RUDN Journal of Public AdministrationRUDN Journal of Public AdministrationВестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Государственное и муниципальное управление2312-83132411-1228Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University)6557ArticlesСтатьиResearch ArticleINNOVATION, POLICY DIFFUSION AND DECISION-MAKING IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT: WHAT THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION CAN LEARN FROM THE UNITED STATESИННОВАЦИИ, РАСПРОСТРАНЕНИЕ ПОЛИТИКИ И ПРИНЯТИЕ РЕШЕНИЙ В ГЛОБАЛЬНОМ КОНТЕКСТЕ: ЧТО РОССИЯ МОЖЕТ ПЕРЕНЯТЬ ИЗ ОПЫТА СОЕДИНЕННЫХ ШТАТОВ АМЕРИКИSchultzDШультцДэвидDepartment of Political ScienceДепартамент политических наукdschultz@hamline.eduHamline UniversityУниверситет Хэмлин150320153NO3 (2015)№3 (2015)546407092016Copyright ©; 2015, Шультц Д.2015Шультц Д.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0https://journals.rudn.ru/public-administration/article/view/6557Governments and its officials today face increasing pressure to innovate. But often the reforms and policies proposed are formulated under conditions of limited knowledge. This bounded rationality may foster policy innovation, but in many cases public officials instead may seek to learn from other jurisdictions in the formulation of their policy options. This paper examines how governments learn, innovate, and make decisions. Using the United States as an example, this article contends: 1) There is often a significant gap between social science and scientific knowledge and the information governments use in making policy; 2) That in many cases public officials lack the capacity to digest appropriate information when making policy; and 3) That government decision making under the conditions of bounded rationality often produces less innovation and more similarly in terms of policy responses. Overall, the article will generalize from the experience of the United States to indicate the implications for other nation states as they seek to formulate policies and learn from one another in global political-economic system.В настоящее время правительства и чиновники сталкиваются с более высокими требованиями к инновациям. Но часто реформы и направления политики формируются в условиях ограниченного знания. Такая ограниченная рациональность может способствовать развитию инновационной политики, но вместо названного подхода во многих случаях государственные чиновники стремятся освоить другие области компетенции для формулирования проводимой ими политики. В данном исследовании рассматриваются вопросы, касающиеся того, как правительство изучает, создает инновации и принимает решения. Используя США в качестве примера, в данной статье сделаны выводы о том, что: 1) часто существует значительный разрыв между социальной наукой и научным знанием и информацией, которую правительство использует при принятии государственных решений; 2) во многих случаях государственные должностные лица не имеют возможности использовать и анализировать соответствующую информацию при проведении государственной политики; 3) правительство принимает решения в условиях ограниченной рациональности, зачастую осуществляет меньше инноваций и чаще использует «готовые решения» при осуществлении политики. В статье обобщен опыт Соединенных Штатов Америки, чтобы указать на последствия для других государств при формулировании собственной политики с учетом обмена опытом в условиях глобальной политико-экономической системы.conditions of limited knowledgeinnovation policygovernmentconditions of bounded rationalityexpirience of United States of Americaусловия ограниченных знанийинновационная политикаправительствоусловия ограниченной рациональностиопыт Соединенных Штатов Америки1.Bachrach Peter, Baratz Morton. 1962. "Two Faces of Power". American Political Science Review (December). P. 947-952.2.Balla Steven J. 2001. “Interstate Professional Associations and the Diffusion of Policy Innovations.” American Politics Research. Vol. 29. No. 3. P. 221-245.3.Baumgartner Frank R., Leech Beth L. 1998. Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.4.Berry F.S., Berry W.D. 1990. “State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis.” American Political Science Review, 84 (2). P. 395-415.5.Blyth Mark. 2013. Austernity: The History of a Danger Idea. New York: Oxford University Press.6.Cao Xun. 2010. “Networks as Channels of Policy Diffusion: Explaining Worldwide Changes in Capital Taxation, 1998-2006,” International Studies Quarterly. V. 54. P. 823-854.7.Capanoa Giliberto. 2009. Understanding Policy Change as an Epistemological and Theoretical Problem, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11:1. P. 7-31.8.Capanoa Giliberto, Howlettb Michael. 2005. “ Introduction: The Determinants of Policy Change: Advancing the Debate, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 7:4: 1-5.9.Cervantes Mario, Malkin Daniel. No date. “Russia’s Innovation Gap.” OECD. URL: http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/archivestory.php/aid/554/Russia_92s_innovation_gap.html#sthash.WjuusI5o.dpuf.10.Coase Ronald. 1937. "The Nature of the Firm", Economica 4 (16): 386-405,. Washington, D.C.: Council of State Planning Agencies.11.Cobb Roger W., Elder Charles D. 1972. Participation in American Politics; The Dynamics of Agenda Building. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.12.Dahl Robert A. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.13.Dahl Robert A. 1979. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press.14.Dahl Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.15.Dahl Robert A. 1976. Democracy in the United States: Promise and Performance. New Haven: Yale University Press.16.Dobbin Frank, Simmons Beth, Garrett Geoffrey. 2007. “The Global Diffusion of Public Policies: Social Construction, Coercion, Competition, or Learning,?” Annual Review of Sociology. V. 33. P. 449-472.17.Filatova Olga, Schultz David. 2015. "Health Care Reform in Russia and the United States." Unpublished manuscript in possession of the authors.18.Füglister Katharina. 2012. “Where does learning take place? The role of intergovernmental cooperation in policy diffusion,” European Journal of Political Research. V. 51. P. 316-349.19.Gilardi Fabrizio. 2010. “Who Learns from What in Policy Diffusion Processes,? American Journal of Political Science. V. 54. P. 650-666.20.Gokhberg Leonid, Kitova Galina, Roud Vitaliy. 2014. “Tax Incentives for R&D and Innovation: Demand versus Effects,” Foresight-Russia, 8:3. P. 18-41.21.Dmitry, Shirikov Anton. 2013. "Public Administration in Russia." In Liebert, Saltanat, Stephen E. Condrey, and Dmitry Goncharov, eds Public Administration in Post Community Countries. New York: CRC Press. P. 23-42.22.Graham Erin R., Charles R. Shipan and Craig Volden. 2012. “Review Article: The Diffusion of Policy Diffusion Research in Political Science, “British Journal of Political Science. V. 43. P. 673-701.23.Gray Virginia. 1994. “Competition, Emulation, and Policy Innovation.” In L.C. Dodd and C. Jillson (eds.) New Perspectives on American Politics. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. P. 230-248.24.Gray Virginia. 1973. “Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study. American Political Science Review. Vol. 67. No 4. P. 1174-1185.25.Hall Jeremy L. 2007. “Informing State Economic Development Policy in the New Economy: A Theoretical Foundation and Empirical Examination of State Innovation in the United States.” Public Administration Review. (July-August). P. 630-645.26.Hume David. 1980. A Treatise of Human Nature. New York: Oxford University Press.27.Jones Charles O. 1977. An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press.28.Key V.O. 1967. Politics, Parties, & Pressure Groups. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.29.Kingdon John W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. HarperCollins.30.Kızılkaya Emre. 2014. “As Sanctions Hit Harder, Russia Cautiously Opens up to Innovation,” Daily News. URL: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/as-sanctions-hit-harderrussia-cautiously-opens-up-to-innovation-.aspx?PageID=238&NID=75809&NewsCatID=344.31.Liebert Saltanat, Stephen E. Condrey, and Dmitry Goncharov. 2013. Public Administration in Post Community Countries. New York: CRC Press.32.Lindblom Charles E. 1959. "The Science of Muddling Through." Public Administration Review. 19:2. P. 79-88.33.Lindblom Charles E. and Edward J. Woodhouse. 1992. The Police Making Process. New York: Prentice Hall. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.34.Lindblom Charles E. and David Cohen. 1979. Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.35.Lowi Theodore J. 1969. The End of Liberalism. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.36.Marmor Theodore R., Richard Freeman and Kieke G.H. Okma. 2009. Comparative Studies and the Politics of Modern Medical Care. New Haven: Yale University Press.37.McConnell Grant. 1966. Private Power and American Democracy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.38.Mintrom Michael. 1997. “Policy Entrepreneurs and the Diffusion of Innovation.” American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 41. No. 3. P. 738-770.39.Moynihan Daniel Patrick.1969. Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding: Community Action in the War on Poverty. NY: The Free Press.40.Plant Raymond. 2009. The Neo-Liberal State. NY: Oxford University Press.41.Pressman Jeffrey, and Aaron Wildavsky. 1973. Implementation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.42.Raynera Jeremy. 2009. Understanding Policy Change as a Historical Problem, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11:1. P. 83-96.43.Rein Martin. 1976. Social Science and Public Policy. NY: Penguin Books.44.Rivlin Alice. 1971. Systematic Thinking for Social Action. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.45.Schattschneider E.E. 1960. The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.46.Schultz David. 2013. American Politics in the Age of Ignorance: Why Lawmakers Choose Belief Over Research. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.47.Schultz David. 2011. “The Crisis of Public Administration Theory in a Post-global World,” in Don Menzel and Harvey White, eds. The State of Public Administration: Issues, Challenges, Opportunities. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.48.Shipman Charles R., and Craig Volden. 2006. “Bottom-Up Federalism: The Diffusion of Antismoking Policies from U.S. Cities to States. American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 50. No. 4. P. 825-843.49.Simon Herbert. 1997. Administrative Behavior. New York: Free Press.50.Stone Deborah. 2002. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.51.Sugiyama Natasha Borges. 2008.“ Ideology and Networks: The Politics of Social Policy Diffusion in Brazil,” Latin American Research Review. V. 43. P. 82-108.52.Teodoro Manuel P. 2007. “Bureaucratic Career Mobility and Policy Innovation.” Unpublished paper prepared for presentation at the Gerald R. Ford Fellows’ Reunion Conference, Ann Arbor, Michigan, (May 12).53.Truman David B. 1971. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.54.Tufte Edward. 1974. Data Analysis for Politics and Policy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.55.Walker Jack. 1969. “The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States,” American Political Science Review. Vol. 63. No. 2. P. 880-899.56.Weimer David and Aidan Vining. 2010. Policy Analysis: Concepts and Analysis. New York: Pearson.57.Wilson Woodrow. 1887. “The Study of Administration.” Political Science Quarterly. (June). P. 2.58.Wolff, Martin. 2014. The Shifts and the Shocks: What We've Learned - and Have still to Learn - from the Financial Crisis. New York: Penguin Press.59.Wyckoff, Paul Gary. 2009. Policy & Evidence in a Partisan Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.60.Ziegler, Harmon. 1964. Interest Groups in American Society. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.61.Zohlnhöfera, Reimut. 2009. “How Politics Matter When Policies Change: Understanding Policy Change as a Political Problem,” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11:1 97-115.