* It involves means-ends analysis
where the solution has been tested in contexts other than the one where it was originally developed.
The devil's test is furthermore a check on whether or not the means-ends analysis
is independent of the ideological vision of the analyst: If both an angel and the devil could agree with the means-ends analysis
, then the analysis itself provides a positive or "objective ground upon which to debate" (Boettke, 1998, p.216).
In presenting such topics as logical framework analysis, the use of indicators, process planning schemas, and means-ends analysis
and moving from the more theoretical to the more practical, he emphasizes the need for a people-oriented paradigm that involves efforts to "strengthen the capability of stakeholders for logical reasoning."
(135) Most significantly, they also include the "substantial relationship" means-ends analysis of Agins, which Justice Scalia has insisted is stricter than the "rational basis review" generally afforded substantive due process claims.
The scope of legitimate ends for the purpose of substantive due process has been held identical to the "public use" requirement of traditional takings analysis, (139) and the Supreme Court has not indicated that the ends in an Agins means-ends analysis are any different from the ends in more traditional takings jurisprudence.
(141) However, this test is not independent of the means-ends analysis; it is merely another expression of rational basis review.
In general, this type of means-ends analysis has no logical place in regulatory takings doctrine.
Part VII explains why, as a practical matter, it is important whether traditional due process means-ends analysis is imported into the takings doctrine.
That the analysis of means-ends is independent of the ideological vision of the analyst can be checked by what could be called the "devil test." (11) If both an angel and the Devil could agree with the means-ends analysis
, then the analysis itself provides an independent or "objective" ground upon which to debate.
Probably the most powerful general heuristic, alluded to in the maze example, is "means-ends analysis." Essentially, the heuristic is this: form a subgoal to reduce the discrepancy between your present state and your ultimate goal state.
Means-ends analysis accepts incremental advancement toward a goal.
Classifications involving gender (among others) receive what is called means-ends analysis
in which the means chosen must be shown to be narrowly crafted to achieve an important official purpose.