Abstract
The revelatory paper, “Dilemmas in the General Theory of Planning,” by Rittel and Webber (Policy Sci 4:155–169, 1973) has had great impact because it provides one example of an emergent consensus across many disciplines. Many “problems,” as addressed in real-world situations, involve elements that exceed the complexity of any known or hoped-for model, or are “wicked.” Many who encounter this work for the first time find that their concept of wicked problems aptly describes many environmental disputes. For those frustrated with the lack of progress in many areas of environmental protection, Rittel and Webber’s work suggested a powerful explanatory hypothesis: Complex environmental problems cannot be comprehended within any of the accepted disciplinary models available in the academy or in discourses on public interest and policy. What should we conclude about the future of social improvements, and about the possibilities for rational discourse leading to cooperative action, with respect to this huge number of pressing public, environmental problems? Can we find ways to address environmental problems that improves the ability of communities to respond creatively and rationally to them? I will argue that, while the Rittel-Webber critique requires us to abandon many of the assumptions associated with a positivistic view of science and its applications to policy analysis, it also points to a more productive direction for the future of policy analysis. I will introduce “boundary critique,” developed within Critical Systems Theory (CST), an approach that offers some reason for optimism in dealing with some aspects of wickedness.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ackoff, R. L. (1979). The future of operational research is past. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 30, 93–104.
Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley.
Barrow, J. D. (2004). Mathematical explanation. In J. Cornwell (Ed.), Explanations. Styles of explanation in science (pp. 81–109). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Behrens, R., Brookshire, D. S., McKee, M., & Schmidt, C. (1998). Implementing the safe minimum standard approach: Two case studies from the U.S. Endangered Species Act, Land Economics, 74, 147–161.
Bishop, R. C. (1978). Endangered species and uncertainty: The economics of a safe minimum standard. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 60, 1–18.
Bockstael, N. E., Freeman, A. III, Myrick, K., Raymond, J., Portney, P. R., & Smith, V. K. (2000). On measuring economic values for nature. Environmental Science and Technology, 34, 1384–1389.
Carnap, R. (1956). Empiricism, semantics, and ontology, in meaning and necessity (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Rationality for mortals: How people cope with uncertainty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gödel, K. (1931). Die vollständigkeit der axiome des logischen functionenkalküls. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 37, 349–360.
Lasswell, H. (1970). The emerging conception of policy sciences. Policy Sciences, 1, 3–14.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19, 79–88.
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer, vermont, chelsea green publishing.
National Research Council. (1996). Understanding risk. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
Norton, B. (1990). Context and hierarchy in Aldo Leopold’s theory of environmental management. Ecological Economics, 2, 119–127.
Norton, B. (1991). Toward unity among environmentalists. New York: Oxford University Press.
Norton, B. (2005). Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Norton, B. (2008). Beyond positivist ecology: Toward an integrated ecological ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 581–592.
Norton, B. (2010). Modeling sustainability in economics and ecology. In K. deLaplante, B. Brown, & K. Peacock (Eds.), Philosophy of ecology, vol. 11 of the handbook of the philosophy of science (pp. 367–401). Elsevier: North-Holland.
Norton, B., & Minteer, B. A. (2002/2003). From environmental ethics to environmental public philosophy: Ethicists and economists, 1973-future. In T. Tietenberg & H. Fulmer (Eds.), The international yearbook of environmental and resource economics 2002/2003: A survey of current issues. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Norton, B., & Noonan, D. (2007). Ecology and valuation: Big changes needed. Ecological Economics, 63, 664–675.
Norton, B., & Toman, M. (1997). Sustainability: Ecological and economic perspectives. Land Economics, 73, 553–568.
O’Neill, J., Holland, A., & Light, A. (2008). Environmental values. London: Routledge.
Quine, W. V. O. (1953). Two dogmas of empiricism. In From a logical point of view. Harvard, MA.
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.
Rucker, R. (1982). Infinity and the mind: The science and philosophy of the infinite. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sagoff, M. (1990). The economy of the earth. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sagoff, M. (2004). Price, principle, and the environment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Simon, H. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.
Simon, H. (1979). From substantive to procedural rationality. In F. Hahn & M. Hollis (Eds.), Philosophy and economic theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Tarski, A. (1944). The semantic conception of truth. In L. Linsky (Ed.), Semantics and the philosophy of language. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Torgerson, D. (1985). Contextual orientation in policy analysis: The contribution of Harold D. Lasswell, Policy Sciences, 18, 241–261.
Ulrich, W. (2003). Beyond methodology choice: Critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54, 325–342.
Wondollek, J. M., & Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Acknowledgment
Research for this paper was partially funded by National Science Foundation grant # 0433165.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Norton, B.G. The Ways of Wickedness: Analyzing Messiness with Messy Tools. J Agric Environ Ethics 25, 447–465 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9333-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9333-3