This project investigates the processes by which ideals of good government and use of cost-benefit analysis evolved in the U.S. from the late-19th century to the second half of the 20th century. The ideal of rational government administration has been historically variable. Before 1870, the national government was largely undeveloped and local governments were in the pockets of political machines. Over the next century, calls for moral rectitude and bureaucratic integrity gave way to calls for effectiveness and efficiency, which eventually led to a regime of optimization and the adoption of cost-benefit analysis as the core of administrative decision-making. This project investigates this history and tests its argument on two case studies. The findings from this research will inform and illuminate efforts to use modern technologies of rationalization to deal with current problems.
This project uses archival research, text analysis, and interviews to explain the historical processes by which cost-benefit analysis and its attendant assumptions came to be adopted by government in the U.S. For the first part, the text of documents such as the Congressional record, scholarly journals and presidential speeches is analyzed, plus historical informants active in this process from the 1960s to the present are interviewed. In the second part, two cases, areas of public policy that began similarly but had divergent outcomes, are examined longitudinally and compared. The method for the second part involves text analysis of portions of the Congressional record and interviews of representatives of key organizations.
This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.
