Can power be made an empirically viable concept in policy process theory? Exploring the power potential of the Narrative Policy Framework

Tjorven Sievers, Michael D. Jones
{"title":"Can power be made an empirically viable concept in policy process theory? Exploring the power potential of the Narrative Policy Framework","authors":"Tjorven Sievers, Michael D. Jones","doi":"10.4000/irpp.942","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the range of analytical foci in current policy process theory, the idea of an empirically sound power concept has not received much attention. While scientifically oriented process frameworks tend to be either implicitly or explicitly based on a pluralist understanding of power, critical theory focused approaches frequently point to power inequality in the policy process but remain vague on its conceptualization. As a result, the concept of power remains underspecified, which renders theoretical understanding of policy-making incomplete. In this article, we argue that it is necessary to integrate an empirically viable power concept into policy process theory which allows researchers to systematically assess the role of structural power imbalances in policymaking, without compromising scientific rigor. To that end, we examine how power has been treated in policy process theory, with focus on the Advocacy Policy Framework (ACF), Social Construction and Policy Design, and—primarily—the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF). In a second step, we explore how Steven Lukes’ three-dimensional power concept can be leveraged by the NPF to bridge the gap between different understandings of power, while also articulating a concept of power amenable to scientific testing within policy studies.","PeriodicalId":33409,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/irpp.942","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Despite the range of analytical foci in current policy process theory, the idea of an empirically sound power concept has not received much attention. While scientifically oriented process frameworks tend to be either implicitly or explicitly based on a pluralist understanding of power, critical theory focused approaches frequently point to power inequality in the policy process but remain vague on its conceptualization. As a result, the concept of power remains underspecified, which renders theoretical understanding of policy-making incomplete. In this article, we argue that it is necessary to integrate an empirically viable power concept into policy process theory which allows researchers to systematically assess the role of structural power imbalances in policymaking, without compromising scientific rigor. To that end, we examine how power has been treated in policy process theory, with focus on the Advocacy Policy Framework (ACF), Social Construction and Policy Design, and—primarily—the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF). In a second step, we explore how Steven Lukes’ three-dimensional power concept can be leveraged by the NPF to bridge the gap between different understandings of power, while also articulating a concept of power amenable to scientific testing within policy studies.
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
在政策过程理论中,权力能否成为一个经验上可行的概念?探索叙事政策框架的权力潜力
尽管当前政策过程理论的分析焦点范围很广,但经验上健全的权力概念并没有得到太多关注。虽然以科学为导向的过程框架往往隐含或明确地基于对权力的多元理解,但以批判理论为重点的方法经常指出政策过程中的权力不平等,但其概念化仍然模糊不清。因此,权力的概念仍然没有明确规定,这使得对政策制定的理论理解不完整。在这篇文章中,我们认为有必要将经验上可行的权力概念纳入政策过程理论,使研究人员能够系统地评估结构性权力失衡在决策中的作用,而不影响科学的严谨性。为此,我们研究了政策过程理论中如何对待权力,重点是倡导政策框架(ACF)、社会建设和政策设计,以及——主要是——叙事政策框架(NPF)。在第二步中,我们探讨了国家权力基金如何利用Steven Lukes的三维权力概念来弥合对权力的不同理解之间的差距,同时也阐明了一个可在政策研究中进行科学测试的权力概念。
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
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Institutional Grammar: Evolving Directions in Current Research Pádraig CARMODY, Gerard McCANN, Clodagh COLLERAN & Ciara O’HALLORAN (Eds.), COVID- 19 in the Global South. Impacts and Responses Understanding the Effects of Social Value Orientations in Shaping Regulatory Outcomes through Agent-Based Modeling: An Application in Organic Farming Comparing and Analyzing Policy Formulation of Proposed and Final Public Policies Institutions, Voids, and Dependencies: Tracing the Designs and Robustness of Urban Water Systems
×
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