 2 (Winter 1979): 1-10. "Putting the Presidency on Automatic Pilot," in The American Presidency: Principles and Problems, I, Kenneth W. Thompson, ed. (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1982), 23-33.

12"Aesthetic Power or the Triumph of the Sensitive Minority Over the Vulgar Mass: A Political Analysis of the New Economics," Daedalus (Fall 1967): 1115-l !28. "The Empty-head Blues: Black Rebellion and White Reaction," The Public Interest 11 (Spring 1968): 3-16. "The Political Feasibility of Income by Right," with Bill Cavala, Public Policy 18 (Spring 1970): 321-354. "A Program of Accountability for Elementary Schools," Phi Delta Kappat! (Dec. 1970): 212-216. "The Revolt Against the Masses," in The Revolt Agaif!st the Masses, 29-51. "The Search for the Oppressed," Freedom at Issue 16 (NovJDec. 1972): 5-16. "Economy and Environment/Rationality and Ritual: A Review of the Uncertain Search for Environmental Quality," Accounting, Organizations and Society (June 1976): 117-129; and Stanford Law Review 29 (Fall 1976): 183-204. "The Strategic Retreat on Objectives," a review essay in Policy Analysis 2 (Summer 1976): 499-526. "Doing Better and Feeling Worse: The Political Pathology of Health Policy," Daedalus (Winter 1976): 105-123. "A Tax by Any Other Name: The Donor Directed Automatic Percentage Contribution Bonus, a Budget Alternative for Financing Government Support of Charity," with David A. Good, Policy Sciences 7 (1976): 251-279. "Using Public Funds to Serve Private Interests," Society 16 (JanJFeb. 1979): 39-42. "No Risk ls the Highest Risk of All," American Scientist 67 (JanJFeb.1979): 32-37. "Regional Equity as 26 frequently taught political scientists how to bring professional learning to bear on the contemporary concerns of the wider community, and have reminded his colleagues of the many ways in which good scholarship can serve the ends of good citizenship. He sees this activity as something of a moral obligation: Self-government is one of the noblest and most difficult aims of mankind. A pessimist about human nature, I cannot regard its ultimate prospects as certain. If a man can contribute to the survival and extension of free government in the smallest way, he has done wel!.13 Wildavsky's career at Yale was unusual. He swiftly established himself as a leading figure among what a few of us in middle age still believe was an extraordinarily able group of fellow graduate students. 14 His classmates rapidly came to prize the irrepressible flow of ideas and aphorisms that bubbled out of his fertile imagination. Very few topics arose in seminar to which, it seemed, Wildavsky had not given prior thought. His contributions to the free-for-alls that passed for discussion in classrooms and in the hallway were prolific and notable also for their openhanded generosity. Owing to a series of accidents, however, Wildavsky as a graduate student never became as well known to the Yale faculty as to his colleagues. He took Robert Dahl's course in a year Dahl was on leave, with a distinguished visitor from Columbia, Arthur MacMahon, Cecil Driver's course with Wesleyan's Sigmund Neumann, and Robert Lane's course with David Truman, also of Columbia. When the time came for Wildavsky to go onto the job market, it was Neumann and Harvey Mansfield, on leave from Ohio State, who came to the rescue with word-of-mouth recommendations to J. D. Lewis at Oberlin. There is evidence, nevertheless, of a considerable Yale influence in Wildavsky's early work; indeed, in one form or another he published most of his Yale term papers. Wildavsky's original half-formed intention on arrival at Yale was to study the Soviet Union with Frederick Barghoorn, a project for which he already had the requisite language skills. There was something in Wildavsky's temperament, however, that did not respond to the niggling limitations of data-gathering in a closed political system. The manifold opportunities for research presented by the riotous display of American politics beckoned. Eventually, four major Wildavsky efforts showed the intluence of the Yale connection. Wildavsky's dissertation, written under the careful direction of Allan P. Sindlcr, then a junior member of the Yale faculty, was on the Dixon-Yates case, a marvelous farrago of Eisenhower-era administrative snafus and intrigues. This gave Wildavsky an opportunity to spread on a very large canvas his conviction, nurtured

Political Welfare," Taxing and Spending 2 (April 1979). "Improving the Quality of Life: Television Repair," with Lee Friedman, Technology in Society l (1979): 329-338. "Wealthier is Healthier," Regulation Magazine (JanJFeb. 1980): 10-12, 55. "Richer is Safer," The Public Interest 60 (Summer 1980): 23-39. "Pollution as Moral Coercion: Culture, Risk Perception, and Libertarian Values," Cato Journal 2 (Spring 1982):305-325. "On the Uses of Adversity in Higher Education," in Responses to Fiscal Stress in Higher Education, Robert A. Wilson, ed. (Tucson: Center for the Study of Higher Education, College of Education, University of Arizona, June 1982), 64-73. "Squaring the Political Circle: Industrial Policies and the American Dream," in Chalmers Johnson, ed., The Industrial Policy Debate (San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press, l 984), 27-44. "The ' Sequence' in Civil Liberties.'' The Public Interest 78 (Winter 1985): 32-42.

13Revolt Against the Masses, 3.

14Some of us have taken considerable responsibility for Wildavsky's education through the years, and are delighted to take credit-at least partial credit-for his efforts now that they have received so much recognition. Among others, Wildavsky's siblings and seminar-mates at Yale included Robert C. Fried, Fred I. Greenstein, Raymond E. Wolfinger, Robert T. Golembiewski, Sarah McCalley Morehouse,James David Barber, Theodore Lowi, and Herbert Jacob. 27 by James Fesler and Herbert Kaufman, that public administration was a continuation of politics, in the same sense that war was diplomacy fought with slightly different weapons." A second book that arose from the Yale years was the first of many Wildavsky collaborations: Presidential Elections, published in 1964 and in every quadrennium since.16 At the heart of this book was a longish term paper on party reform, jointly written with me, and presented to Allan Sindler's course on political parties. Vestiges of the term paper are still embedded in the book, six editions later.17 Third, illustrating Wildavsky's virtuoso gifts not only as a teacher but as a world-class kibitzer, is Leadership in a Small Town." In the autumn of 1958 Wildavsky went off to Oberlin to prepare, and teach, eight courses a year to some of the most talented and demanding undergraduate students in the country. One of these courses was state and local government, then as now a topic capable of glazing over the eyes of the most devoted student. Drawing upon his considerable knowledge of the then-underway Dahl study of New Haven, Wildavsky constructed a parallel investigation of Oberlin. He enlisted Oberlin undergraduates in the task of overcoming the sampling problems the New Haven study was encountering by saturating the community with student observers. Instead of having to justify a community power study that studied only urban renewal, public education and political nominations, Wildavsky, over three years· time, studied everything--and concluded that Oberlin, too, displayed a pluralistic power structure. The fourth Yale influence on Wildavsky's work has, perhaps, proven the most fruitful of all. His brilliant and influential book, The Politics of the Budgetary Process, was in part inspired by the superb teaching of Charles E. Lindblom, who was then engaged in his slow migration toward political science from the Yale economics department. Wildavsky did not enroll in Lindblom's seminar, but, alert as always to currents stirring in the air, he discovered Lindblom through the rave notices some of the rest of us were giving Lindblom's lucid and stimulating explorations of the comparative merits of comprehensive and incremental decision-making systems. Budgeting was one of Lindblom's examples, and Arthur Smithies' book was on the reading list. 19 One of the ways a reader can understand the first edition of The Politics of the Budgetary Process is as an incremcntalist answer to Smithies' synoptic approach to budgct-mak­ ing.20 Later editions of the book have multiplied its uses, as Wildavsky has used budget-making as a way to explore a wide panoply of issues relating to calculation and control in government, the reform of public administration, and planning in practice. Now there arc no fewer than six Wildavsky books on some aspect

15Dixon-Yates: A Study in Power Polities (New Haven: , 1962). See also "TVA and Power Politics," American Political Science Review 65 (Sept. 1961): 576-590 and "The Analysis of Issue Contexts in the Study of Decision Making," Joumal of Politics 24 (1962): 717-732.

16Presidential Elections, with Nelson W. Polsby (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 6th edition, 1984). Wildavsky has collaborated four times in edited volumes, with Michael Baskin, Judith V. May, Paul Seabury, and me. Nine times he has collaborated with co-authors on books: with Mary Douglas, Ellen Tennenbaum, Hugh Hecla, Naomi Caiden, Paul Seabury and Edward Friedland, Frank Levy and Arnold Meltsner, Jeffrey Pressman, Jeanne Nienaber, and me.

17See the chapter titled "Reform," 208-266 in the 6th edition.

"Leadership in a Small Town (fotowa, N.J.: Bedminster Press, 1964).

"Arthur Smithies, The Budgetary Process in the United States (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1955).

'°The Polirics of the Budgetary Process, 4th edition (Boston: Little, Brown, 1984) (first edition, 1964). 28 or other of budgeting, with at least two more on the way. 21 Wildavsky has, in addition, inspired a sizeable number of books and monographs by others on collateral issues raised by his broad-gauged view of budgeting. Wildavsky's work comes in clusters, or bunches, like grapes, any one of which would be sufficient to encompass the output of a productive scholar. There is, already cited, the group of studies on budgeting and public finance: in the United States, in Britain, and in poor countries considered descriptively, nor­ matively, historically, statutorily, constitutionally, economically, administratively, politically, substantively, procedurally, in the large and in the small. Then there arc the policy analyses: on what happens to federal programs at the grass roots, on recreation programs, on the politics of estimating domestic oil and gas supplies, on trade policy and the oil shocks of the 1970s, on public versus private electric power, on urban

21 The Budgeting and Evaluation of Federal Recreation Programs 1 or Money Doesn't Grolv on Trees, with Jeanne Nienaber (New York: Basic Books, 1973). Planning and Budgeting in Poor Countries, with Naomi Caiden (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974). Paperback edition by Transaction Books, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1980. Budgeting. A Comparative Theory of Budgetary Processes (Boston: Little, Brown, 1975). The Private Government of Public Money, with Hugh Hecla, 2nd edition (London: Macmillan, 1981). How to Limit Government Spending (Los Angeles/Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980). In addition, there is the edited volume, The Federal Budget: Economics and Politics (editor, with Michael Baskin) (San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1982). Still in preparation is a history of taxation aod expenditure in the western world, with Carolyn Webber, and an examination of contemporary budgetary battles since 1979 in Americao national government, with Joseph White. Other important Wildavsky contributions on budgeting include: "Political Implications of Budgetary Reform," Public Administration Review 21 (Autumn 1961): 183-190; "Comprehensive Versus Incremental Budgeting in the Department of Agriculture," with Arthur Hammond, Administrative Science Quarterly 10 (Dec. 1965): 321-346; "Toward a Radical Incrementalism: A Proposal to Aid Congress in Reform of the Budgetary Process," in Congress: The First Branch of Government (Washington, D.C.: Americao Enterprise Institute, 1966), 115-165; "A Theory of the Budgetary Process," with Otto Davis aod M. A.H. Dempster, American Political Science Review 60 (Sept. 1966): 529-547; "On the Process of Budgeting: An Empirical Study of Congressional Appropriation," with Otto A. Davis and M. A.H. Dempster, in Papers on Non-Market Decision Making, Gordon Tullock, ed. (Charlottesville: Thomas Jefferson Center for Political Economy, University of Virginia, 1966), 63-132; "The Political Economy of Efficiency: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Systems Analysis, aod Program Budgeting," Puhlic Administration Review 26 (Dec. 1966): 292-310; "Rescuing Policy Analysis from PPBS," Public Administration Reviell' 29 (March/April 1969): 189-202; "Leave City Budgeting Alone! A Survey, Case History aod Recommendations for Reform," with Arnold Meltsner, Financing the ~fetropolis: The Role of Puhlic Policy in Urhan Economics, 4, John P. Crccinc and Louis H. Masotti, eds. (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1970), 311-358; "On the Process of Budgeting II: An Empirical Study of Congressional Appropriations," with Otto A. Davis and M.A. H. Dempster, Studies in Budgeting, Byrne et al., eds. (Amsterdam-London: North-Holland Publishing, 1971), 292-375; 'The Annual Expenditure lncrement--or How Con­ gress Can Regain Control of the Budget," The Public Interest 33 (Fall 1973): 84-108; "Towards a Predictive Theory of Government Expenditure: U.S. Domestic Appropriations," with Otto Davis aod M. A. H. Dempster, British Journal of Political Science 4 ( 1974); "On Change ... or, There is No Magic Size for an Increment," with M. A. H. Dempster, Political Studies 27 (September 1979): 371-389; "A Budget for All Seasons? Why the Traditional Budget Lasts," Public Administration Review 6 (Nov./Dec. 1978): 501-509; "Budgetary Futures: Why Politicians May Want Spending LimiLs in Turbulent Times," Public Budgeting and Finance I (Spring 1981): 20-27; "Budgets as Compromises Among Social Orders," in The Federal Budget, 21-38; "The Budget a.._c;New Social Contract," Journal of Contemporary Studies 5 (Spring 1982): 3-20; "Modelling the U.S. Federal Spending Process: Overview and Implications," with Michael Dempster, in R. C. 0. Matthews and G. B. Stafford, eds., The Grants Economy and Collective Consumption (London and Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1983), 267-309; "From Chaos Comes Opportunity: The Movement Toward Spending Limits in Americao and Caoadian Budgeting," Canadian Public Adminisrration 26 (Summer 1983): 163-181; "The Transformation of Budgetary Norms," Australian Journal of Public Administration 42 (December 1983): 421--432, "Budgets as Social Orders," Research in Urban Policy l (1985): 139-197. 29

streets, schools and libraries, on how to do policy analysis and how to teach policy analysis and how to plan for policy analysis. 22 There are works on federalism 23 and on party politics, elections and presidential nominations. His book with the late Jeffrey L. Pressman, Implementation, has spawned a large number of studies amounting to a subfield of its own. 24 And, finally and most recently, there are the works mark­ ing a transition in Wildavsky's thinking from political economist to political anthropologist in which he explores the roots of political behavior in political culture and attempts to match the characteristics of regimes with prevailing value systems and social relations that sustain the political beliefs of the populace. 25 Wildavsky's success in organizing Oberlin College state and local government seminars into a fruitful research project was the precursor of other important organizational efforts. As a young associate professor at Berkeley, where he moved in 1962, Wildavsky was prevailed upon to take over the chairmanship of his department in the difficult days of the 1960s. Not long thereafter he was asked to become founding dean of Berkeley's Graduate School of Public Policy, a position that required him to build a faculty and a curriculum more or less from scratch, find and move into a building, establish customs and traditions, recruit and train students, and see to their future employment. Wildavsky's managerial touch proved to be sure as well as imaginative, and the school is one of the great recent success stories of Berkeley. Meanwhile, in order to stimulate policy-related research on the Bay Area, Wildavsky organized the Oakland Project, a series of studies of many facets of Berkeley's neighboring big city. Numerous seminars, dissertations, and books came out of this project, as well as useful ties between the university and it~ urban environment. In 1977 Wildavsky became president of the Russell Sage Foundation in New York. Conflict with the chairman of the board shortly led to his resignation, however, and he returned to

nsome of these are collected in The Revoir Against the Masses and in Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis (Boston: Little, Brown, 1979). British edition as The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis (Lon­ don: Macmillan, 1980). See also Implementation, with Jeffrey Pressman, 3rd edition (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984); Urban Outcomes, with Frank Levy and Arnold Meltsner (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1973). The Politics of Mistrust: Estimating American Oil and Gas Resources, with Ellen Tennenbaum (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1981).

23See "Party Discipline Under Federalism: Implications of Australian Experience," Social Research (Winter 1961): 437-458; "A Bias Toward Federalism: Confronting the Conventional Wisdom on the Delivery of Governmen­ tal Services," Special issue of Publius 6 (July 1976); "Bare Bones: Putting Flesh on the Skeleton of American Federalism," The Future of Federalism in the 1980s (Washington, D.C.: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, July 1981). Report and Papers from the Conference on the Future of Federalism, Alexandria, Virginia, July 25-26, 1980, pp. 67-88; "Birthday Cake Federalism," in American Federalism: New Challenges for the 1980s, Robert B. Hawkins, Jr., ed. (New Brunswick, NJ.: Transaction Press, 1982), 181-191; "Federalism Means Inequali­ ty," Society 22 (JanJFeb. 1985): 42-49 and an edited work, American Federalism in Perspective (Editor) (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1967).

24Compare the first (1973) and third (1984) editions of Implementation.

25See "The Three Cultures: Explaining Anomalies in the American Welfare State," The Public Interest 69 (Fall 1982): 45-58; "A Proposal to Create a Cultural Theory of Risk," with Michael Thompson in The Risk Analysis Controversy An lnstillltional Perspective, H. C. Kunreuther and Engle V. Ley, eds. (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1983); "Change in Political Culture/' Politics, Journal of the Australian Political Science Association (forthcoming November 1985); Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers, with Mary Douglas (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1982); The Nursing Father: Moses as a Political Leader (University, Ala.: University of Alabama Press, 1985). 30

Berkeley where he divides his time between the Department of Political Science and the Survey Research Center. Writing and administration have served in Wildavsky's case to complement teaching rather than to exclude it from his busy schedule. The vitality of his ideas has always proven enormously attractive to students. Among the Oberlin undergraduates who studied with Wildavsky and have gone on to make their mark in the political science profession are James Eisenstein, Robert Jervis, John Kingdon, Andrew McFarland, John Mendeloff, James L. Payne, Edward Schneier, John Schwarz, and Merrill Shanks. Berkeley doctoral students ofWildavsky's include Payne and McFarland, once again, Jeffrey L. Pressman, Judith May, Jeanne Nienaber Oarke, Michael Preston, Jesse Mccorry, Frank Thompson, Jack Knott, Sam Kernell, Arnold Meltsner, Alex Radian, Mari Malvey, Jay Starling, David Weimer, and David Dery. Countless others have passed through his graduate seminars or have taught or done research as his apprentice and rightly consider themselves deeply indebted to him for his generous counsel and lively stimulation. In addition to all the activity I have mentioned so far, Wildavsky has found time to serve his profession and the public in various ways: as the sometime director of three business corporations, as president of the Policy Studies Association, as a loyal alumnus serving the Brooklyn College Foundation and the Committee on Graduate Education of the Yale University Council, as a member of the editorial boards, at one time or another, of some 17 scholarly journals, as the organizer of symposiums and festschriften, advisor to publishers, impatient member of countless committees, commissions and advisory boards, speaker at academic gatherings and special occasions. He is founder of the Faculty Sports Association at the University of California, Berkeley, and is chairman of Weinreb House, a home for autistic adults. There is evidence that all this quantity has not driven out quality at all: Wildavsky is one of our profession's most honored members. In 1975, the first Charles E. Merriam Award was given to him by his colleagues in this association in recognition of notable career-long contributions applying theory to the practice of politics and government. In 1981, the Evaluation Research Society gave him its Paul F. Lazarsfeld Award for Research. In 1982 the American Society for Public Administration gave him their Dwight Waldo award, honoring his contributions to the literature of public administration and his distinguished career as a scholar and educator. In 1984 the Policy Studies Association gave him their Harold Lasswell Award, for his contributions to the study of puhlic policy. He has been elected a member of the National Academy for Public Policy Analysis and Management, a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and in 1977 Brooklyn College made him an honorary doctor of Jaw. How does he do it all? The first and foremost secret of Wildavsky's success is hard and unremitting creative work over a long period of time. It was already possible nearly 30 years ago for me to get a laugh from a group of political scientists by explaining my chronic insomnia as the result of the certain knowledge that while I was sleeping, Wildavsky would be publishing. I have since given up my insomnia; Wildavsky is still fulfilling his part of the bargain, although he flatly denies working at night and claims to work only occasionally on weekends. It helps also that Wildavsky has ideas and imagination, and the facility to keep them flowing. This unusual access to the wellsprings of creativity within was, no doubt, in the first instance a God-given talent. Wildavsky has taken steps to nurture and cultivate this talent, however. He is one of those who writes in order to learn what he thinks, and who embraces the discipline of putting his ideas promptly into words and sentences, of combing into a linear format the tangled thoughts and stray insights that dart through his unusually active mind. He is not, therefore, necessarily his own best editor. This is probably just as well; highly effective self-editing can strangle too many infant ideas in their cradles. He practices incrementalism in writing while preaching it in budgeting: as the many editions of his various books attest, he does not believe it is necessary to exhaust any subject the first time around. It is not unusual, however, for him to do between five and fifteen drafts before first publication, and rare is the acquaintance of 31

Wildavsky's who has not been drawn into the iterative process that he uses to weigh and test his ideas before they reach print. Wildavsky nevertheless accepts the of expressing, and sometimes publishing, first approximations, and pennitting the winnowing and evaluation of ideas to be a public process. This is an approach to scholarship that takes a certain measure of courage; Wildavsky once turned up in Jerusalem to lecture-in English-on his forthcoming treatise on the leadership of Moses. This was not the act of a risk-averse scholar.26 Wildavsky is an early riser and a man of settled habits. He goes to his office regularly in the morning and reads and writes. Between bouts of writing he takes walks; then he writes again. His unusual capacity to focus his attention and to blot out distractions helps him to write under extraordinary circumstances: a draft of one of his best books-The Private Government of Public Money (with Hugh Heclo)--was turned out in a great hurry, less than a month, because his sabbatical in Britain was running out. He has written articles while flat on his back, otherwise immobilized by back spasms. l once saw him write an article in the midst of an APSA council meeting, while with his right hand, so to speak (he is left-handed) he was a full participant in the proceedings. Unlike the rest of us, he writes, and publishes while holding down demanding administrative jobs. While he is not writing, he is thinking, mulling, cogitating, maybe even obsessing. Wildavsky shares his intellectual concerns readily, appreciates the contributions of others, and, as the long list of his collaborative works suggests, enters with enthusiasm and generosity into scholarly dialogue. His collaborators include anthropologists and economists as well as political scientists, senior scholars as well as graduate students. All collaborative efforts involving two authors require each author to contribute 75 percent of the effort. Wildavsky's 75 percent is invariably fully visible in the final product, unmistakably memorialized in the quips, epigrams, paradoxes and conundrums ("doing better and feeling worse") that he loves so much, as well as in the large, fully political conception of the subject at hand, no matter that at first blush it may seem to involve prosaic matters of double-entry bookkeeping or managerial detail. He loves mess. This includes difficult multidimensional problems, the chaotic paintings of Friedrich Hundcrtwasser and books piled every which-way. The newspaper after Wildavsky finishes reading it looks as though it has undergone hand-to-hand combat. He covers manuscripts-his own, other peoples' -with hard-to-read scrawls and pipe dottle. He reads eclectically and gets ideas from everywhere. Mechanical gadgets--especially complicated and improbable ones like his noisy Japanese pinball pachinko machine--enthrall him. Walking and gardening are Wildavsky's favorite recreations. These are perfect occupations for a man whose preoccupations are always with him; they afford ample scope for the uninterrupted consideration of whatever intellectual problem is on Wildavsky's mind. Because Wildavsky is always hatching something with most of his attention, he is in many of the routines of life absent-minded: until he got the hang of it rather later in life than most Americans he was a dangerously preoccupied driver of automobiles. He is an acquired taste as a conversational partner; he has almost no small talk, and indeed can be held down to medium-talk only by determined effort. His kindnesses to students and colleagues, sometimes involving considerable personal inconvenience, arc legendary. So arc the lapses in his attention to the niceties of human interaction. It is not in the slightest true, however, that he fails to suffer fools gladly. Rather he is a broadly tolerant man who has work to do, and is chronically impatient to get on with it. Some hapless interviewer once asked the young Wildavsky -who was applying for a job-what he thought of the then-raging controversy over the study of political behavior. This was, to Wildavsky, not a subject: "Who studies non-behavior?" he asked, terminating the discussion.

"The highly favorable reviews of The Nllrsi11g Father suggest that it was worth the effort. 32

He didn't get the position. I asked him later whether he knew what he was doing. "Of course," he said. "I decided that they had better know the worst." No doubt he was right; the worst about Wildavsky can be discovered very quickly. As for the best, political scientists need only to look about their libraries. As he says: Every man needs a craft through which he can express himself to the extent of his abilities, and l have found mine.27

27"The Revolt Against The Masses, 3. 33

The following articles are reprinted with the pennission of the California Monthly. They originally appeared in the December 1988 issue.

'Tis the Season

Since 1984, our December issue has featured coverage of Cal's football season by a member of the academic community. The latest of our faculty sports writers, Aaron Wildavsky, is a prolific writer whose books and essays have ranged over a whole span of issues and ideas: presidential elections Talmudic law, and contemporary society's aversion to risk, to name three. The son of immigrants from Russia, Wildavsky was born and raised in Brooklyn, where he attended Erasmus Hall High School (which, he points out, won the all-city basketball championship while he was there) and then Brooklyn College, where he earned his B.A., with a major in political science, in 1948. After a year on a Fulbright Scholar­ ship to Australia (which resulted in the publication of his first book), Wildavsky earned the M.A. (1953) and Ph.D. (1957) at Yale. After teaching for four years at Oberlin College (where, he recalls with glee, the motto of the school's basketball team was: "We may be small, but we're also slow"), Wildavsky accepted an appointment at Berkeley, in the fall of 1963. He has been here ever since, building a sturdy reputation as a writer and thinker, as a teacher, and as an administrator. He served as chairman of the Department of Political Sci­ ence at Cal from 1966 to 1969 and as dean of the Graduate School of Public Policy from 1969 to 1977. He has been president of the Russell Sage Foundation (1977-78) and of the American Political Science Association (1985-86). He currently is professor of political science and of public policy at the University. He also has been a Jong-time sports watcher on campus. In the early 1980s when he was on the Academic Senate's Policy Committee, he received queries from faculty members about the status of sports on campus: Were we doing right by our athletes? Is athletics an appropriate activity on this campus? If so, what sort of support should it receive? "l noticed," recalls Wildavsky, "that athletics was becoming professionalized. Student-athletes were spending five or six hours a day, throughout the year, either on their sport or conditioning for it. We had to reconsider a bit what was going on. So I informed myself, talked to some people, and sent out a notice to see what interest there was among the faculty about tackling the problem." Wildavsky wound up receiving about 80 responses ("more than sometimes show up for an Academic Senate meeting"), and he formed a group called Faculty Sports Associates. The group's intention was to become informed about Cal athletics: to visit the players and the coaches, to find out what is going on, what problems there were, and what could be done to help. "It would be fair to say," says Wildavsky, "that before this group was formed, the faculty knew about as much about sports on campus as we knew about Jupiter." Once the group became active, the administration agreed to carry out some of its recommendations including programs to improve the academic performances of athletics. Today Cal athletes graduate at the same rate as the general campus study body, a notable achievement. Wildavsky, who has attended Cal football games for decades, this year, as a bona-fide sports writer, sat in the press box. "I liked it very much," he reports. "It's a very good place to watch a game from. I of course was in the lower press box; I suppose the moguls go to the upper one. But l have a weak back, so it's nice to have a chair, and it's nice to get up and walk around during the game. There's one problem 34 in the press box, though. They're very strict, they don't allow cheering in the press corps. So you miss out a bit on the communal aspects." Asked if he applied some of his social science techniques to his observation and analysis of the football program this fall, Wildavsky said that he did. "In part. I mean, I normally go to games not in order to think about them but to enjoy them. But, when you asked me to write about Cal this year, I wondered what I could do that someone else couldn"t. I spend my life thinking about patterns. There are reasons why one team loses 17 times in a row to another team. It's like the national Presidential business: If the Democrats have Jost five out of six elections, maybe it wasn't because of a Dukakis or a Mondale. It's the basis of social science: When you have a strong pattern-the Democrats and the Presidency, or Cal and the major football powers-then you want to start asking, 'What produces this?"' Professor Wildavsky's analysis of the 1988 football season follows.

Russell Schoch Editor, California Monthly 35 Winning in the Majors

by Aaron Wildavsky

Would a winning conference season, perhaps even a bowl bid, be "fairy talc" time, as the house organ of Cal's men's intercollegiate athletic department allowed itself to wonder last April? The optimists could point to 20 returning starters, a team voted third-most improved in the nation by Football News, the return intact of the entire coaching staff, and an easy beginning schedule that might just allow Cal to grow into greatness. The pessimists pointed to the past and to Cal· s notorious Jack of depth, in which injuries could "relegate the team to second-class status"-that is, they pointed to the systemic factors that have Jed Cal consistently to lose to the major Pacific Ten (PAC-IO) Conference teams in the past two decades. In the following account of the 1988 football season, I shall pause from time to time to assess the significance of the season against the background of considerations that have led Cal to compete in Division I, the ma­ jor league of football, with only minor-league resources. The first game, against University of the Pacific, was too easy. Nothing much could be learned from this except that Cal could play the game. The big problem was overconfidence. A strong first quarter (24 points in 18 minutes), followed by indifferent play and a last-quarter surge left Cal ahead to win, 30-7. As Majett Whiteside, Cal's noseguard, observed: "To win in the PAC-10 you have to play four quarters of football. Today we played maybe two-and-a-half." The next game, at Oregon State, was a shocker. Favored by a substantial margin, and leading J 6-3 in the final quarter, Cal managed to lose the game in the final two minutes, 17-16. Well, that's not quite accurate. Along the way an extra minute somehow got tacked on to the game clock. Absent that minutc--or a Cal fumble, or five or six only slightly less incredible events-and Cal would have won. Aside from awaiting good luck and not defeating yourself-the usual bromides--Cal thought it had picked up a pointer: running doesn't bring victories. It is too hard; it takes too long; the runners normally don't get far enough, fast enough. Cal had controlled the ball, chewing up yard after yard without putting all that many numbers on the scoreboard. Next time the point was to pass. One other thing. It is especially galling to lose a game you already had won. Worse is the nagging suspicion that your side may have choked or, trying to stop the blizzard of errors, tried too hard instead of relying on everyday skills. Whatever the cause, the consequence was uncertainty, which could be resolved in only one way-by overcoming adversity in a game. Indeed, Coach Bruce Snyder was heard to hope (although not too loudly) that his team could have the experience of coming from behind so that it could regain the confidence it had lost. Such arc the silent thoughts on a trip back home when no one says a word. The Kansas game worked as if the coach had written the script. Though Cal again was favored, Kansas showed little respect, suddenly surging two touchdowns ahead. Then, just as suddenly, the game was all Cal"s. By the end of the first half, and throughout the rest of the game as well, Cal could do no wrong. Everything worked. These were the best-run, the most craftsman-like plays I recall seeing in a quarter-century at Cal. (During many of those years, the team literally did not get off many of its plays.) Like on of those dream sequences in pastel hues, the scores became blurry; but they came, a perfection of their kind, Another day, the coach and the players might have held down the score. But this was the day following the Week of Doubt, when defeat had been snatched from victory. Cal piled up the points, winning 52-21. If the defeat by Oregon State had come so quickly that Cal only had time to feel numb, and if the victory over Kansas was, after a time, all upward and onward, the game against San Jose State left every­ one limp. Up-and-down, fumble forward and fumble back; great plays (two of the finest leaning-across-the-sidelines, feet-inbound catches you ever saw); and despairing ones--dropped passes in 36

the end zone, fumbles near the end zone, passes that looked like some other quarterback threw them. How many times the Bears marched down the field; how many times they were thwarted! How often the defense held off San Jose (after all, its sole touchdown until the fourth quarter resulted from another Cal fumble), how often the offense turned it back, until, with 6:27 to go, San Jose took a one-point lead. How could this be happening? Cal was clearly superior-except in points. True, Cal's running game had gotten virtually nowhere. But, then, neither had San Jose moved the ball much on the ground. And while Cal's passing was hardly perfect, it was the better of the two. The game was fought largely near the San Jose goal line. There was no explaining it except to restate the obvious fact that whenever Cal got close to scoring, it didn't. Yet once more Cal stormed down the field, once more quarterback Troy Taylor, who this day had picked up the most yards ever by a Cal passer, threw for large gains, and once more Cal threatened. This time the Bears came through. A long pass, a short one, a dropped pass, a fake pass, a run, a score. Even better, a pass over the goal line for two points to make the score 21-14. But wait a minute! A 40-some-yard return on the kickoff puts San Jose within striking distance. Another heroic defensive effort stops the Spartans a foot from a first down. With more than two minutes remaining, Cal has the ball and slows down the game. It is third down, six yards to go, a minute and fifteen seconds left. Will Cal run again and then try to hold San Jose? No. In an effort that ends the game with class, a fake run is followed by a sidelines pass and a first down. Game over. Cal wins, 21-14. What shall we say about this game? Artistic? Not quite. Exciting? You bet! This is the first time in Coach Snyder's 15 games at Cal that his team has come from behind to win. The coaches are reported to be thinking of a post-season bowl. But questions remain: What will happen against stronger teams? What about the pass-vs.-run quandary? Or is scoring points the point? (Once I got close to a high-school soccer coach as he exhorted his charges at half time. I wondered what sort of wisdom he might impart. Here's what he said: "The idea is to kick the ball inside the posts." Amen.) But not even super athletes can stop bullets. Leaving a dance the evening of the San Jose State game, Joel Dickson, the Bears' defensive tackle, was shot twice. He recovered; but would his team? Cal is not noted for its depth. When the coach said, "'Football is secondary," the stunned community could only nod agreement. That put things into perspective. But the team still had to play next week. At Washington State. Woe. Passing and running, the Cougars moved Cal at will, winning 44-13. Cal was prepared, but the huge Washington State line simply overwhelmed the Bears. It came as no surprise to Cal that Washington State later beat UCLA. But if Cal could be overpowered by one giant, what chance did it have against others? Cal is like a Triple-A team that wants to play in the major leagues. It has outstanding players, players who look like, act like, and are among the best in the country. But it doesn't have enough of them. ""Depth'"and more depth is the name of the game in the majors. Lack of depth accounts for the frequency, over the years, with which Cal fails to conquer in the fourth quarter. Lack of depth also means a vulnerability to injuries. How docs a team acquire depth? When you already have it (as USC and UCLA do), it is easy to get more. But how to get it in the first place? In Lynn "Pappy" Waldorf"s day, there was no depth gap. He held tryouts, two or three hundred young men turned out, and the fortunate coach picked all he needed. No longer. When the character of college football changed decisively in the 1960s, when players were recruited rather than discovered-that is, when amateurs became semi-pros-Cal fell behind. Before it woke up, Cal was short of everything: practice grounds, press facilities, student support, coach support, summer programs, recruitment programs, study programs. Worst of all, of course, Cal lacked winning programs. And why would the best players come to Cal if they couldn"t be on a winning team? I said that amateurs became professionals. What else are you going to call people (besides "students") who spend five to six hours a day on a goal-directed activity most of the year? One consequence of this professionalism is that the players became better and better. (Indeed, it could be argued that Cal's current 37 team is superior to its past championship teams; the problem is that real quality has gone up elsewhere as well, and in quality-in-depth even more.) From professionalism and expertise come two new conditions: recruitment and race. No longer did athletes recruit themselves (show up at the coach's call); and no longer were they mostly white. They had to be positively recruited, and they had to be people of color, or a team wasn't able to compete with others. Why? Because that is the pool from which many of the best athletes are drawn. Cal lagged in both respects. Hence losing seasons were followed by declines in recruiting. followed by further losses, followed by .... UCLA was ranked Number One in the nation when the Bruins became the Bears' next opponent. Cal played its best defensive game of the year against UCLA, shutting down the Bruins' running attack. The Bears' defensive line played superbly; Cal's kicking game-field goals and punting-outclassed its rivals. And Cal did score four out of seven times when it got inside the 20-yard line. Good, better than before, the best of the year-but not good enough. Cal lost by 17 points, 38-21. largely because UCLA's excellent quarterback, Troy Aikman, with outstanding protection, threw two long touchdown passes in the first half. Were it not for those two plays, the pundits opined, the game might have gone differently. "I think," Cal's head coach said, referring to earlier and rosier expectations, "that we have a touch of realism right now about how hard you have to play to compete in Division l football. Next up was Temple, the last team over which Cal would be favored. The Bears needed a victory to recover from UCLA, to prepare for Arizona and to believe it was better than someone else. Having lost to Syracuse, Alabama, Penn State, and Pittsburgh, football powers all, Temple wanted to salvage its season. You couldn't prove it by the sparse crowd, but this was a swell game. In their own league for once, the two teams went at each other with abandon. Whiz, bang, bash-thrills at every tum. The first half was Temple's by a few points, 14-10. They revealed Cal's weakness in covering punt and kickoff returns. They protected their excellent passer better than Cal did. And the old Cal problem of not getting in for the score reasserted itself. The third quarter was Cal's. Interceptions, recovered fumbles, long passes, nifty runs. Before the quarter was over, Cal had two touchdowns. Robbie Keen made a superb punt of 56 yards. (Right now I can't think of a pro kicker who is as good.) By 7:35 in the third quarter, Cal had put the game away. The usual stuff: crisp runs, elegant passes, great catches. This is the way the game is supposed to be played, especially when, as Coach Snyder said as he revealed that he had played his third-string left guard: "That's the most-injured football team I've ever coached." The Arizona game was important because Cal's victory was its first conference win, and it meant that Cal was still competitive, that hope was still alive. To Cal, hope means not only a winning season but a winning attitude, winning enough to attract recruits. Cal's defense was superb, holding Arizona to just seven points. Then, in the fourth quarter, behind 7-3, the Cal defense forced a fumble, after which an elegant 55-yard touchdown pass from Troy Taylor to Vince Delgado provided the winning margin, 10-7. Again there was talk of a bowl bid. The PAC-JO was so strong that it might send six teams to bowls. But, for Cal to be one of those six, a respectable showing against USC was required. USC showed what Cal was up against. Bigger, stronger, faster, deeper. USC at home had beaten Cal nine out of the last ten times. Cal, in fact, had scored but five touchdowns in the past 31 quarters against the Trojans. Cal fell behind 20-3 (the 3 coming from the Bears· superlative kicker, Robbie Keen, in a 55-yard field goal) near the end of the first half: then, the desire to do too much too soon led to busted plays, a big penalty, an interception, a touchdown-game over. Final score, 35-3 Monte Poole said it all in the next day's Oakla11d Tribu11e: "It wasn't the two turnovers. "It wasn't missed assignments. "It wasn't inexperience. 38

"It wasn't lack of intensity. "No, it was a simple game of basics, and Cal was buried under an avalanche of USC talent." What would you do if you were a fo .. '..ballprospect considering Cal? Go with Cal or with a more likely winner? My guess is that more thar, percent of the best high-school players-those recruited by several teams-are lost to Cal. There is one reason for trying Berkeley: You might start earlier and play longer. Troy Taylor, for example. He didn't get a scholarship at USC and came to Cal instead. Score one for the home team. The Cal coaches have to decide whether to try for the best recruits, knowing they won't get most of them, or settle for second best. Being Americans, they go for the best, preferring disappointment over decline. Thus a few outstanding people come, but not yet enough to play successfully in Division I PAC-IO college football. What does this mean in regard to academic standards? Everybody wants to recruit scholar-athletes. Stanford, being richer, gets more, Cal less. Under the circumstances, I suspect that Cal gets more than its share of well-motivated athletes with low academic scores. And, judging from the overall results, this is paying off: The athletes here arc better and so is their academic record. Cal athletes, including football and basketball players, are now graduating at about the same 70-percent rate as everybody else. Those who run our souped-up summer academic program, often a prerequisite for a scholarship, and our study table, with its intensive tutoring, should be proud. So should our student athletes. It will come as no surprise to say that the University of California at Berkeley has distinguished itself intellectually No one, least of all those who have recently gained admission, wants that distinction to decline. Yet, as the ethnic and racial composition of the state and the nation change, and immigration continues at a fast pace, a new challenge to education arises: How, while maintaining scholarly standards, can Cal remain part of the community from which it draws? How can football be seen as a source of inte­ gration, an antidote to polarization, and as a forerunner of cooperation where students who start with lower than average scores end up with a superior education? And what better place to demonstrate innovation in learning, and what better evidence to show that this can be and has been done, than Cal football? Something else was happening during recent decades: The University of California at Berkeley was becoming even more of what it already was, the world's academic meritocracy. (At the first Academic Senate meeting I attended, a quarter-century ago, the man next to me said something uncomplimentary about a fellow a few rows away. I recognized the fellow. Wasn't he a Nobel Prize winner? Yes, l was told, but what had he done late!y'?) The fallout for football was unfortunate. It wasn't only that study was in and semi-pro was out. It was the perceived conflict of values: The professoriatc was the best because its members had passed the toughest tests; but athletes were the worst because it was assumed that they were recipients of special priv­ ilege. Whatever the reason, academic or political, football players were no longer BMOC. Why, then, should they come? The best reason to come to Cal ("the home of the intelligent athlete," as some of us like to say) is to get a good education. But, much as we sometimes hate to admit it, that is something that can be obtained elsewhere. Want to hear what is music to a coach's car'? Try these words from star basketball recruit Bill Elleby, the top prep player in the state of Washington, who said: "I think Cal is the best [school] in the nation as far as academics and athletics together. The [basketball] program is on the rise. I want to go to a school that is going to do well in the future." Here we have it: Academics is attractive, but only when coupled with a hopeful sports program. Like majors in any other field, student players want to know the state of the art, not only in the campus as a whole but in their own chosen field. Winning seasons can be had in other ways. One is to arrange an easy schedule. But this tactic has limitations. Cal depends on revenues from football to do double duty-not only to support itself hut also to support the other sports (gymnastics, baseball, swimming, soccer, basketball, cross country, ,ck and 39 field, golf, water polo, crew, rugby, and tennis). Mismatched teams make for poor ticket sales, at home or away. And weak opponents do not help to generate revenue. Of course, Cal could leave the PAC-JO Conference. That is the unspoken alternative, which no responsible person suggests because of its devastating consequences. Apart from the impact of the financial Joss, the other sports could hardly continue in the PAC-JO with the linchpin of football removed. Cal sports, not merely Cal football, would be diminished. Nor would Cal necessarily do well in Oass B football because the best players it has would go elsewhere. The perspicacious reader will have observed that I have not suggested a clear way for Cal quickly to overcome its football handicaps. There is no magic bullet, no specific remedy for what ails football that would not simultaneously damage other campus values. There are basically two ways of solving enduring and intractable problems. (If they were not structural-that is, part and parcel of existing incentives--of course they would have been solved long ago.) One way is to do something to improve the situation; the other way is to redefine the problem so that it becomes solvable. The first way adds to your resources, and the second modifies your objectives to bring them within reach. This is my criterion: A good season for Cal means winning half of its conference games. A great season, besides a Big Game victory, means beating UCLA or USC or Washington, the traditional pow­ erhouses. How do these criteria stand up against Cal's excruciating 28-27 defeat at the hands of the University of Washington? Well, I think. For if staying within a point of one of the conference's (and hence the nation's) best teams isn't good enough, nothing Cal could reasonably hope to accomplish could be better. It is true that Cal was leading, 27-3, with 9:03 remaining in the third quarter. But it takes a damn good team to do all that scoring (Chris Richards, injured most of the season, ran for 152 yards on 32 carries; Troy Taylor completed 13 out of 19 passes for 116 yards; Robbie Keen kicked his ninth field goal in a row, the last for 55 yards, a Cal record) while keeping Washington's offense away from the goal line. After all, if Cal "should have won" against Washington, this means that it could beat almost any team in the nation. And if that isn't the meaning of being competitive, I don't know what is. Having redefined victory down, it is time to bring Cal's resources up. "We simply haven't had the same type of resources as most schools in the conference," says Athletic Director Dave Maggard, '61. Until recently, the Berkeley campus has been ambivalent. By contrast, Maggard adds, "More than anything else, the UCLA campus community said from very early on, · Athletics is very important to our campus,' and many things can come from that attitude." As we would wish, football players arc taught to look after their mates. The trouble is, the campus community doesn't look after them. No one wants or expects heroic status. If you want a place where you can stand out above everyone else, you have to go elsewhere. But famous is one thing, and infamous is another. Student athletes who spend a working day at it need the consideration that comes from being different. They also deserve the appreciation that comes from the recognition of their role as a positive force on campus. As the Big Game begins, it's easy: All you do is march down field with well-chosen, well executed plays (63 yards in 16 plays), so smoothly I can't even tell whether pass or runs predominated. Cal settles for a 36-yard field goal. As usual, Cal holds well on running, is vulnerable to passing, especially in short to medium range. Cal's strategy in overcoming its weakness in defensive backs is to play zone, choosing to keep the ball in front, thereby giving up short yardage to avoid big plays. It works, in a manner of speaking. Stanford gets close enough for a 44-yard field goal but misses a chance for a touchdown. The next exchange gives Stanford an edge: It is defending its passer better than Cal. Field position, consequently, goes to Stanford. The ensuing pattern is familiar-an accurate opposition quarterback, getting a world of time to throw, eventually hitting his capable pass catchers-except that this time there 40 was a penalty. Stanford's John Hopkins, another extraordinary place-kicker, showed his mettle by hitting the uprights for 46 yards, abetted by a Cal off-side that might have made the difference. Cal adjusts, or its passer does: rolling out, Taylor finds targets. After an "almost" end-zone pass, thrown, like all the rest now, on the run, Keen hits a field goal of 36 yards. Such a kicking duel was un­ known until a few years ago anywhere. It's still unlikely in the professional leagues; perhaps it could only happen here and now. In this sense, this already is a Big (i.e., memorable) Game. The Bears defense clicks. The Cardinal's kickoff return is held near the 20; a penalty pushes the ball way back. The Cal line holds beautifully; Stanford punts. Cal gets down to the 15 but can't get into the end zone. But no one will say it is too conservative; end zone passes don't work, or its passer is sacked. So what else is new? Keen kicks two straight field goals, and Cal is ahead by 9-6, with 2:58 to go in the second quarter. What next? A 95-yard Cardinal run-back for a touchdown (a Big Game record): Stanford 13, Cal 9. And afterwards? Cal does a lot better than its usual sluggish kickoff return as Junior Tagaloa makes a spirited run to the 35-yard line. Before you know it, Darryl Ingram goes 47 yards on a pass to the Stanford six. Oops. A personal foul pushes the ball back to the 21. A few passes later, it's back to the 7; one minute left, 3rd and goal. It seems as if Cal starts backpedaling when it sees the goal; actually it is overeagerness as Ingram encroaches, pushing the ball back to the 12. A 21-yard field goal, natch; Cal 12, Stanford 13. Wow! Members of Cal's 1938 championship team (seven shutouts, and this is football, including a 13-0 win over Alabama in the Rose Bowl) was honored at half-time. Should Cal aspire to that eminence again? Might Cal not convert football from a problem into an opportunity, not just watch it but use it for positive purposes? Meanwhile, back on the field, the story repeats itself in the second half; the Stanford quarterback waits and waits and waits until inevitably he finds a man open at the Cal 40-yard line. It looks like Stanford has it but, at the four Cal stiffens, its opponent settling for the by-now automatic field goal. Stanford 16, Cal 12. Cal will have to score a touchdown to tie or win. In the last half of the third quarter, Cal keeps Stanford penned around its 20 yard line. Cal gets the ball back on its 40. A sideline pass moves the ball to Stanford's 35. Keen comes back in on fourth down. This time, from 46 yards out, the ball is wide. (No one makes them all, though earlier that seemed a possibility.) Cal can't make use of further opportunities. Another long pass takes Stanford to the three. A quarterback draw is a foiled by a splendid blitz. Hopkins hits a field goal again, from the 21, leaving Stanford ahead by a touchdown. Ten minutes left, and Cal is still within striking distance. A quick start upfield for Cal-an interception brought back (forward, really) to the Stanford 36. Troy Taylor carries the ball to the 17 after deciding not to pass. Cal docs not let up. A touchdown pass from Taylor to Mike Ford breaks the barrier, the extra point tying the game at 19 all. This is Big. Nine minutes left. Cal holds; so does Stanford. Five minutes to go. A third-down-and-Jong pass; for once, the defense is in on the Stanford passer, who wobbles the ball to a defender. Interception by David Ortega. A pass, a run, first down. Cal runs the ball (for another first down) while the clock runs down to less than a minute. Oops. Almost forgot to call a ti me out. It's Robbie Keen time. The ball is on the three; the kick will be attempted from the IO (a 20-yard distance to the goal post). Blocked kick! What better ending for two evenly matched teams. Or for Cal's evenly matched season. Next year, some 20 lettermen will be missing a.s Cal faces a tougher schedule. Will the be that "Cal can't win," thereby damming its future as well as its present chances? Or will we change that all-important attitude? Without big-league football, the campus's connection to the surrounding community-especially its alumni, but also its students, staff, and faculty, as well as its neighbors-would be loosened. For there is no gathering, symhol, and ritual that brings together as many members of the Cal family as does Cal football. The game is the natural home of all of Cal's diversity. 41

And without big-league football, an important avenue of education and advancement of the Cal community would be lost, without, as far as I can see, any offsetting gain whatsoever. Those who are disappointed or even hostile (although these would be few) will not find their lives enhanced. But those who play and those of us who like to see them play will be diminished. There is more to football than we at Berkeley now appreciate. The image of big-time athletics interfering with education, an image left over from earlier days or other places, is irrelevant at Berkeley. Nowadays, football is merit. It is not who you are (by family background or wealth or race or nationality or religion) but what you do on the field that matters. Football is also a bastion of community. Working with and for others is the only way to be successful. Whether we are talking about the research teams that dominate scientific activity or the rivalry with other people and institutions over who can be the best, football and Cal have come together. And if we think of society's interest in individuals who respect themselves and other people, football also fits. Where else at the University of California at Berkeley can one find more unadulterated merit? When the team goes out, one knows to a certainty that those are the best players our professional coaches can find. Where else is there so much devotion to student learning or as much progress in learning? Where else are skill and discipline better combined? (A good answer would be the Cal women's athletic program, but that is another story.) On what other occasions does our campus community come out in such numbers and spirit? Why not, then, support football and the other sports as exemplars of Cal· s best aspirations and, at times, its accomplishments? Minoring in the majors, to bring up David Ortega's comment on Cal's tic with Stanford is "worse than kissing your sister." 42 Publications of Aaron Wildavsky 1955-1993

Of this bibliography, two things can be said. It is the most comprehensive record of Aaron Wildavsky's work extant, combining the partial records Aaron kept with searches through various data bases; and it is incomplete. We know that Aaron wrote quite a lot of commentary for newspapers that is not recorded here. He was Eric Hoffer's successor, for example, as the author of a three-times-a-week syndicated column that survived for at least a few months. There do not seem to be any records of that venture. Aaron did not keep good records of his writings. His official curriculum vitae for many years omitted one of his books. Presumably it got lost in the shuffle. We have restored that book to his bibliography and whatever else we could find.

Books

The Real World Order. Zones of Peace!Z.ones of Turmoil (with Max Singer). Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House, 1993. Assimilation versus Separation: Joseph the Administrator and the Politics of Religion in Biblical Israel. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, l 993. The Rise of Radical Egalitarianism. Washington, D.C.: American University Press, 199!. The Beleaguered Presidency. New Brunswick, NJ.: Transaction Publishers, 1991. Cultural Theory (with Michael Thompson and Richard Ellis). Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1990. The Moral Collapse of Communism: Poland as o Cautionary Tale (with John Clark). San Francisco: !CS Press, I 990. The Deficit and the Public Interest (with Joseph White). Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, co-published with the Russell Sage Foundation, 1989. Dilemmas of Presidential Leadership From Washington Through Lincoln (with Richard Ellis). New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1989. Craftways: On the Organization of Scholarly Work. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1989. (2d edition, 1993.) The New Politics of the Budgetary Process. Glenview, lll.: Scott, Foresman, 1988. (2d edition, New York: Harper Collins, 1992.) Searchillg For Safety. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1988. A History of Taxation and Expenditure in the Western World (with Carolyn Webber). New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986. The Nursing Father: Moses as a Political Leader. University, Ala.: University of Alabama Press, 1984. Beyond Containment: Alternative American Policies Toward the Soviet Union (editor). San Francisco: !CS Press, 1983. Risk and Culture: All Essay Oil the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers (with Mary Douglas). Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1982. The Federal Budget: Economics and Politics (editor, with Michael Boskin). San Francisco: JCS Press, 1982. The Politics of Mistrust: Estimating American Oil and Gas Resources (with Ellen Tennenbaum). Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 198 I. How to Limit Governmellt Spending. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1980. Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Croft of Policy Analysis. Boston: Little, Brown, 1979. British edition as The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. London: Macmillan, 1980. (2d edition, New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1987.) 43 The Policy Cycle (editor, with Judith V. May). Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1978. Budgeting: A Comparative Theory of Budgetary Processes. Boston: Little, Brown, 1975. (Revised second edition, New Brunswick: Transaction Press, 1986.) The Great Detente Disaster: Oil and the Decline af American Foreign Policy (with Edward Friedland and Paul Seabury), New York: Basic Books, 1975. Perspectives 011 the Presidency (editor). Boston: Little, Brown, 1975. P!Gllningalld Budgeting in Poor Countries (with Naomi Caiden). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974. (Paperback edition by Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ., 1980.) The Private Govemment of Public Money (with Hugh Heclo). Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1974. (2d edition. London: Macmillan, 1981.) UrvGllOutcomes (with Frank Levy and Arnold Meltsner). Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1974. Implementation (with Jeffrey Pressman). Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1973. (3d edition, 1984.) The Budgeting a11dEvaluation of Federal Recreation Pmgrams: Or. Money Doesn't Gmw on Trees (with Jeanne Nienaber). New York: Basic Books, 1973. The Revolt Against the Masses a11dOther Essays 011Politics 011dPublic Policy. New York: Basic Books, 1971. The Presidency (editor). Boston: Little, Brown, 1969. U.S. Foreign Policy: Perspectives and Proposals for the 1970s (editor, with Paul Seabury). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969. American Govemmemal lustitutions (editor, with Nelson W. Polsby). Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968. American Federolism in Perspective (editor). Boston: Little. Brown and Company, 1967. Presidential Elections (with Nelson W. Polsby) (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1964) (Revised, 1968, 1971, 1976, 1980, 1984) (New York: Free Press, 1988, 1991); Arabic Editions (Cairo, Egypt; Arab Record Publishing House, 1965)(Cairo, Egypt; Kitabi Publications, 1984); French Editions, L 'Electeur Et Le Preside/II (Paris: Seghers, Vent D'Ouest, 1968), Les Elections Presidentielles Aux Etats-Unis (Paris: Economica, 1980) (Paris: Spag-Papyrus, 1984); Portuguese Edition, Eleicoes Preside11ciais (Rio de Janeiro: Edicoes Correio de Manha, 1969); Indian Editions (Delhi and Jullundur: Sterling Publishers, 1970) (New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., 1976); Spanish Edition, E/eccio11esPresidenciales (Buenos Aires: Ediciones Tres Tiempos, 1984). The Politics of the Budgetary Process. Boston: Little, Brown, 1964. (4th edition, 1984.) Japanese translation, Deiso Shobo, Ltd., 1972. Leadership in a Small Town. Totowa, N.J.: Bedminster Press, 1964. Dixon-Yates: A Study in Power Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962. Studies in Australian Politics: The 1926 Referendum. Melbourne/London: F. W. Cheshire, 1958.

Articles

"Riskless Society" in The Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics (Monterey, Calif.: Time Inc. Magazines, 1993). "On the Social Construction of Distinctions: Risk, Rape, Public Goods, and Altruism," in Chapter 3, in The Origins of Values, ed. Michael Hechter, Lyn Nadel, and Richard E. Michod (New York: Aldine de Gruyer, 1993), 47-61. Chapter 35 ("Aaron Wildavsky") in Amelican Jews & the Sepmruionist Faith, ed. David G. Dalin (Washington, D.C.: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1993), 138-140. "Why Health and Safety are Products of Competitive Institutions," in Market Liberolism, A Paradigm for the 21st Century, ed. D. Boaz and E. Crane (Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 1993), 379-387. 44

"Norms and Rules to Facilitate Convergence on Budget Balance," Public Administration Review, Vol. 53, No. I (Jan./Feb. 1993): 28-30. "Political Implications of Budget Reform: A Retrospective" (with Glenn Deck and Marcia Lynn Whicker), Public Administration Review, Vol. 52, No. 6 (Nov./Dec. 1992): 594-603. "Species Loss Revisited" (with Julian Simon), Society, Vol. 30, No. I (Nov./Dec. 1992): 41-46. "Foundations of Democracy: On Respecting Politicians," Current, No. 347 (Nov. 1992): 21. "Learning and Nuclear Safety: New Reactors and United States Regulation" (with Elizabeth Nichols), Nuclear Engineering and Desig11,Vol. 137, No. 2 (Oct. 1992): 163-170. "On Being a Department Chair," PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 25, No. 1 (March 1992): 83-89. "Note: Finding Universalistic Solutions to Particularistic Pro-blems-Bilingualism Resolved Through a Second Language Requirement for Elementary Schools," Joumal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. II, No. 2 (Spring 1992): 310-314. "Can Norms Rescue Self-Interest or Macro Explanation be Joined to Micro Explanation?" Critical Review, Vol. 5, No.3 (Spring 1992): 301-323. "Indispensable Framework or Just Another Ideology? Prisoner's Dilemma as an Antihierarchial Game," Ratio11ality and Society, Vol. 4, No. I (1992): 8-23. "Political Cultures" (with Michael Thompson and Richard Ellis), Chapter 3 in Encyclopedia of Govemment and Politics (London/New York: Routledge, 1992), Vol. l, 507-520. "Foreword" to The Practice of Policy Analysis: Forty Year.r of Alt & Technology, Peter W. House and Roger D. Shull (Washington, D.C.: Compass Press, 1991), vii-xii. "Social Movements and Energy Issues," Appendix 3 in Co11versationsabout Electricity and the Future. Fi11dingsof an lntemational Seminar and Lessons from a Year of Surprises, ed. A. David Rossin and T. Kenneth F1owler (Berkeley, Calif.: The First 1990 Group on Electricity, June 1991), 251-261. "Efficiency as a Function of Culture," Admi11istratio11in Social Work, Vol. 15, No. 1 (1991): 147-153. "Has Modernity Killed Objectivity?" Society, Vol. 29, No. I (Nov./Dec. 1991): 33-36. "Help, Ma, I'm Being Controlled by Inanimate Objects," Southem Califomia Law Review, Vol. 65, No. I (November 1991): 241-253. '"Greatness' Revisited: Evaluating the Performance of Early American Presidents in Terms of Cultural Dilemmas" (with Richard Ellis), Presidential Studies Qumterly, Vol. XXI, No. 1 (Winter 1991): 15-34. "Why the Traditional Distinction between Public and Private Goods Should be Abandoned" (with Jesse Malkin), Joumal of Theoretical Politics, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Oct. 1991): 355-378. "The Procedural Presidency of George Bush" (with Kerry Mullins), Society, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Jan./Feb. 1991): 49-59. Revised version, Political Science Quarte1iy, Vol. 107, No. l (Spring 1992): 31-62. "Principi guida per la creazione di una scuola di public policy" [Principles of a School of Public Policy] in Problemi di Amministrazione Pubblica, XVI, No. 1 (1991): 141-182. "If Claims of Harm From Technology Are False, Mostly False, or Unproven, What Does That Tell Us About Science?" in Health, Lifestyle mid E11vim11me11t:Cou111eri11g the Pm,ic (Whitton, Middlesex: The Social Affairs Unit, 1991), 111-145. "Why Communism Collapses: The Moral and Material Failures of Command Economies are Intertwined" (with John Oark), Joumal of Public Policy, Vol. IO, No. 4 (1991): 361-390. "Public Policy," in The Genetic Revolution ed. Bernard D. Davis (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), 77-104. "Individual Differences in Risk Perception and Risk-Taking Preferences" (with Karl Dake), in The Analysis Communication mid Perception of Risk, ed. B. J. Garrick and W. C. Gekler (New York: Plenum, 1991), 15-24. "Making Ends Meet: The Social Malleability of Needs and Resources" (with Michael Thompson and Richard Ellis), Joumal of Behavioral Economics, Vol. 19, No. 2 (1990): 209-19. "Robert Bork and the Crime of Inequality," The Public Interest, No. 98 (Winter 1990): 98-117. 45

"Theories of Risk Perception: Who Fears What and Why?" (with Karl Dake), Daedalus, Vol. 119, No. 4 (Fall 1990): 41-60. "A Double Security: Federalism as Competition," Cato Joumal, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring/Summer 1990): 39-58. "Pretzel Logic," (with Joseph White), The Brookings Review, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Spring 1990): 7-8. "Dispelling America's Gloom: Why Bother?" The American Enterprise, Vol. I, No. 2 (March/April 1990): 26-31. "A Cultural Analysis of the Role of Abolitionists in the Corning of the Civil War" (with Richard Ellis), Camparotive Studies in Society and History, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Jan. 1990): 89-116. "A World of Difference-The Public Philosophies and Political Behaviors of Rival American Cultures," in The New American Political System. Second Version, ed. Anthony King (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute Press, 1990), 263-86. "The Shifting Sands of Cost-Benefit Analysis," in Scritti in onore di Alberto Mortam, Vol. II, ed. G. Bognetti, G. Muraro, and M. Pinchera (Milano: Franco Angeli, 1990), 1003- 1017. "Foreword" to Alienation and the Soviet Economy, Paul Craig Roberts (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1990), xi-xvi. "The Secret of Safety Lies in Danger" and "Thanks for the Commentary: Replies to Critics and Critiques," Symposium: Risk, Safety and Capitalism, Society, Vol. 27, No. I (Nov./Dec. 1989): 4-5, 28-31. "A Cultural Theory of Leadership," in Leadership and Politics: New Perspectives in Political Science, ed. Bryan D. Jones, (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1989), 87-113. "Frames of Reference Come From Cultures: A Predictive Theory," in The Relevance of Culture, ed. Morris Freilich (New York: Bergin and Garvey, 1989), 58-74. "What Is Permissible So That This People May Survive? Joseph the Administrator," PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Dec. 1989): 779-788. "If Institutions Have Consequences, Why Don't We Hear about Them from Moral Philosophers?" American Political Science Review, Vol. 83, No. 4 (Dec. 1989): 1343-1350. "How To Fix the Deficit-Really" (with Joseph White), The Public Interest, No. 94 (Winter 1989): 3-24. "The Triumph of Ronald Reagan," The National Interest, No. 13 (Winter 1988/1989): 39. "The Rise of Radical Egalitarianism and the Fall of Academic Standards," Academic Questions, Vol. 2, No. 4 {Fall 1989): 52-55. "Reconsidering the Two Presidencies" (with Duane Oldfield), Society, Vol. 26, No. 5 (July/August 1989): 54-59. "Ubiquitous Anomie: Reflections and Rejoinder," Public Adminstmtion Review, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Jan./Feb. 1989): 77. "From Individual to System Blame: A Cultural Analysis of Historical Change in the Law of Torts" (with Daniel Polisar), Joumal of Policy Histo1y, Vol. 1 No. 2 (1989): 129-155. "The Political Economy of Efficiency Has Not Changed But the World Has and So Have I," Public Budgeting and Financial Managemellf, Vol. 1, No. I (1989): 43-54. The same issue reprints "The Political Economy of Efficiency: Cost Benefit Analysis, Systems Analysis, and Program Budgeting," 1-42, first published in 1966. "Growing Together Apart: Restoring Mutuality to the Atlantic Alliance Through Pluripolarity," in Collective Defense or Str01egic Independence?: A ltemative Strategies for the Future, ed. Ted Galen Carpenter (Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 1989), 37-47. "The Perpetual Outsider Inside the Inner Sanctum: A Memoir of David Rosenberg," Foreword to Accounting for Public Policy: Power Professionals and Politics in Local Government, David Rosenberg (Manchester University Press, 1989), vii-ix. "Public Authority and the Public Interest: What the 1980s Budget Battles Tell Us About the American State" (with Joseph White), Joumal of Theoretical Politics, Vol. I, No. J (January 1989): 7-31. 46

"Minoring in the Majors," Califomia Monthly, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Dec. 1989): 24-27. "Teaching and Taldng: A Seminar on Cultural Theory," The Political Science Teacher, Vol. l, No. l (Winter 1988): 3-5. "Regulating By the Numbers: Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Nuclear Power" (with Elizabeth Nicholas), Evaluation Review, Vol. 12, No. 5 (October 1988): 528-546. "Ubiquitous Anomie: Public Service in an Era of Ideological Dissensus," Public Administration Review, Vol. 48, No. 4 (July/August 1988): 753-755. "Political Culture and Political Preferences" (with David Laitin), American Political Science Review, Vol. 82, No. 2 (June 1988): 589-598. "Exchange versus Grants: The Buck Case As a Struggle Between Equal Opportunity and Equal Results," University of San Francisco Law Review, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Summer 1988): 841-855. "Reading With a Purpose," Book Reseair:h Quanedy, Vol. 4 No. I (Spring 1988): 44-54. "A Cultural Theory of Budgeting," l11tematio11al Joumal of Public Administration, Vol. 11, No. 6 (1988): 651-677. "The Secret of Safety Lies in Danger," in The Constir111io11and the Regulation of Society, ed. Gary C. Bryner and Dennis L. Thompson (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1988), 43-62. "If You Can't Budget, How Can You Govern?" in Thinking About America: The United States in the 1990s, ed. Annelise Anderson and Dennis L. Bark (Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press, 1988), 265-275. "Cultural Theory of Responsibility," in Jan-Erik Lane, ed., Bureaucracy and Public Choice (London: Sage Publications, 1987), 283-294. "Moses As A Politician," in Religion and Politics, ed. Rainer Nick (Austria: Univ. of New Orleans, Institute for the Comparative Study of Public Policy and Univ. of Innsbruck, 1987), Proceedings of a conference held at University of Innsbruck, July 1985. "On the Balance of Budgetary Cultures," in A Centennial History of the Administrative State, ed. Ralph Clark Chandler (New York: Macmillan, 1987), 379-413. "Zeroing In On Peace?" Reaso11,Vol. 19, No. 5 (October 1987): 43-46. "Requisites of Radical Reform: Income Maintenance Versus Tax Preferences" (with Dennis Coyle), Joumal of Policy A11alysis and Mai,agement, Vol. 7, No. l (Fall 1987): 1-16. "What the Hell Is Going On? Reagan, Iran, and the Presidency," American Spectator, Vol. 20, No. 4 (April 1987): 14-17. "Choosing Preferences By Constructing Institutions: A Cultural Theory of Preference Formation," America,, Political Scie11ce Review, Vol. 81, No. I (March 1987): 3-2 Dialogue with Nelson W. Polsby in Ame1ic011 Govemment: l11stitutions, Policies 011dPolitics, by Paul A. Dawson (Glenview, Ill.: Scott Foresman, 1987), 26-'.!7, 140-141, 180-181, 2'.!2-223, 270-271, 354- 355, 394-395, 486-487, 548-549, 586-587. "Social Experimentation in the Face of Formidable Fables" (with Dennis Coyle), in Lessons Fmm the Income Mai11te11011ceExperiments, ed. Alicia H. Munnell (Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Brookings Institution, 1987), Proceedings of a conference held at Melvin Village, New Hampshire, Sept. 1986, 167-84. "Nuclear Power Regulation: Seeking Safety, Doing Harm?" (with Elizabeth Nichols), Regulation, No. J (1987): 45-53. "The Media's 'American Egalitarians,"' The Public Interest, No. 88 (1987): 94-104. "President Reagan As a Political Strategist," in Elections in America, ed. Kay Lehman Schlozman (Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1987), 221-238. Also in The Reaga,1 Legacy: Pmmise 011dPeiform011ce, ed. Charles 0. Jones (Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House, 1988), 289-305; and Society, Vol. 24, No. 4 (1987): 56-62. 47

"The Human Side of Government," Foreword to Steering the Elephant: How Washington Works, ed. Robert Rector and Michael Sanera (New York: Universe, 1987), xiii-xviii. "A Poverty of Distinction: From Economic Homogeneity to Cultural Heterogeneity in the Oassification of Poor People" (with Michael Thompson), Policy Sciences, Vol. 19 (1986): 163-199. "On Collaboration," PS: Political Science aJ1dPolitics (Spring 1986): 237-48. "Keeping Kosher: The Epistemology of Tax Expenditures," Joumal of Public Policy, Vol. 5, No. 3 (1986): 413-431. "A Cultural Theory of Information Bias in Organizations" (with Michael Thompson), Jounzal of Ma,iagement Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3 (May 1986): 273-286. "Schools of Public Policy in Poor Countries," Policy Studies Joumal, Vol. 14, No. 3 (March 1986): 407-13. "Doing More and Using Less: Utilization of Research as a Result of Regime," in Comparative Policy Research: Leaming from Experience, ed. Meinolf Dierkes, Hans Weiler, Ariane Berthoin Antal (Aldershot, England: Gower, 1986). Also in Rivista Trimestrale Di Scienza Della Amministrazione, Vol. 33, No. 4 (1986): 3-48. "Industrial Policies in American Political Cultures," in The Politics of Industrial Policy, ed. Oaude E. Barfield and William. A. Schambra (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1986), 15-32. "The 'Reverse Sequence' in Civil Liberties," The Public Interest, No. 78 (Winter 1985): 32-42. "No War without Dictatorship, No Peace without Democracy: Foreign Policy as Domestic Politics," Social Philosophy & Policy, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Autumn 1985): 176-191. Also in Nuclear Rights/ Nuclear Wrongs, ed. Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller, Jr., Jeffrey Paul, and John Ahrens (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986). "Idolatry and 'The Poor,"' Catholicism in C,isis, Vol. 3 No. 8 (July 1985): 42-44. "Federalism Means Inequality," Society, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Jan./ Feb. 1985): 42-49. "Objectives in Search of Programs, or Programs in Search of Objectives?", UYO Joumal of Govemment a,zd Administration, Vol. l, No. 1 (January 1985): 102-109. "A Cultural Theory of Expenditure Growth and (Un)Balanced Budgets," Joumal of Public Economics, Vol. 28 (1985): 349-357. "The Logic of Public Sector Growth," in Srate a,1dMarket, ed. Jan-Erik Lane (London: Sage Publications, Ltd., 1985), 231-270. "Item Veto Without a Global Spending Limit: Locking the Treasury After the Dollars Have Fled," Notre DaJ/le Joumal of Law. Ethics a,1d Public Policy, Vol. I, No. 2 (1985): 165-176. "Change in Political Culture," Politics, Joumal of the A ustrolia,1Political Science Association, Vol. 20, No. 2 (November 1985): 95-102. "The Once and Future School of Public Policy," The Public Interest, No. 79 (Spring 1985): 25-41. "Equality, Spending Limits, and the Growth of Government," in Control OJ Federal Spending, ed. C. Lowell Harriss, Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, Vol. 35, No. 4 (1985): 59-71. "Trial Without Error: Anticipation versus Resilience as Strategics for Risk Reduction," in Regulatory Refonn: New Vision or Old Curse?, ed. Margaret N, Maxcy and Robert Lawrence Kuhn (New York: Praeger, 1985), 200-221. "Budgets as Social Orders," Research in Urba,1Policy, Vol. l (1985): 183-197. "Why Policies Control Data and Data Cannot Determine Policies," (with Ellen Tenenbaum), Scandinavian Joumal of Ma,zagement Studies, Vol. l, No. 2 (November 1984): 83-100. "The Unanticipated Consequences of the 1984 Presidential Election," Tax Notes, Vol. 24, No. 2 (July 9, 1984): 193-200. "A Cultural Theory of Risk," Bulletin of the B1itish Psychological Society, Vol. 37 (Feb. 1984): A24. "Squaring the Political Circle: Industrial Policies and the American Dream," in The Industrial Policy Debate, ed. Chalmers Johnson (San Francisco: !CS Press, 1984), 27-44. 48

"Die Suche nach einer fchlerlosen Risikominderungsstrategie," in Ennittlung und Bewe11una industrieller Risiken, ed. Siegfried Lange (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1984). Conference Proceedings of the International Symposium on Risk and Safety Analysis, Bonn, West Germany, July 6-8, 1982. "The Transformation of Budgetary Norms," Australian Joumal of Public Administration, Vol. XLII, No. 4 (December 1983): 421-432. "A Proposal to Create a Cultural Theory of Risk" (with Michael Thompson, H. C. Kunreuther, and Engl V. Ley, eds.), The Risk Analysis Controversy: An Institutional Perspective. (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1983). "Dilemmas of American Foreign Policy," in Beyond Containment, ed. Aaron Wildavsky (San Francisco: res Press, 1983), 11-24. "The Soviet System," in Beyond Containment, ibid. 25-38. "From Chaos Comes Opportunity: The Movement Toward Spending Limits in American and Canadian Budgeting," Canadian Public Adminismuion, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Summer 1983): 163-181. "Information as an Organizational Problem," Joumal of Managemelll Studies, Vol. 20, No. l (January 1983): 29-40. "Modelling the U.S. Federal Spending Process: Overview and Implications" (with Michael Dempster) in The Grants Economy and Collective Consumption, ed. R. C. 0. Matthews and G. B. Stafford (London and Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1983), 267-309. "The Three Cultures: Explaining Anomalies in the American Welfare State," The Public Interest, No. 69 (Fall 1982): 45-58. "On the Uses of Adversity in Higher Education," in Responses to Fiscal Stress in Higher Education, ed. Robert A. Wilson (Tucson, Arizona: Center for the Study of Higher Education, College of Education, Univ. of Arizona, June 1982), 64-73. "The Budget as New Social Contract," Joumal of Contemporary Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Spring 1982): 3-20. "Pollution as Moral Coercion: Culture, Risk Perception, and Libertarian Values," Cato}oumal, Vol. 2, No. I (Spring 1982): 305-325. "How Can We Know the Risks We Face: Why Risk Selection is a Social Process" (with Mary Douglas), Risk Analysis, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1982): 49-51. "Introduction: Toward a New Budgetary Order," in The Federal Budget, ed. Michael J. Baskin and Aaron Wildavsky (San Francisco: JCS Press, 1982), 3-20. "Budgets as Compromises Among Social Orders," in The Federal Budget, ibid. 21-38. "Birthday Cake Federalism," in Ame1ican Federalism: New Challenges for the 1980s, ed. Robert B. Hawkins, Jr. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1982), 181-191. "Putting the Presidency on Automatic Pilot," in The Amelican Presidency: P,inciples and Problems. Vol. I., ed. Kenneth W. Thompson (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1982), 23-33. "What if the United States had had One Law for its Allies and Another for its Adversaries? The Suez Crisis," in What If? Explora1io11sin Social Science Fiction, ed. Nelson W. Polsby (Brattleboro, Vt.: Lewis, 1982). "Bare Bones: Putting Flesh on the Skeleton of American Federalism," The Future of Federalism in the 1980s (Washington, D.C.: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, July 1981). Report and Papers from the Conference on the Future of Federalism, Alexandria, Virginia, July 25-26, 1980, 67-88. "The Three-Party System-1980 and After," The Public lllterest, No. 64 (Summer 1981): 47-57. "Budgetary Futures: Why Politicians May Want Spending Limits in Turbulent Times," Public Budgeting and Finance, Vol. I, No. I (Spring 1981): 20-27. "Rationality in Writing: Linear and Curvilinear," Joumal of Public Policy, Vol. I, Part I (February 1981): 125-140. 49 "Managing Information" (with Jane Yurow and Stanley Pogrow), Issues in Information Policy (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, February 1981), 87-101. "The Party of Government, the Party of Opposition, and the Party of Balance: An American View of the Consequences of the 1980 Election," in The American Elections of 1980, ed. Austin Ranney (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1981), 329-350. "Big Government and the Private Foundations," Policy Studies.Joumai, Vol. 9, No. 8 (1981): 1175-1190. "Budgetary Reform in an Age of Big Government," in Colllemporary Public Administration, ed. Thomas Vocino and Jack Rabin (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1981), 261-291. "If Dissemination is the Solution, What is the Problem?" (with Jack Knott), Knowledge, Vol. 1, No. 4 (June 1980): 537-578. Reprinted in K11owledge For Policy: Improving Educatio11Through Research, ed. Don S. Anderson and Bruce J. Badly {London: Falmer Press, 1991), 214-24. "Richer ls Safer," The Public Interest, No. 60 (Summer 1980): 23-39. "ls Expenditure Limitation Possible Without a Constitutional Amendment?" The Congressio11aiBudget Process: Some Views from the Inside, publication no. 32, (July 1980). Proceedings of a conference cosponsored by the Center for the Study of American Business and the Department of Political Science, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, February 22-23 1980. "The 1980s: Monopoly or Competition?", Imergovemmental Perspective, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Summer 1980): 15-18. "Why Amending the Constitution is Essential to Achieving Self-Control Through Self-Limitation of Expenditure," The Bureaucrat, Vol. 9, No. I (Spring 1980): 48-53. "Wealthier is Healthier," Regulation Magazine (Jan./Feb. 1980): 10-12, 55. "Limiting Government Expenditure by Constitutional Amendment," Making Bureaucracies Work, ed. Carol H. Weirs and Allen H. Barton (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1980). "The Plebiscitary Presidency: Direct Election as Class Legislation," Common Sense, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Winter 1979): 1-JO. "On Change ... or, There is No Magic Size for an Increment," with M. A. H. Dempster, Political Studies, Vol. 27, No. 3 (September 1979): 371-389. "Regional Equity as Political Welfare," Taxing a11dSpending, Vol. 2, No. 2 (April 1979). "No Risk Is The Highest Risk of All," Ame1ica11Scie11tist, Vol. 67 (Jan./Feb. 1979): 32-37. Reprinted in Readings in Risk, ed. Theodore S. Glickman and Michael Gough (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1990), 120-127. "Using Public Funds to Serve Private Interests," Sociery, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Jan./Feb. 1979): 39-42. "Improving the Quality of Life: Television Repair" (with Lee Friedman), Technology in Society, Vol. I (1979): 329-338. "Was Nixon Tough? Dilemmas of American Statecraft," Society, Vol. 16, No. I (Nov./Dec. 1978): 25-35. Also in The Post-Imperial Presidency, ed. Vincent Davis (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1980). "A Budget for All Seasons? Why the Traditional Budget Lasts," The Public Administration Review, No. 6 (Nov./Dec. 1978): 501-509. Also in State Audit: Developmems in Public Accoumabiliry, ed. B. Geist (London & Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1981), 253-268. "The Prophylactic Presidency" (with Sanford Weiner), The Public Interest, No. 52 (Summer 1978): 3-19. Also in The Third Cemury, ed. Seymour Martin Upset (Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press, 1980), 133-152. "The Malaise of the American Foundation" (with James Douglas), The Times Higher Education Supp/emellt (April 14, 1978); and Russell Sage Foundation Annual Repo1t, (1976-1977), 19-54. Also as "The Knowledgeable Foundations," in The Full/re of Foundations (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Change Magazine Press, 1978), 10-41, plus discussion, 42-79. 50

"Implementation as Evolution" (with Giandomenico Majone), Policy Studies Review Annuol, Vol. 2., ed. Howard E. Freeman (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1978), 103- 117. "Dogma versus Skepticism," Policy Studies Joumal, Vol. 7, No. 2 (1978): 311-316. "Jimmy Carter's Theory of Governing" (with Jack Knott), The Wilson Quarterly (Winter 1977): 49-67. "What's In It For Us? America's National Interest in Israel," Middle East Review, Vol. IO, No. I (Fall 1977): 5-13. "There ls No Such Thing as a Free Operation," Across the Board, Vol. 14, No. 8 (1977): 45-57. "Changing Forward Versus Changing Back," a review of Politics and Markets: The World's Political Economic Systems by Charles E. Lindholm (New York: Basic Books, 1977) in the Yale Law Jounzal, Vol. 88, No. 1 (Nov. 1978): 217-234. "Doing Better and Feeling Worse: The Political Pathology of Health Policy," Daedalus (Winter 1976): 105-123. Also in Organization-Environment Relationships, ed. Janet M. Kraegel (Wakefield, Mass.: Nursing Resources, Inc., 1980), 203-221. "A Tax by Any Other Name: The Donor Directed Automatic Percentage Contribution Bonus, a Budget Alternative for Financing Government Support of Charity" (with David A. Good), Policy Sciences, Vol. 7 (1976): 251-279. "A Bias Toward Federalism: Confronting the Conventional Wisdom on the Delivery of Governmental Services," Special issue of Publius (Serving the Public in a Metropolitan Society), Vol. 6, No. 2 (July 1976). "Economy and Environment/Rationality and Ritual: A Review of the Uncertain Search for Environmental Quality," Accounting, Organizations and Society (June 1976): 117- 129; and Stanforri Law Review, Vol. 29, Issue 1 (Fall 1976): 183-204. "Principles for a Graduate School of Public Policy," Urlian Analysis, Vol. 3, (Jan. 1976): 127-152. "Policy Analysis is What Information Systems Are Not," Proceedings of the American Society for Infonnation Science, Vol. 13 (1976): 1-2. Also New Yo1* Affairs, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Spring 1977): 10-23. "The Past and Future Presidency," The Public Interest, No. 41 (Fall 1975): 56-76. Also in Classics of the Ame1ica,1 Presidency, ed. Harry A. Bailey, Jr. (Oak Park, Ill.: Moore Publishing, 1980). "Oil and the Decline of Western Power," (with Edward Friedland and Paul Seabury), Political Science QuaJterly, Vol. 90, No. 3 (Fall 1975): 437-450. "The Richest Boy in Poltava," Society, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Nov./ Dec. 1975): 48-56. "The Strategic Retreat on Objectives," a review essay of Milbrey Wallin McLaughlin, Evaluation a,1d Refonn. The Elementa,y a,1d Secondary Education Act of 1979/ Title[, a Rand Educational Policy Study (Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1975); and Raymond Boudon, Education. Opportu11ity, a,1dSocial Inequality: Chm1gi11gProspects in W estem Society (New York: Wiley Interscience Publica­ tion, John Wiley & Sons, 1974) in Policy Analysis, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Summer 1976): 499-526. "Public Support for Presidents," (with Samuel Kernell and Peter W. Sperlich), in Perspectives 011 the Presidency, ed. Aaron Wildavsky (Boston: Little, Brown, 1975), 148-181. "Towards a Predictive Theory of Government Expenditure: U.S. Domestic Appropriations" (with Otto Davis and M.A. H. Dempster), B1itish Jo11111alof Political Science, Vol. 4, No. 4 (1974): 419-452. "Consumer Report," a review of Politicia,1s, Bureaucrats and the Consu/ta,zt, by Garry D. Brewer, in Scie11ce (Dec. 28, 1973): 1335-1338. "Government and the People," Comme11taiy, Vol. 56, No. 2 (August 1973): 25-32. "The Annual Expenditure Jncrement--or How Congress Can Regain Control of the Budget," The Public /11terest, No. 33 (Fall 1973): 84-108; also cited as "The Annual Expenditure Increment," Wo1*i11g Papers 011House Committee Orgm1izatio11and Operation, Select Committee on Committees, U.S. House of Representatives. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, June 1973) "If Planning is Everything, Maybe It's Nothing,"Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 2 (June 1973): 127-153. 51 "Why Planning Fails in Nepal," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Dec. 1972): 508-528. "The Search for the Oppressed," Freedom at Issue, No. 16 (Nov./Dec. 1972): 5-16. "The Self-Evaluating Organization," Public Administration Review, Vol. 32, No. 5 (Sept./Oct. 1972): 509-520; and in Program Evaluation i11the Health Fields, Vol. 2, ed. Herbert Schulberg and Frank Baker (New York: Human Sciences Press. 1979),88-109. "The Revolt Against the Masses," in The Revolt Against the Masses and Other Essays 011Politics and Public Policy, ed. Aaron Wildavsky (New York: Basic Books, 1971), 29-51. "The Meaning of 'Youth' in the Struggle for Control of the Democratic Party," in Revolt Against the Masses and Other Essays, ibid. 270-287. "On the Process of Budgeting II: An Empirical Study of Congressional Appropriations" (with Otto A. Davis and M. A. H. Dempster), Studies in Budgeting, ed. Byrne et al. (Amsterdam-London: North-Holland Publishing, 1971), 292-375. "A Program of Accountability for Elementary Schools," Phi Delta Kappa (Dec. 1970): 212-216. "The Political Feasibility of Income by Right" (with Bill Cavala), Public Policy, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Spring 1970): 321- 354. "Leave City Budgeting Alone! A Survey, Case History and Recommendations for Reform" (with Arnold Meltsner), Financing the Metmpolis: The Role of Public Policy i11Uroa,1 Economies, Vol. 4., ed. John P. Crecine and Louis H. Masotti (Beverly Hills, Sage Publications, 1970), 311-358. "ABM as an Issue or You Can't Tell the Strangeloves Without a Scorecard," Commentary, Vol. 48, No. 5 (Nov. 1969): 55-63. "A Third-World Averaging Strategy" (with Max Singer), U.S. Foreign Policy: Perspectives mid Proposals for the 1970s, ed. Paul Seabury and Aaron Wildavsky (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969), 15-35. "Rescuing Policy Analysis from PPBS," Public Administration Review, Vol. 29, No. 2 (March/April 1969): 189-202. "Presidential Succession and Disability: Policy Analysis for Unique Cases," The Presidency, ed. Aaron Wildavsky (Boston: Little, Brown, 1969), 777-795. "Budgeting as a Political Process," The lntemational Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 2, ed. David L. Sills (New York: Macmillan, 1968), 192-199. "Richard Nixon, President of the United States," Transaction, Vol. 5, No. 10 (Oct. 1968): 8-15. "The Empty-Head Blues: Black Rebellion and White Reaction," The Public Interest, No. 11 (Spring 1968): 3-16. "Aesthetic Power or the Triumph of the Sensitive Minority Over the Vulgar Mass: A Political Analysis of the New Economics," Daedalus (Fall 1967): 1115-1128. "The Political Economy of Efficiency: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Systems Analysis, and Program Budgeting," Public Administration Review, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Dec. 1966): 292-310. "The Two Presidencies," Transaction (Dec. 1966): 7-14. Also in Classics of the American Presidency, ed. Harry A. Bailey, Jr. (Oak Park, lll.: Moore, 1980). "On the Process of Budgeting: An Empirical Study of Congressional Appropriation" (with Otto A. Davis and M. A. H. Dempster) in Papers 011 No11-Ma1*et Decisio11 Making, ed. Gordon Tullock (Charlottesville: Thomas Jefferson Center for Political Economy, Univ. of Virginia, 1966), 63-132. "A Theory of the Budgetary Process" (with Otto Davis and M. A. H. Dempster), America,, Political Science Review, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Sept. 1966): 529-547. "Toward a Radical lncrementalism: A Proposal to Aid Congress in Reform of the Budgetary Process," Congress: The First B1w1ch of Govemment (Washington: American Enterprise Institute, 1966), 115-165. "Comprehensive Versus Incremental Budgeting in the Department of Agriculture" (with Arthur Hammond), Administrative Science Qua1te1iy, Vol. JO, No. 3 (Dec. 1965): 321- 346. "Private Markets and Public Arenas," Amelican Behavioral Sciemist, Vol. 9 (Sept. 1965): 33-37. 52

"The Goldwater Phenomenon: Purists, Politicians and the Two-Party System," Review of Politics, Vol. 27, No. 3 (July 1965): 386-413. "Practical Consequences of the Theoretical Study of Defense Policy," Public Administration Review, Vol. 25, No. l (March 1965): 90-103. "Uncertainty and Decision-Making at the National Conventions" (with Nelson W. Polsby), in Politics and Social Life, ed. Polsby et al. (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1963), 370-389. "The Intelligent Citizen's Guide to the Abuses of Statistics: The Kennedy Document and the Catholic Vote," ibid. 825-44. "The Analysis of Issue-Contexts in the Study of Decision Making," Joumal of Politics, Vol. 24 (1962): 717-732. "On the Superiority of National Conventions," Review of Politics, Vol. 24, No. 3 (July 1962): 307-319. "Nuclear Clubs or Nuclear Wars," Yale Review, Vol. 61, No. 3 (March 1962): 345-362. "Political Implications of Budgetary Reform," Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Autumn 1961): 183-190. "TVA and Power Politics," American Political Science Review, Vol. 65, No. 3 (Sept. 1961): 576-590. "Party Discipline Under Federalism: Implications of Australian Experience," Social Research, (Winter 1961): 437-458. "Uncertainty and Decision-Making at the National Conventions" (with Nelson W. Polsby), The Politics of Uroa11Renewal (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1961), 370-389. "What Can I Do? Ohio Delegates View the Democratic Convention," Inside Politics: The N atio11al Conventions, ed. Paul Tillett (Dobbs Ferry: Oceana Publications, 1960), 112- 130. "Choosing the Lesser Evil: The Policy-Maker and the Problem of Presidential Disability," Patiiamentary Affairs, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Winter 1959-60): 25-37. "A Methodological Critique of Duverger's Political Parties," Joumal of Politics, Vol. 21, No. 2 (May 1959): 303-318. "Housing and Slum Clearance under the American Federal System," Public A dmi11istration,The Joumal of the Australian Regional Gmups of the Royal Institute of Public Administratio11, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Dec. 1955): 229-236. "Exploring the Content of McCarthyism," The Australian Outlook, Vol. 9, No. 2 (June 1955): 88-104.

Newspaper Articles

"Facts, Not Species, Are Periled" (with Julian L. Simon), The New Y 011' Times, May 13, 1993. "The Seven Fat Years: And How to Do It Again" (book reviews), The New Yoti< Times, May 17, 1992. "A President Without Policies" (excerpt from The Beleagured Presidency), Wall Street Joumal, Nov. 25, 1991. "President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime" (book reviews), Wall Street Joumal, May 2, 1991. "The Shield of Faith: The Hidden Struggle for Strategic Defense" (book reviews), Wall Street Joumal, Mar. 15, 1989. "Don't Do Something, Mr. President, Just Stand There," Wall Street Joumal, Oct. 7, 1987. "Reagan the Strategist," Wall Street Joumal, Jan. 3, 1986. "Freedom With Justice: Catholic Social Thought and Liberal Institutions" (book reviews), The New York Times, Dec. 9, 1984. "Greed ls Not Enough" (book reviews), The New Y 011' Times, Mar. 14, 1982. "Memorandum for the President" (book reviews), The New Y 011' Times, Feb. 22, 1981. "Changing of the Guard" (book reviews), The New York Times, Aug. 31, 1980. "In the Absence of Power" (book reviews), The New Y 011' Times, Apr. 27, 1980. "The Carter Presidency and Beyond" (book reviews), The New York Times, Apr. 27, 1980. 53 "The President Who Failed" (book reviews), The New York Times, Apr. 27, 1980. "Towards Participartory Democracy?" (with Nelson W. Polsby), Wall Street Jounud, Aug. 3, 1972. Reprinted in part in Practicing Texas Politics, 2d ed., ed. E.W. Jones, J.E. Ericson, L. C. Brown, R. S. Trotter (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974), 438-439. "The Legitimacy of the Presidency" (with Nelson W. Polsby), Outlook: The Washington Post, Oct. 28, 1973. "ls Nixon the Favorite? Don't Bet On It" (with Nelson W. Polsby), Wall Street Journal, May 25, 1972.

Works in Progress

But Is It True? On the Relationship between Knowledge and Action in the Great Environmental and Safety Episodes of Our Time. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, forthcoming. Safer Power (with Elizabeth Nichols). Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, forthcoming.

A collection of essays on federalism.

A collection of essays on budgeting (edited by Brendon Swedlow).

A collection of essays on cultural theory (edited by Brendon Swedlow).

A collection of essays on economics, philosophy, and rational choice (edited by Sun-Ki Chai).

A third edition of lmpleme11tatio11.

U.C. BERKELEYLIBRARIES

\ \\\\\\\\i\!.\Ml! lllil \ij\\ 111111\11 I~\\\\ Ill\ 11111 (114006202