IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS, VOL. SMC-2, NO. 5, NOVEMBER 1972

favored status with the Internal Revenue Service) abdicatescompletely its responsibility to represent its members inplacing before the public an accurate picture of the tech-nological features of major issues and to ensure appropriatescientific input to the establishment of national priorities.

CONCLUDING COMMENT

Most of today's serious social problems can only beameliorated by the intelligent use of technology. Technologycannot change the urban or social environment and humanbehavior; it cannot solve major social problems such asunequal education or health care; it cannot solve theproblems of increasing productivity in the service sector(which now employs the majority of our workers) and atthe same time decreasing unemployment; it cannot yield

an appropriate international trade balance regardless ofdiplomatic and international economic developments.

But in each of these aspects, the human and social use oftechnology can lead to marked improvements in our qualityof life. The technology exists. The needs are widely recog-nized. We are primarily stymied by our inability to developworkable procedures to establish national priorities at atime when so many competitive forces are acting on thepolitical decision-makers that it is increasingly difficult tofocus efforts or resources above critical size on any specificprogram. Into this gap, the technology profession mustmove with the individual engineer, the professional society,the special advisory and evaluative committees, and themajor national resources such as the National Bureau ofStandards and the National Laboratories.

Toward a Framework for National Goals andPolicy Research: Notes on Social Indicators

F. KARL WILLENBROCK, FELLOW, IEEE

Abstract-Quantitative information and factual indicators areessential for informed decision-making, and science and technologypolicy-making is no exception. However, there are no social indicators asthere are economic indicators. Direct measures which relate to tech-nological accomplishments are almost impossible to obtain. Analogies andanecdotes are the arguments used for programs proposed in problemareas rather than specific measures or specific indicators which permit theevaluation of the effectiveness of the program.

In addition to the lack of quantitative data, there are economic andinstitutional practices and regulations on an international, or state andlocal level that often act as powerful nontechnical barriers to technologicalenhancement and change. These include state highway regulations,state building codes, tax rates and structures, the patent system, re-strictive application of anti-trust and trade regulation, absence of andinadequacy of nonperformance based standards, and subsidies and tariffs.The methods of scientific investigation and the social engineering

called systems analysis which have been primarily successful in thesolution of military and space problems have important roles to play inthis area. They can provide the framework for the determination of theparticular types of qualitative information needed to measure the nation'ssocial health.

INTRODUCTIONQ UANTITATIVE information and factual indicators, in

general, are obviously essential for informed decision-making, and science and technology policy-making is

Manuscript received April 28, 1972. This paper was presented atthe IEEE Workshop on National Goals, Science Policy, and Tech-nology Assessment, Warrenton, Va., April 26-28, 1972.The author is with the Institute for Applied Technology, National

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234.

no exception. We are by now so accustomed to seeing andusing economic indicators, such as gross national product,price indices, and national income accounts, that economicpolicies would hardly be considered without reference to awide variety of these indicators. Social policies and policiesrelated to science and technology, in comparison, do nothave similar indicators. Although it may appear as thoughcomprehensive economic indicators have always been avail-able on a routine basis, they actually were developed in the'thirties, and then were not developed overnight. There isa long history of research and development by economistsand econometricians because progress required theoreticaldevelopments and was not just a matter of collecting data.It appears, therefore, that there is a long way to go beforequantitative support for science and technology policiescan attain the sophistication and scope available in the areaof economics. No attempt will be made here to lay out thenecessary theories for science and technology indicators.What we shall do first is to discuss the need for quantitativeinformation.

Quantitative information for rational decision-making isessential because it enters into nearly all aspects of theprocess of arriving at good choices. One type of quantitativeinformation can serve to identify problem areas. The greaterthe detail in the information, the sharper can be the focusin terms of providing an understanding of the problem andthe nature of the action that might be needed. For example,

598

WILLENBROCK: NOTES ON SOCIAL INDICATORS

in the health area, customary indicators include the mor-tality rate and the many categories in which mortalityrates are available. Another example is the measure of pro-ficiencies of clinical laboratories, which relates to the diag-nostic effectiveness of medical tests (an area in which theNational Bureau of Standards is doing some research). Asecond type of quantitative information indicates the contri-butions or consequences of past policies or programs.Revenue attributed to a new technology is an example of thistype. Another example is the increase in leisure time avail-able due to increased productivity, which may be due, inturn, to technological advances in and the availability of airconditioning, individual transportation, and other suchfacilities. A third category of quantitative information dealswith identifying the state of resources available for commit-ment. The resources can be of various sorts: the state-of-the-art of a technology, people skills in broad aggregationsor specific categories, and dollars.

STATUS OF SOCIAL INDICATORS

A comprehensive study of social indicators was made bya blue-ribbon panel of social scientists convened by theSecretary of the Department of Health, Education, andWelfare at the direction of President Johnson in 1966. Thestudy resulted in the document Toward A Social Report in1969 [1]. The purpose of this study was "to develop thenecessary social statistics and indicators to supplement thoseprepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Councilof Economic Advisers. With these yardsticks, we can bettermeasure the distance we have come and plan for the wayahead." The title of the report indicates rather directly thestatus of social indicators in this country at this time. Infact, the report begins with the statement: "The Nationhas no comprehensive set of statistics reflecting socialprogress or retrogression. There is no Government pro-cedure for periodic stocktaking of the social health of theNation." This report is still current in terms of its findingson the status of social indicators. The report defines a socialindicator as "a statistic of direct normative interest whichfacilitates concise, comprehensive and balanced judgmentsabout the condition of major aspects of a society."The report sought indicators for health and illness, social

mobility, the physical environment, income and poverty,public order and safety, learning, science, art, and participa-tion and alienation in social institutions. Clearly, all ofthese aspects of society are relevant to policy makers inscience and technology. However, the tone of the report isdiscouraging.

There is a chapter on participation in social institutions,but "because of the lack of measures of improvement orretrogression in this area, it aspires to do no more than poseimportant questions." Even the chapters included leavemany, perhaps most, questions unanswered:

"We have measures of death and illness, but no measuresof physical vigor or mental illness. We have measures ofthe level and distribution of income, but no measuresof the satisfaction that income brings. We have measuresof air and water pollution, but no way to tell whether our

environment is, on balance, becoming uglier or morebeautiful. We have some clues about the test performanceof children, but no information about their creativity orattitude toward intellectual endeavor."

The closing sentences of the report summarize the reasonsfor the existing state of social indicators and what needs tobe done:

"The social statistics that we need will almost never beobtained as a by-product of accounting or administrativeroutine, or as a result of a series of ad hoc decisions,however intelligent each of these decisions might be. Onlya systematic approach based on the informational require-ments of public policy will do."

This last point bears some elaboration. The indicators,per se, are intended to reflect the salient aspects of societalconcerns and are descriptive of the status. They shouldsatisfy certain criteria such as relevancy, consistency, andknown relations to important variables. But if they are toprovide more than just casual information, it is necessaryto have adequate social theories and theories of socio-economic processes which accommodate important policyand performance variables which correspond to the socialindicators. Without these models, social indicators, howeverresponsive, will only be useful as after-the-fact indicatorsand their usefulness to policy planning will be severelylimited.

ATTEMPTS AT MEASURING THE IMPACT OF SCIENCE ANDTECHNOLOGY

The accomplishments of science and technology arealmost too obvious to mention. Television, digital com-puters, jet aircraft, and nuclear energy have directly affectedour lives in only the past two decades. Technological ad-vances have not only added conveniences and comfortthrough new and improved products and services, buthave improved our standard of living through increasedproductivity of our productive resources. Both broad andspecific measures of these advances are often cited and arefamiliar to all of us.

1) Television, jet airplanes in passenger use, digital com-puters, and nuclear energy contributed nothing to the GNPin 1945; today they contribute millions of dollars and morethan one million jobs in the U.S. alone.

2) The trade balances of technology-intensive manufac-tured products for selected years average (in billions ofdollars) [2]

1957 1964 1969 1970

ExportImportBalance

8.81.67.2

12.1 20.6 22.63.1 11.3 13.09.0 9.3 9.6

3) There are now more than 300 000 persons in thiscountry engaged in jobs related to one synthetic product-nylon.

It is simple enough to cite example after example oftechnological advances, and these accomplishments are ob-vious, yet the direct measures relating to the vast extent of

599

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS, NOVEMBER 1972

TABLE IPROJECT OBJECTIVES, BENEFICIARIES, AND MEASURES OF ECONOMIC EFFECTS DEVISED FOR SEVEN NBS PROJECTS

Project Objective Direct Beneficiaries IdentifiedMeasures of Economic Effects

Devised

High-accuracy large-forcecalibration service

High-accuracy time and

frequency service

Standardization of a spe-

cialized coaxial connector

Standard reference ma-

terials: iron and steel

Standard reference mia-terials: metals in oil

Setniconductor resistivity

measurement

LPG meter calibration

to provide 106 lb deadweight cal-

ibration service having 2 parts in

101 uncertainty

to provide time and frequencysignals of highest accuracy (5parts in 1012 uncertainty)

to aid in the development of a

standard design for a precisioncoaxial connector used in high-frequency measurement

to provide iron and steel standards

used for analytical instrumentcalibration

to provide metallo-organic stan-

dards used for analytical instru-ment calibration in spectroscopicoil analysis as used for diagnosisof wear

to provide an improved resistance

measurement method for qualitycontrol in the semiconductor ma-terials industryto reduce vending errors in meter-ing LPG through use by the statesof an NBS-designed meter cal-ibration device and procedure

rocket motor and transducer manu-facturers

Department of Defense, NASA,U.S. Geological Survey, manufac-turers of special electronic equip-ment

Department of Defense, manufac-turers of special electronic equip-ment

manufacturers of iron and steel

Department of Defense, majorrailroads, trucking industry

semiconductor industry at siliconbuyer-seller interface

vendors and users of LPG

1) the cost of duplication of effortby outside groups due to theabsence of the NBS service wasa measure of unrealized benefit

1) value of equipment sold to andused by beneficiaries to utilizeNBS service

2) value of labor for use andmaintenance of equipment

1) value of coaxial connectors sold2) value of ancillary test equip-

ment using connector3) value of private investments to

develop and manufacture con-nector

4) reduction in test setup time byusers

1) value of raw material savingsand other production cost sav-ings due to accuracy refinementin chemical analysis attributedto instrumental calibration im-provements

1) cost ofequipment failures whichcan now be avoided by usingrefined diagnostic techniquesusing NBS standards

2) cost reduction in maintenanec1) savings due to reduction of

product rejection2) savings in testing costs

1) value of the fraction of thecommodity measured in error,and the value of the reductionof this error, through calibra-tion of vendor's meters

2) states' investment to implementNBS procedure

specific scientific and technological accomplishments are

often virtually impossible to obtain. Many scientific andtechnological contributions are advances in knowledge,methods, and procedures which are not marketed, or inintermediate products and services whose contributions tothe final output are difficult to assess. Thus quantitativemeasures that might assist policy-making or resources

allocation in terms of priorities and findings are nonexistenton a routine level and hardly adequate even on an ad hocbasis. The studies of Project HINDSIGHT and TRACEhave shown that relating the component contributions oftechnological advances are not only extremely complexbut also controversial even after the fact.

Several years ago, the National Bureau of Standards(NBS) nade an exploratory study [3] of the costs and bene-fits accruing to seven separate widely disparate technologicalprojects conducted at NBS. This study is cited here,not because the subject projects have intrinsic interest or

the benefit-cost ratios are particularly startling, but in orderto illustrate some of the problems involved in estimatingthe effects of technological activities. Of course, the dif-ficulties encountered in this study are not nearly as severe

as trying to estimate the utilitarian nature of basic scienceprojects.

The NBS study estimated the past economic benefitsof seven of its projects whose objectives were to improvephysical measurement capabilities. Table I (from [3])provides a brief description of the projects and the measures

of economic effects used. Table II (from [3]) summarizesthe findings. These projects were selected mainly becauseof the anticipated ease in tracing direct benefits, and thebenefits listed in Table II are measures of direct NBSinteraction with the private sector and other governmentagencies. These are gross figures in the sense that theremay be disbenefits affecting some parties which are notincluded, e.g., some raw material previously required mayno longer be used. The figures do not include indirecteconomic benefits nor do they include the dollar surrogateof intangible benefits. Because of the complexities, physicalscientists familiar with the technology were essential to thestudy, and often areas in which great benefits were thoughtto exist had to be ignored because of lack of data. Themethods used to estimate the benefits are shown in Table Iand indicate the variety of methods that were required. Theresults of this special effort were at best inconclusive andillustrated the many real difficulties encountered.

If the problem of tracing programmatic effects are so

great for reasonably specific aspects of technology, obtain-

Project

600

601WILLENBROCK: NOTES ON SOCIAL INDICALORS

TABLE IICOSTS AND BENEFITS (IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) OF SEVEN NBS PROJFCiS

Realized (through 1967)

Total Ai

BenefitsCosts Total NBS Share Costs

Total Expected (1968--1970)"

.nnual Average

BenefitsTotal NBS Share Costs

BenefitslTotal NBS Share

Large-force calibrationTime and frequency serviceCoaxial connectorsSRM (iron and steel)SRM (metals in oil)Semiconductor resistivityLPG meter calibration

Totals

1.3503.0000.225n0.192 P0.4060.2350.072 "

0 0 0.071a18.20 8.80 0.405b0.03 e 0.005 0.019n

209.30' 2.34' 0.1921 1 0.0580.60' 0.54i 0.034k1.10i 0.88 i 0.008

0.787

a Equipment cost of $1 258 000 depreciated over 50 years, plus annual average operating cost of $46 000 based on 1965--1966 operating costof $92 000.

b Average annual cost of development of cesium beam standards 1958--1967 ($1.6 million 10), plus capital cost of WWVL and WWVBdepreciated over 10 years, 1965-1974 ($0.7 million + 10), plus annual average operating cost for WWVL and WWVB in fiscal years (FY)1964-1967 ($0.7 million 4).

c Sales of equipment of $12.2 million estimated to extend from 1963 or 1964 through May 1967, or approximately 4 years ($12.2 million ^- 4),plus labor for use and maintenance for 2 years ($6.0 million 2).

d NBS contribution to sales divided by 4 years ($5.8 million 4), plus NBS contribution to labor divided by 2 years ($3.0 million- 2).e Actual sales of connectors in 1967 and estimated potential in 1968-1970.Reduced cost of Mn, Ni, and Cr, plus reduced cost of steel production using basic oxygen process--1966 only.

9 Based on accelerated rate of steel production using basic oxygen process.h Reduced maintenance cost for railroad and trucking engines, plus reduced losses of aircraft due to engine failure.Realized increase in yield for 12 months in FY 1965-1966.Value of reduction in measurement error-1966.

k Total FY 1961-1967 costs of $235 000 divided by 7 years.1 Totals not available; estimates are annual for selected years.m Expected costs and benefits are a total for the 3 years 1968-1970 and are estimated at annual average rates shown in past unless

other estimates were available.n Based on the period 1956-1967.P 1966 only.q Based on the period 1958-1966.r Based on historical growth rate of semiconductor materials market over past 8 years.

ing quantitative data on a broader basis that require theaggregation of many individual effects provides even greaterchallenges. Thus, it is safe to say that broad policy questionssuch as the balance between basic and applied R&D or theallocation of resources within fields of a particular technicaldiscipline will not soon get much assistance from availableindicators.

SOME SPECIFIC NATIONAL PROBLEMS

Perhaps it will be useful to direct this discussion intospecific national problems. Implicit in the discussion of theseproblems are a number of indicators that are used in theproblem description. Some generalizations can be drawnfrom these examples.The National Academy of Sciences has distinguished two

different categories of national problems: a) central prob-lems, such as leadership in nuclear power, space exploration,and defense that are national in focus, sponsorship, andoverall direction; and b) distributed problems, such as thoserelated to the environment, urbanization, and power re-

sources that are characterized by local responsibility inapproach to solutions and by local benefit in anticipatedresults [4]. Most of the problems we have chosen fordiscussion here fall in the second category. The existence of

these problems on a local or even regional level is not new.

What is new is the realization that they are quite universalin character, have escalated into national problems, and,as a consequence, require a national approach for theirsolution.

SOCIETAL OR "QUALITY-OF-LIFE" PROBLEMS

Recently, increasing concern has been voiced from nearlyevery segmenit of the society regarding the problems ofenvironmental pollution, urbanization, mass transporta-tion, public health, energy resources, housing, and so forth.Public and private sentirnent is insisting that more effectivemethods are needed to cope with these problems. Maniyfactors have been responsible for the deterioration of thequality of our life and environment, some of which were em-

phasized by President Nixon in August 1971 (see President'sMessage [5, p. vii]): emphasis on quantitative at the expense

of qualitative growth; failure to consider environmentalfactors as a necessary part of planning and decision-making;increasing dependence on conveniences without regard fortheir impact on the environment and without recognizingthe fundamental interdependence of all its parts, includingman.

Project

06.05 c

0.03209.3068.30 h0.60k12.38

285.38

02.95 d0.0052.341.36 h0.5410.88i

8.075

?0.73500.5760.1740.0250.024

1 534

?18.150.052e

1120.009204.90

4.68 r

3.30

1351.082

9

8.850.0095.60g4.084.212.64

25.409

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS, NOVEMBER 1972

For the first time in our history, our activities may belimited not by the scarcity of our resources but by theproblems of disposing our effluents [6], and "the grossnational product, which has been regarded as the ap-propriate measure of economic performance and progress,is now being recognized as a surrogate measure of grossnational pollution" [7].The plight of our major cities with their housing, mass

transportation, health, and other problems, has also beenwell documented: "The explosive growth of urban popula-tion and the increasing concentration of nonwhite poorin the central city constitute the . . . principal concern ofAmerica's metropolitan areas" [8]. Urban slums no longerplay their historic role as a "staging area" for the upwardmovement of their inhabitants; and the mushrooming ofmany urban problems is ironically due in part to attemptsto use politically expedient "off-the-shelf" technologicalfixes to solve complex socioeconomic problems. It can evenbe contended that very often policies adopted have actuallyintensified rather than solved problems [9]. The fate of thePruitt-Igoe public housing development in East St. Louis,Mo., is one of the most dramatic examples of problemintensification. The Pruitt-Igoe complex is one of the largestpublic housing projects ever built. It was completed in 1955on a 57-acres site. Today, 17 years later, only 700 of its2500 apartments are occupied. A major portion of thecomplex was recently demolished by dynamite to make itmore livable.Yet even in describing these problem areas we are forced

to use most qualitative terminology. The individual oragency who seeks to initiate a new program in such areasargues for its adoption by analogies and anecdotes. Rarelyis the attempt made to buttress a case with specific measuresor with specific indicators which would permit evaluationof the effectiveness of the proposed program.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Population growth and new patterns of consumptionhave in recent years caused a rapid upward surge in ourdemand for electrlcal power and created a serious strain onour energy resources. The importance of electrical power toa highly industrialized economy such as ours need hardlybe emphasized. We are now consuming 75 percent moreelectricity than we did in 1960, and it is questionablewhether we can meet the expected demands of the early1970's. The Federal Power Commission considers electricpower system reserves of 15-20 percent to be adequate,yet 39 of the 181 major power systems in the country havereserves of less than 10 percent. Moreover, since the EastCoast blackout of 1965, there have been 37 major powerfailures, and homeowners in several metropolitan areashave regularly been asked to restrict their consumptionduring peak-use periods [5, p. 159].The energy problem appears to be at least conceptually

much more manageable in quantitative terms. A plethora ofstudies have recently been completed or are in processwhich have developed quantitative information rangingfrom energy consumption patterns to inventories of knownenergy reserves to predictions as to the future availability

of as yet undeveloped power-generating systems. Yet thereis an uneasy feeling that the magnitude and scope of theenergy problem is not adequately recognized and that thesteps so far taken, and the institutions available, are notsufficient for the task at hand. It is far from certain that ourquantitative data give us the information needed.

ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERSTO TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT

The economic and institutional practices and regulationswhich exist on an international, national, or state and locallevel very frequently act as powerful nontechnical barriers totechnological enhancement and change. The lack of unifor-mity in our state highway regulations and our state buildingcodes are examples of institutional barriers that limit theextent of the market and inhibit the introduction of newtechnology. Several other examples of artificial nontech-nical barriers may be cited: tax rates and structures; thepatent system; restrictive application of antitrust and traderegulation; regulatory laws and policies; anti-labor-dis-placement rules imposed by unions; absence of standardsor inadequacy of non-performanced-based standards; andsubsidies and tariffs that inhibit technological change.

Despite the strong desire of the present Administrationto facilitate the introduction and application of new tech-nologies, there is little agreement as to which (if any) ofthese nontechnical barriers are of critical importance. Thefact that the chosen approach to the problem is essentiallyan experimental one indicates a lack of adequate meaningfulqualitative information.

REGIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL TECHNOLOGY PROBLEMS

The economic growth of many areas in the United Stateshas been lagging far behind the national average. Thefactors responsible for this condition vary from area toarea, but the result has almost always been the same:migration of large segments of the population to cities andother urban areas, leaving behind in rural areas chronic un-employment, lack of industrial investment, and furthereconomic deterioration. One of the factors that has contri-buted to this vicious cycle may be the failure to develop andutilize adequate or appropriate technologies that meet thespecial requirements of these depressed areas. The demandto apply technology to the solution of specific state and localproblems will grow increasingly strong as these areas becomeaware of the benefits to be derived from technology ap-plication. The Subcommittee on Science, Research, andDevelopment of the President's Task Force on SciencePolicy recommended that the scientific methods of in-vestigation and research be increasingly utilized by regional,state, and local organizations in seeking solutions tosocietal problems.A recent report from the Committee on Intergovern-

mental Science Relations of the Federal Council for Scienceand Technology concludes that science and technology aretoo often absent from the policy-making and operationsof the government, that there is a need for a "set of flexiblearrangements that can facilitate the transfer of science andtechnology among Federal, State, and Local government

602

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS, VOL. SMC-2, NO. 5, NOVEMBER 1972

units and the people they serve . . . ," and "that policy-makers should think of science and technology not as justanother element in the attack on domestic problems butrather as a catalyst for innovation." This report calls fora national science and technology initiative incorporatingthree functions: a) consultation with government to setresearch priorities; b) strengthening the local governmentalability to utilize and develop science and technology; andc) creation of scientific knowledge transfer mechanisms toimprove the use of this knowledge at the Local governmentlevel. The committee concludes that technology based inLocal governments will maximize the output of problem-solving efforts, but says that the Federal government isbest qualified to aid the local groups.Again the arguments for this new emphasis in expenditure

for scientific and technical capability in State and Localgovernments are primarily qualitative, and while they ap-pear plausible, they are not based on quantitative modelswith objectives defined in quantitative terms. If well-executed programs are implemented, it will probably notbe possible to identify in an unambiguous qualitative man-ner the effectiveness of specific projects.

POSSIBILITIES OF THE SYSTEMS APPROACH

These are but scattered examples chosen from oursociety's many problems. Can science and the technologiesthat flow from it help? There is a widespread belief that

they can. In particular, for the operational and systemsaspects of these problems, many believe that the methodsof scientific investigation and the social engineering calledsystems analysis have particularly important roles to play.Such methodologies, which to date have been primarilysuccessful in the solution of military and space problems,may well be adaptable to the civil sector problems facedby government. Such analyses may provide the frameworkwhich will direct us to the determination of the particulartypes of quantitative information needed to measure thenation's social health.

REFERENCES[1] U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Toward a

Social Report, available from Superintendent of Documents, U.S.GPO, Washington, D.C.

[2] Commerce Today, U.S. Dep. Commerce Pubi., Mar. 8, 1971.[3] J. T. Yates and H. Morgan, "Exploratory studies of benefit-cost

measurement in research and development," Nat. Bur. Stand.,unpublished working paper.

[4] National Academy of Science/National Academy of Engineering,The Impact of Science and Technology, p. 90.

[5] Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality. Wash-ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970.

[6] National Goals Staff, Toward Balanced Growth, p. 63.[7] J. Cumberland and J. Hibbs, "Alternate future environments:

some economic aspects," presented at the Inst. Management Sci.,Nat. Bur. Stand., Mar. 9, 1970, pp. 2-17.

[8] H. B. Yoshe and F. R. Burdette, Eds., National Urban Problems:Crises in Domestic Policy. Washington, D.C.: Industrial Coll.Armed Forces, 1970, p. 1.

[9] J. W. Forrester, Urban Dynamics. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Press, 1969, p. 9.

Toward a Framework for National Goalsand Policy Research

ROY AMARA

Abstract-The domain of interest is goal formation and policyplanning at the national level. A preliminary research framework foranalysis of national poliry alternatives is defined. Included are thefollowing basic elements: values, goals, attainments, strategies, societalprocesses, and societal indicators. Using this conceptual structure as apoint of departure, an outline is given of the principal research problemsto be addressed. Other possible applications of the framework andmodel are also described.

I. INTRODUCTION

POLICY RESEARCH is both a new and an old field.The study of policy formation has long been with us,

but the application of more analytic methods to this field

Manuscript received July 5, 1972.The author is with the Institute for the Future, Menlo Park, Calif.

94025.

has occurred fairly recently. If indeed there is a science ofpolicy research, it is still very much in a nascent phase andcertainly not well defined.The distinctive characteristics of policy research are that

it is problem oriented and integrative-in other words, itseeks to draw together many disparate elements in aneffort to shed light on real-world problems. Normallysubsumed by it are activities such as forecasting, planning,and strategic and operational decision-making. Its lexiconincludes considerations of values, goals, attainments, andindicators or measures of performance.The primary objective of this paper is to define and make

more explicit the connections and linkages among thediverse activities and elements encompassed by policyresearch. The vehicle used is analysis of national policyalternatives. In order to introduce the necessary concepts

603