A represents the rational ideal-purposive action realizes intentions D is the realm of unexpected outcomes, the core subject of the social sciences according to many. The focus when theorizing unintended consequences has been on A and D. But unintended consequences can be either anticipated or unanticipated (B or D). Intended consequences can only be anticipated (A). The left bottom cell is empty because what is intended cannot be unanticipated, and vice versa. True, unanticipated consequences can only be unintended, but unintended consequences can be either anticipated or unanticipated, a distinction lost in the single opposition of “intended” versus “unintended.” Footnote 8 Table 1 illustrates: Unanticipated consequences, so it seems, are disappearing from the literature because they are being called by another name: “unintended consequences.” The two have been mistakenly conflated. ” The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics tells us that “the law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people-and especially of government-always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended” (Norton 2008). In Wikipedia we read that in the social sciences, “unintended consequences (sometimes unanticipated consequences or unforeseen consequences) are outcomes that are not the outcomes intended by a purposeful action. has large pedigree in the social sciences things do not always turn out as we expect” (Scott and Marshall 1998, p. The Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, under the section-heading “unintended or unanticipated consequences,” says: “the theme of the unintended consequences of action. 765) clearly distinguishes between the two, Footnote 7 most authors gloss over the issue and use “unintended” as a synonym for “unanticipated.” The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology, for instance, notes that “ unctionalists distinguish between “manifest consequences that are anticipated and latent consequences (or unintended consequences) that are not” (Johnson 1995, p. Whereas Giddens’s definition of unintended consequences as “consequences which result from behavior initiated for other purposes” ( 1993, p. The literature is far from clear on this point, with some authors stressing the difference between unintended and unanticipated effects. Which of these do we mean when we call something an unintended consequence?

If greater awareness among policy makers explains the decline in references to unanticipated consequences, how should we understand the simultaneous increase in references to unintended consequences? If unintended effects are anticipated, they are a different phenomenon as they follow from purposive choice and not, like unanticipated effects, from ignorance, error, or ideological blindness (Merton 1936). While Merton’s pioneering work on unanticipated consequences ( 1936) placed the issue on the agenda, it became a self-defeating prophecy.

Strategies for avoiding unintended consequences are standard fare in management handbooks and manuals while public administration schools teach the “science of muddling through” (Lindblom 1959). Policy makers now have more facts and theories at their disposal while the unintended consequences of policy are a widely recognized problem.

Google Scholar confirms the picture, generating 110,000 hits for “unintended consequences” and 15,100 for “unanticipated consequences.” Google Web likewise yields 5,880,000 hits for “unintended consequences” and 147,000 for “unanticipated consequences.”ĭoes the declining use of “unanticipated consequences” reflect a change in the real world? Or has it simply been replaced by “unintended consequences” as a synonym? A change in the real world would imply that our ability to anticipate the effects of purposive social action has improved over time. As the Ngram Footnote 6 below shows, “unintended consequences” is today the standard term while “unanticipated consequences” has all but fallen out of use. While both were common terms in social science publications in the 1950s, references to “unintended consequences” began to outnumber “unanticipated consequences” in the early 1960s. While Merton’s 1936 article only referred to “unanticipated consequences,” Social Theory and Social Structure ( 1968) used “unintended consequences” and “unanticipated consequences” as synonyms.

Define breach sociology