One of the basic questions that all analysts must answer is whether they should
focus on the root causes of public problems or examine policy actions that might
ameliorate a pressing problem but do nothing about its underlying causes. Political
scientist James Q. Wilson argued for the latter view in his influential book Thinking
about Crime (1977, 55–59). The “ultimate causes cannot be the object of policy
efforts,” he said, because they cannot be changed. As he explained, criminologists,
for example, know that men commit more crimes than women, and younger men
more than older ones. It is a scientifically correct observation, Wilson said, but not
very useful for policymakers concerned about reducing the crime rate. Why not?
The answer is that society can do nothing to change the facts. So rather than
address the root causes of crime, he suggested that policymakers concentrate on
what governments can do to reduce the crime rate, or deal with what some call
the proximate causes, or immediate causes, of the problem: Sources: Drawn in part from Peter House, The Art of Public Policy Analysis (Beverly
Hills, Calif.: SAGE Publications, 1982); and David L. Weimer and Aidan R.
Vining, Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice, 5th ed. (New York: Pearson, 2011).

Review pages 128-129 of yourPublic Policy e-book for the three categories or types of analysis. Consider James Q. Wilson’s perspective and suggestion for policymakers concerned with reducing the crime rate. What does he say about root causes? Do you agree or disagree with Wilson? Explain and support your answer with examples on the policy issue you plan to discuss in your final paper.