Expert knowledge for global pandemic policy: a chorus of evidence or a clutter of global commissions?

IF 5.7 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Policy and Society Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1093/polsoc/puad022
Diane Stone, A. Schmider
{"title":"Expert knowledge for global pandemic policy: a chorus of evidence or a clutter of global commissions?","authors":"Diane Stone, A. Schmider","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n “Global Commissions of Inquiry” have usually been associated with the multilateral initiatives of governments and international organizations. However, various styles of “global commission” have emerged over time. During the COVID-19 pandemic, global commissions have been a key aspect of the COVID-19 international policy landscape, quickly emerging, in 2020 and 2021, to corral knowledge and evidence. These include “formal” commissions, such as the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response and the Global Commission for Post-Pandemic Policy, and “informal” commissions, including the Reform for Resilience and The Lancet Covid Commissions. This paper considers whether these Commissions have been engines for new ideas and global policy knowledge or whether this “chorus” of COVID Commissions represented a “clutter” of ideas at a time when global policy focus was needed. Global Commissions, in general, deserve greater scholarly attention to their design and the construction of their legitimate authority as hybrid and private commissions enter global policy making alongside official commissions.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"91 3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad022","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: 1

Abstract

“Global Commissions of Inquiry” have usually been associated with the multilateral initiatives of governments and international organizations. However, various styles of “global commission” have emerged over time. During the COVID-19 pandemic, global commissions have been a key aspect of the COVID-19 international policy landscape, quickly emerging, in 2020 and 2021, to corral knowledge and evidence. These include “formal” commissions, such as the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response and the Global Commission for Post-Pandemic Policy, and “informal” commissions, including the Reform for Resilience and The Lancet Covid Commissions. This paper considers whether these Commissions have been engines for new ideas and global policy knowledge or whether this “chorus” of COVID Commissions represented a “clutter” of ideas at a time when global policy focus was needed. Global Commissions, in general, deserve greater scholarly attention to their design and the construction of their legitimate authority as hybrid and private commissions enter global policy making alongside official commissions.
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
全球流行病政策的专家知识:证据齐声还是全球委员会的混乱?
“全球调查委员会”通常与政府和国际组织的多边倡议联系在一起。然而,随着时间的推移,出现了各种形式的“全球委托”。在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,全球委员会一直是2019冠状病毒病国际政策格局的一个关键方面,在2020年和2021年迅速出现,以收集知识和证据。这些委员会包括“正式”委员会,如大流行防范和应对独立小组和大流行后政策全球委员会,以及“非正式”委员会,包括韧性改革委员会和《柳叶刀》Covid委员会。本文考虑了这些委员会是新思想和全球政策知识的引擎,还是在需要关注全球政策的时候,COVID委员会的“合唱”代表了思想的“混乱”。总的来说,随着混合和私人委员会与官方委员会一起进入全球政策制定,全球委员会的设计和合法权威的构建值得更多的学术关注。
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
Exploring cultures of evidence in energy policymaking in the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands Variation in evidence use across policy sectors: the case of Brazil A world of evidence: the global spread and silent politics of evidence cultures Understanding policy integration through an integrative capacity framework Words not deeds: the weak culture of evidence in the Canadian policy style
×
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