Pub Date : 2022-05-14DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2022.2074648
P. Atkinson, S. Sheard
Abstract We present empirical evidence from anonymized interviews with local leaders on governance challenges facing health and social care in England. Responding to the Covid-19 pandemic has allowed policy practitioners to see the sector’s problems with new clarity and illustrated potential solutions. We draw conclusions about central government policymaking, regional and local policymaking and some specifics of the pandemic response. Even during the Covid-19 pandemic, we found continuity with governance patterns identified in earlier scholarship. Command and control from the center, although understandably prominent as an emergency response, was not the whole story. Network governance was also visible, for instance in the ability of local organizations to shape the design of national policy on community testing. Central government was also persuaded, reluctantly, to share responsibility with subnational policy makers, for example in contact tracing and the use of individual-level health data, when local authorities demonstrated its usefulness and showed ability and responsibility in its management. The stresses of a crisis will always challenge mutual trust between local and central government, but lessons need to be learned. Central government could explain its actions more effectively, be more transparent about acknowledging uncertainty, and avoid promises which run ahead of the possibilities of delivery. We show how, during the Covid-19 pandemic, central government has neglected the potential contribution of local government even more than previously: we go beyond this to suggest practical steps which local government can take despite central resistance, drawing on sound science, insight into local conditions and community engagement.
{"title":"Designing effective central-local co-operation: lessons from Liverpool’s Covid-19 response","authors":"P. Atkinson, S. Sheard","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2022.2074648","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2022.2074648","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We present empirical evidence from anonymized interviews with local leaders on governance challenges facing health and social care in England. Responding to the Covid-19 pandemic has allowed policy practitioners to see the sector’s problems with new clarity and illustrated potential solutions. We draw conclusions about central government policymaking, regional and local policymaking and some specifics of the pandemic response. Even during the Covid-19 pandemic, we found continuity with governance patterns identified in earlier scholarship. Command and control from the center, although understandably prominent as an emergency response, was not the whole story. Network governance was also visible, for instance in the ability of local organizations to shape the design of national policy on community testing. Central government was also persuaded, reluctantly, to share responsibility with subnational policy makers, for example in contact tracing and the use of individual-level health data, when local authorities demonstrated its usefulness and showed ability and responsibility in its management. The stresses of a crisis will always challenge mutual trust between local and central government, but lessons need to be learned. Central government could explain its actions more effectively, be more transparent about acknowledging uncertainty, and avoid promises which run ahead of the possibilities of delivery. We show how, during the Covid-19 pandemic, central government has neglected the potential contribution of local government even more than previously: we go beyond this to suggest practical steps which local government can take despite central resistance, drawing on sound science, insight into local conditions and community engagement.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"5 1","pages":"346 - 361"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44237149","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-14DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2022.2057835
Michael Mintrom, B. Rogers
Abstract Sustainability transitions are required to address challenges of climate change, economic development, ecological integrity, and social justice. Driving sustainability transitions is difficult but necessary work. We discuss sustainability challenges and the need for transitions, with a focus on the vital roles that change agents can play. These change agents exhibit a desire to make change happen. They encourage others to join them in their efforts. After discussing the work of change agents in driving sustainability transitions, we present a case study of change in Perth, Australia, where change agents have attained considerable success in placing that city on a path toward sustainable water management practices. We suggest sustainability transitions can be effectively enabled when change agents: (1) Clarify the problem and articulate a clear vision; (2) Engage others to identify workable solutions and implementation pathways; (3) Secure support from influential stakeholders; (4) Establish effective monitoring tools and learning systems; (5) Foster long-term relationships of trust and mutual support; and (6) Develop narratives that support on-going action.
{"title":"How can we drive sustainability transitions?","authors":"Michael Mintrom, B. Rogers","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2022.2057835","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2022.2057835","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Sustainability transitions are required to address challenges of climate change, economic development, ecological integrity, and social justice. Driving sustainability transitions is difficult but necessary work. We discuss sustainability challenges and the need for transitions, with a focus on the vital roles that change agents can play. These change agents exhibit a desire to make change happen. They encourage others to join them in their efforts. After discussing the work of change agents in driving sustainability transitions, we present a case study of change in Perth, Australia, where change agents have attained considerable success in placing that city on a path toward sustainable water management practices. We suggest sustainability transitions can be effectively enabled when change agents: (1) Clarify the problem and articulate a clear vision; (2) Engage others to identify workable solutions and implementation pathways; (3) Secure support from influential stakeholders; (4) Establish effective monitoring tools and learning systems; (5) Foster long-term relationships of trust and mutual support; and (6) Develop narratives that support on-going action.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"5 1","pages":"294 - 306"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45475605","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-28DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2022.2068400
V. Ridde, A. Faye
Abstract The objective of the paper is to understand how Senegal formulated its policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The response was rapid, comprising conventional policy instruments used previously for containing Ebola. The policymaking process involved several agencies, which resulted in significant leadership and coordination problems. In addition, community participation and engagement with relevant scientific communities were limited, despite their recognized importance in fighting medical crises. Instead, international donors had a significant influence on the choice of policy tools. The paper contributes to contemporary thinking on the autonomy of policy instruments—the idea that preferences for policy instruments are stable, independent of the particular policy problems being addressed and goals being pursued—which has recently been applied to policies in Africa. The study calls for a review of how academics, civil society, and decision-makers must collaborate to design public policies and policy tools based on evidence and context, not only politics.
{"title":"Policy response to COVID-19 in Senegal: power, politics, and the choice of policy instruments","authors":"V. Ridde, A. Faye","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2022.2068400","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2022.2068400","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The objective of the paper is to understand how Senegal formulated its policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The response was rapid, comprising conventional policy instruments used previously for containing Ebola. The policymaking process involved several agencies, which resulted in significant leadership and coordination problems. In addition, community participation and engagement with relevant scientific communities were limited, despite their recognized importance in fighting medical crises. Instead, international donors had a significant influence on the choice of policy tools. The paper contributes to contemporary thinking on the autonomy of policy instruments—the idea that preferences for policy instruments are stable, independent of the particular policy problems being addressed and goals being pursued—which has recently been applied to policies in Africa. The study calls for a review of how academics, civil society, and decision-makers must collaborate to design public policies and policy tools based on evidence and context, not only politics.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"5 1","pages":"326 - 345"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43117465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-15DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2022.2065065
Fernando Filgueiras, Lizandro Lui
Abstract Data governance is a decision-making process focused on authority building to specify decision rights and accountability that encourage desired behaviors regarding data use, security, integrity, and availability. The emergence of big data technologies to design public policy and deliver public services requires governments to design data policy and governance. This paper analyzes the dynamics of data governance design in the Brazilian Federal Government, based on institutional analysis and policy development. The paper reports a series of interviews with Brazilian Federal Government policymakers to frame the data policy design dynamics. The paper concludes that the policy design dynamics to data governance are path dependent and shape actions situations that reinforces previous institutions. In the case of the Brazilian Federal Government, the institutional framework is ambiguous, creating situations of conflict and ineffectiveness in the design of the data policy.
{"title":"Designing data governance in Brazil: an institutional analysis","authors":"Fernando Filgueiras, Lizandro Lui","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2022.2065065","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2022.2065065","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Data governance is a decision-making process focused on authority building to specify decision rights and accountability that encourage desired behaviors regarding data use, security, integrity, and availability. The emergence of big data technologies to design public policy and deliver public services requires governments to design data policy and governance. This paper analyzes the dynamics of data governance design in the Brazilian Federal Government, based on institutional analysis and policy development. The paper reports a series of interviews with Brazilian Federal Government policymakers to frame the data policy design dynamics. The paper concludes that the policy design dynamics to data governance are path dependent and shape actions situations that reinforces previous institutions. In the case of the Brazilian Federal Government, the institutional framework is ambiguous, creating situations of conflict and ineffectiveness in the design of the data policy.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"6 1","pages":"41 - 56"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45775795","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2022.2065716
Michael Howlett, Ching Leong, S. Sahu
Abstract Most studies of risk management examine only exogenous risks – that is, those external to the policy-making process such as the impact of climate change, extreme weather events, natural disasters or financial calamities. But there is also a large second area of concern – “internal risks” or those linked to adverse or malicious behavior on the part of policy makers. This behavior to deceive or “game” the intentions and expectations of government is a part of the policy world which also requires risk management. The paper reviews three archetypal cases of efforts to manage this side of policy risk in the UK, the US and Australia and draws lessons from them about how best to deal with or manage this “darkside” of policy-making.
{"title":"Managing internal policy risk: Australia, the UK and the US compared","authors":"Michael Howlett, Ching Leong, S. Sahu","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2022.2065716","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2022.2065716","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Most studies of risk management examine only exogenous risks – that is, those external to the policy-making process such as the impact of climate change, extreme weather events, natural disasters or financial calamities. But there is also a large second area of concern – “internal risks” or those linked to adverse or malicious behavior on the part of policy makers. This behavior to deceive or “game” the intentions and expectations of government is a part of the policy world which also requires risk management. The paper reviews three archetypal cases of efforts to manage this side of policy risk in the UK, the US and Australia and draws lessons from them about how best to deal with or manage this “darkside” of policy-making.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"5 1","pages":"152 - 163"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48564133","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-05DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.2020967
L. Yona, B. Cashore, M. Bradford
Abstract In contrast to its Assessment Reports, less is known about the social science processes through which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produces methodologies for greenhouse gas emissions reporting. This limited attention is problematic, as these greenhouse gas inventories are critical components for identifying, justifying, and adjudicating national-level mitigation commitments. We begin to fill this gap by descriptively assessing, drawing on data triangulation that incorporates ecological and political analysis, the historical process for developing emissions guidelines. Our systematic descriptive efforts highlight processes and structures through which inventories might become disconnected from the latest peer-reviewed environmental science. To illustrate this disconnect, we describe the IPCC guideline process, outlining themes that may contribute to discrepancies, such as diverging logics and timeframes, discursive power, procedural lock-in, resource constraints, organizational interests, and complexity. The themes reflect challenges to greenhouse gas inventories themselves, as well as broader challenges to integrating climate change science and policy. Highlights This article provides an illustrative analysis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s greenhouse gas inventory guideline process There is evidence for substantive discrepancies between empirical literature and these guidelines Particularly for forest soil organic carbon reporting, inventory guidelines are influenced by a multitude of political and scientific actors Explanations for these discrepancies merit further inquiry, and include institutional lock-in, political influence, discursive power, resource constraints, and world views
{"title":"Factors influencing the development and implementation of national greenhouse gas inventory methodologies","authors":"L. Yona, B. Cashore, M. Bradford","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.2020967","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.2020967","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In contrast to its Assessment Reports, less is known about the social science processes through which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produces methodologies for greenhouse gas emissions reporting. This limited attention is problematic, as these greenhouse gas inventories are critical components for identifying, justifying, and adjudicating national-level mitigation commitments. We begin to fill this gap by descriptively assessing, drawing on data triangulation that incorporates ecological and political analysis, the historical process for developing emissions guidelines. Our systematic descriptive efforts highlight processes and structures through which inventories might become disconnected from the latest peer-reviewed environmental science. To illustrate this disconnect, we describe the IPCC guideline process, outlining themes that may contribute to discrepancies, such as diverging logics and timeframes, discursive power, procedural lock-in, resource constraints, organizational interests, and complexity. The themes reflect challenges to greenhouse gas inventories themselves, as well as broader challenges to integrating climate change science and policy. Highlights This article provides an illustrative analysis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s greenhouse gas inventory guideline process There is evidence for substantive discrepancies between empirical literature and these guidelines Particularly for forest soil organic carbon reporting, inventory guidelines are influenced by a multitude of political and scientific actors Explanations for these discrepancies merit further inquiry, and include institutional lock-in, political influence, discursive power, resource constraints, and world views","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"5 1","pages":"197 - 225"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46949386","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2022.2038978
Kidjie Saguin, B. Cashore
Abstract The formalization of citizen participation in public policy processes is now widespread. Despite its popularity, just how to design these initiatives to simultaneously create legitimate arenas for deliberation on the one hand, and substantive problem solving on the other hand, remains hotly contested. This Special Issue on Participatory Policy Design contributes to these questions by empirically cataloguing a range of practices aimed at engaging stakeholders in public policy creation and decisions making. The cases, which span a range of countries and local contexts, provide several insights for overcoming the limits, and maximizing the potential, of participatory policy design initiatives. Specifically, they help unpack, and better understand: the logic of participation for design which is targeted by those who are concerned with drawing on inclusionary processes to improve outcomes; and the logic of design for participation: which is championed by those who seek to empower the participants and democratic legitimacy. We argue the integration of these disparate logics hold the key for fostering transformative collaborative mechanisms.
{"title":"Two logics of participation in policy design","authors":"Kidjie Saguin, B. Cashore","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2022.2038978","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2022.2038978","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The formalization of citizen participation in public policy processes is now widespread. Despite its popularity, just how to design these initiatives to simultaneously create legitimate arenas for deliberation on the one hand, and substantive problem solving on the other hand, remains hotly contested. This Special Issue on Participatory Policy Design contributes to these questions by empirically cataloguing a range of practices aimed at engaging stakeholders in public policy creation and decisions making. The cases, which span a range of countries and local contexts, provide several insights for overcoming the limits, and maximizing the potential, of participatory policy design initiatives. Specifically, they help unpack, and better understand: the logic of participation for design which is targeted by those who are concerned with drawing on inclusionary processes to improve outcomes; and the logic of design for participation: which is championed by those who seek to empower the participants and democratic legitimacy. We argue the integration of these disparate logics hold the key for fostering transformative collaborative mechanisms.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"5 1","pages":"1 - 11"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42146541","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-06DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.2007619
Lindsay Cole
Abstract Public sector innovation labs (PSI labs) are a rapidly proliferating experimental response to the growing complexity and urgency of challenges facing the public sector. This research examines ways in which PSI labs are currently being conceptualized in relation to their values, purpose, ambition, definitions of innovation, methods, and desired impacts. Distinctions between PSI labs that work within dominant systems and paradigms to make them more efficient, effective, and user-oriented and PSI labs that have a more transformative intent, are made and problematized. This research used a constructivist grounded theory and participatory action research methodology, working with lab practitioners as well as with literature, to build a framework to support stronger conceptualization of PSI lab purpose and intended impact. This framework provides a structure for researchers and practitioners to engage in richer description, thinking, and comparison when designing, studying, and evaluating PSI labs. Although this research focused on labs in the public sector, the findings and framework are relevant to other types of innovation labs working in multiple sectors.
{"title":"A framework to conceptualize innovation purpose in public sector innovation labs","authors":"Lindsay Cole","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.2007619","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.2007619","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Public sector innovation labs (PSI labs) are a rapidly proliferating experimental response to the growing complexity and urgency of challenges facing the public sector. This research examines ways in which PSI labs are currently being conceptualized in relation to their values, purpose, ambition, definitions of innovation, methods, and desired impacts. Distinctions between PSI labs that work within dominant systems and paradigms to make them more efficient, effective, and user-oriented and PSI labs that have a more transformative intent, are made and problematized. This research used a constructivist grounded theory and participatory action research methodology, working with lab practitioners as well as with literature, to build a framework to support stronger conceptualization of PSI lab purpose and intended impact. This framework provides a structure for researchers and practitioners to engage in richer description, thinking, and comparison when designing, studying, and evaluating PSI labs. Although this research focused on labs in the public sector, the findings and framework are relevant to other types of innovation labs working in multiple sectors.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"5 1","pages":"164 - 182"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45832222","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-29DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1992106
T. Reddel, S. Ball
Abstract Governments across the globe have expressed their interest in forms of codesign and coproduction as a useful tool for crafting policy solutions. Genuine relationships between partners are seen as an important way to build meaningful and lasting impact for policy. One area of interest in this space has been on how researchers and policymakers can work better together to design and produce more evidence-based policies. For many practitioners and researchers, knowledge coproduction is presented as a panacea to the ongoing challenges of research translation. It is positioned as assisting in building more meaningful, trusting relationships which, in turn, support the development of more effective policy solutions. Using the insider experience of a coproduced government project in Queensland, Australia, this paper reflects on the realities and tensions between this idealism associated with policy co-production methodologies and the ongoing messiness of public policy practice. Beginning with an overview of the literature on coproduction, followed by a brief introduction to the case and the method used, the paper concludes by highlighting the strengths, facilitators and benefits of the approach while raising questions about whether coproduction is a panacea to research translation concerns or a placebo. The answer, we argue, lies more in how success is defined than any concrete solution.
{"title":"Knowledge coproduction: panacea or placebo? Lessons from an emerging policy partnership","authors":"T. Reddel, S. Ball","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1992106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1992106","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Governments across the globe have expressed their interest in forms of codesign and coproduction as a useful tool for crafting policy solutions. Genuine relationships between partners are seen as an important way to build meaningful and lasting impact for policy. One area of interest in this space has been on how researchers and policymakers can work better together to design and produce more evidence-based policies. For many practitioners and researchers, knowledge coproduction is presented as a panacea to the ongoing challenges of research translation. It is positioned as assisting in building more meaningful, trusting relationships which, in turn, support the development of more effective policy solutions. Using the insider experience of a coproduced government project in Queensland, Australia, this paper reflects on the realities and tensions between this idealism associated with policy co-production methodologies and the ongoing messiness of public policy practice. Beginning with an overview of the literature on coproduction, followed by a brief introduction to the case and the method used, the paper concludes by highlighting the strengths, facilitators and benefits of the approach while raising questions about whether coproduction is a panacea to research translation concerns or a placebo. The answer, we argue, lies more in how success is defined than any concrete solution.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"5 1","pages":"183 - 196"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47077456","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-21DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1930688
Ditte Bendix Lanng, Lea Louise Holst Laursen, Søren Risdal Borg
Abstract Through a case of civic action in relation to rural development in Denmark, this paper contributes its deliberations on rural participatory policy by shedding light on the unordered site of controversy where participatory-oriented policy meets public involvement practices that happen beyond procedural limits. Danish rural planning is marked by economic and population decline and by economic pressure on the municipal sector. In this uncertain situation, rural livelihood and development increasingly rely on citizens. Drawing on perspectives from participatory design, public involvement, and Science and Technology Studies, and mobilizing the concept of design Thing, the paper attempts to understand a citizen-initiated participatory design (PD) process as an experimental means of public involvement in a rural setting. It analyses the intersection between the micro-level activities of the PD process and national and municipal plans, policies and procedures. In doing so, it traces how the socio-material PD process was a civic attempt to contest institutional definitions and to move the power to define issues from the authorities to the community. It analyses the role of the PD process in the articulation of shared issues, and how this process was one event in the ongoing community practices of public-ization of issues and of forming publics, so as to define local trajectories for an uncertain future. Continuing the analysis, the paper considers that the process of issue and public formation is neither linear nor uncontested; there is no single public, but rather multiple and porous configurations of difference and change.
{"title":"Forming issues and publics: participatory design things and uncertain rural futures","authors":"Ditte Bendix Lanng, Lea Louise Holst Laursen, Søren Risdal Borg","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1930688","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1930688","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Through a case of civic action in relation to rural development in Denmark, this paper contributes its deliberations on rural participatory policy by shedding light on the unordered site of controversy where participatory-oriented policy meets public involvement practices that happen beyond procedural limits. Danish rural planning is marked by economic and population decline and by economic pressure on the municipal sector. In this uncertain situation, rural livelihood and development increasingly rely on citizens. Drawing on perspectives from participatory design, public involvement, and Science and Technology Studies, and mobilizing the concept of design Thing, the paper attempts to understand a citizen-initiated participatory design (PD) process as an experimental means of public involvement in a rural setting. It analyses the intersection between the micro-level activities of the PD process and national and municipal plans, policies and procedures. In doing so, it traces how the socio-material PD process was a civic attempt to contest institutional definitions and to move the power to define issues from the authorities to the community. It analyses the role of the PD process in the articulation of shared issues, and how this process was one event in the ongoing community practices of public-ization of issues and of forming publics, so as to define local trajectories for an uncertain future. Continuing the analysis, the paper considers that the process of issue and public formation is neither linear nor uncontested; there is no single public, but rather multiple and porous configurations of difference and change.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"5 1","pages":"86 - 102"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41583033","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：