Policy knowledge production in de-democratizing contexts

IF 5.7 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Policy and Society Pub Date : 2025-01-21 DOI:10.1093/polsoc/puae037
Andrea Krizsán, Katarzyna Jezierska, Adrienne Sörbom
{"title":"Policy knowledge production in de-democratizing contexts","authors":"Andrea Krizsán, Katarzyna Jezierska, Adrienne Sörbom","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In an era of post-truth, the legitimacy of policy knowledge is questioned, especially in de-democratizing contexts where governments purposefully engage in post-truth politics to support their regimes. In such contexts, technocratic evidence-based policymaking is undermined, and the role played by policy advice changes. Recognizing the significance of political contextual factors that might differ across de-democratizing contexts, we analyzed how changes in policymaking and public administration in de-democratization contexts impact policy advice, focusing on think tanks in two de-democratizing countries of the European Union: Hungary and Poland. We identify four aspects of policymaking that are particularly consequential for the role of think tanks and the knowledge they produce in policymaking processes: questioning and politicizing expertise, centralizing policymaking, politicizing public administration, and dismantling accountability mechanisms. We argue that changes in policymaking along these four aspects are conducive to a controlled policy advice system, favoring short-term policy advice aligned with government ideology, while marginalizing and excluding the actors and knowledge that do not align. Our research, along with other literature on knowledge regimes in consolidated autocracies, suggests that control in these European Union–based contexts is not complete, and the think tank field continues to be characterized by diversity, particularly contestation and polarization between those who are aligned with the regime and those who oppose it. We substantiate our claims using an original interview dataset on think tanks in Hungary and Poland.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae037","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In an era of post-truth, the legitimacy of policy knowledge is questioned, especially in de-democratizing contexts where governments purposefully engage in post-truth politics to support their regimes. In such contexts, technocratic evidence-based policymaking is undermined, and the role played by policy advice changes. Recognizing the significance of political contextual factors that might differ across de-democratizing contexts, we analyzed how changes in policymaking and public administration in de-democratization contexts impact policy advice, focusing on think tanks in two de-democratizing countries of the European Union: Hungary and Poland. We identify four aspects of policymaking that are particularly consequential for the role of think tanks and the knowledge they produce in policymaking processes: questioning and politicizing expertise, centralizing policymaking, politicizing public administration, and dismantling accountability mechanisms. We argue that changes in policymaking along these four aspects are conducive to a controlled policy advice system, favoring short-term policy advice aligned with government ideology, while marginalizing and excluding the actors and knowledge that do not align. Our research, along with other literature on knowledge regimes in consolidated autocracies, suggests that control in these European Union–based contexts is not complete, and the think tank field continues to be characterized by diversity, particularly contestation and polarization between those who are aligned with the regime and those who oppose it. We substantiate our claims using an original interview dataset on think tanks in Hungary and Poland.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非民主化背景下的政策知识生产
在后真相时代,政策知识的合法性受到质疑,特别是在政府有意参与后真相政治以支持其政权的去民主化背景下。在这种情况下,以证据为基础的技术官僚政策制定受到削弱,政策建议发挥的作用也发生了变化。认识到政治背景因素在去民主化背景下的重要性,我们分析了去民主化背景下政策制定和公共行政的变化如何影响政策建议,重点关注欧盟两个去民主化国家的智库:匈牙利和波兰。我们确定了政策制定的四个方面,这些方面对智库的作用及其在政策制定过程中产生的知识尤其重要:质疑和政治化专业知识,集中决策,政治化公共行政,以及拆除问责机制。我们认为,政策制定在这四个方面的变化有利于形成一个受控的政策咨询体系,有利于与政府意识形态一致的短期政策建议,同时边缘化和排除不一致的行为者和知识。我们的研究,以及其他关于巩固的独裁政权中的知识制度的文献表明,在这些以欧盟为基础的背景下,控制是不完整的,智库领域继续以多样性为特征,特别是那些与政权结盟的人和那些反对它的人之间的争论和两极分化。我们使用匈牙利和波兰智囊团的原始访谈数据集来证实我们的说法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Policy and Society
Policy and Society Multiple-
CiteScore
18.00
自引率
6.50%
发文量
43
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊介绍: Policy and Society is a prominent international open-access journal publishing peer-reviewed research on critical issues in policy theory and practice across local, national, and international levels. The journal seeks to comprehend the origin, functioning, and implications of policies within broader political, social, and economic contexts. It publishes themed issues regularly and, starting in 2023, will also feature non-themed individual submissions.
期刊最新文献
Governance of Generative AI From benign to malign: unintended consequences and the growth of Zombie policies Policy knowledge production in de-democratizing contexts Responsible governance of generative AI: conceptualizing GenAI as complex adaptive systems Steering the future: expert knowledge and stakeholder voices in autonomous vehicle policy reports
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1