Pub Date : 2021-04-06DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1905342
Michael Mintrom, Shanti Sumartojo, D. Kulić, Leimin Tian, Pamela Carreno-Medrano, Aimee Allen
Abstract Rapid advances in digital technologies have allowed robots to become more autonomous and efficacious than ever before. Future developments in robotics hold the potential to transform human robot interactions. We can expect to see robots performing a variety of functions in public spaces. Possibilities exist for robots to greatly improve the quality of our lives and to contribute positively to the safety, creative potential, and atmosphere of public spaces. But as this trend develops, the risk emerges of robots transforming public spaces and social interactions in undesirable ways. By reviewing previous public policy approaches to harnessing and regulating disruptive technology, we consider how public policy could simultaneously enhance opportunities created by the presence of robots in public spaces and reduce the risks of undesirable outcomes. We summarize key insights into a policy design checklist to guide policies on robots in public spaces. These insights cover (1) safety, (2) privacy and ethics, (3) productivity, (4) esthetics, (5) co-creation, (6) equitable access, and (7) systemic innovation.
{"title":"Robots in public spaces: implications for policy design","authors":"Michael Mintrom, Shanti Sumartojo, D. Kulić, Leimin Tian, Pamela Carreno-Medrano, Aimee Allen","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1905342","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1905342","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Rapid advances in digital technologies have allowed robots to become more autonomous and efficacious than ever before. Future developments in robotics hold the potential to transform human robot interactions. We can expect to see robots performing a variety of functions in public spaces. Possibilities exist for robots to greatly improve the quality of our lives and to contribute positively to the safety, creative potential, and atmosphere of public spaces. But as this trend develops, the risk emerges of robots transforming public spaces and social interactions in undesirable ways. By reviewing previous public policy approaches to harnessing and regulating disruptive technology, we consider how public policy could simultaneously enhance opportunities created by the presence of robots in public spaces and reduce the risks of undesirable outcomes. We summarize key insights into a policy design checklist to guide policies on robots in public spaces. These insights cover (1) safety, (2) privacy and ethics, (3) productivity, (4) esthetics, (5) co-creation, (6) equitable access, and (7) systemic innovation.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"5 1","pages":"123 - 139"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/25741292.2021.1905342","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48060441","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 : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1941569
E. Lindquist, Michael Buttazzoni
Abstract There have been concerted efforts to encourage innovation and to foster a more innovative and “open” culture to government and public service institutions. Policy and service innovation labs constitute one part of a broader “open innovation” movement which also includes open data, behavioral insights, digital services, data science units, visualization capabilities, and agile and lean methods. This article argues that we need to step back and better understand these “ecologies” of innovation capabilities that have emerged across public service institutions, and to recognize that as fellow “innovation” traveling companions they collectively seek to transform the culture of government and public service institutions, producing more effective, efficient and tailored policies and services. This article introduces analytic frameworks that should help locate policy and innovation labs amidst these other innovating entities. First, it delineates the various units and initiatives which can be seen as committed to new ways of working and innovating in public service institutions, often relying on “open innovation” rhetoric and approaches. Second, it shows how – despite the diversity among these entities – they nevertheless share similar attributes as “adhocracies” and are located as part of a broader movement and class of organizations. Third, we locate these diverse OI entities amidst broader public service systems using the Competing Values Framework. Fourth, this article situates the challenges confronting OI units developing and sustaining or broadening niches in public service systems. Finally, it identifies future research questions to take up.
{"title":"The ecology of open innovation units: adhocracy and competing values in public service systems","authors":"E. Lindquist, Michael Buttazzoni","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1941569","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1941569","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract There have been concerted efforts to encourage innovation and to foster a more innovative and “open” culture to government and public service institutions. Policy and service innovation labs constitute one part of a broader “open innovation” movement which also includes open data, behavioral insights, digital services, data science units, visualization capabilities, and agile and lean methods. This article argues that we need to step back and better understand these “ecologies” of innovation capabilities that have emerged across public service institutions, and to recognize that as fellow “innovation” traveling companions they collectively seek to transform the culture of government and public service institutions, producing more effective, efficient and tailored policies and services. This article introduces analytic frameworks that should help locate policy and innovation labs amidst these other innovating entities. First, it delineates the various units and initiatives which can be seen as committed to new ways of working and innovating in public service institutions, often relying on “open innovation” rhetoric and approaches. Second, it shows how – despite the diversity among these entities – they nevertheless share similar attributes as “adhocracies” and are located as part of a broader movement and class of organizations. Third, we locate these diverse OI entities amidst broader public service systems using the Competing Values Framework. Fourth, this article situates the challenges confronting OI units developing and sustaining or broadening niches in public service systems. Finally, it identifies future research questions to take up.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"4 1","pages":"212 - 227"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/25741292.2021.1941569","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47569298","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 : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1940700
A. Wellstead, Anat Gofen, Angie Carter
Abstract The past decade has seen a rapid rise in the number of policy innovation labs (PILs). PILs that are found both inside and outside of government address a wide range of social issues. Many PILs share a few distinct common characteristics: a commitment to the design-thinking methodology, a focus on applying experimental approaches to testing and measuring the efficacy of comprehensive public policy and intervention program prototypes, and the use of user-centric techniques to stakeholders in the design process. In this introduction to the special issue on PILs, we begin by taking stock of the policy lab literature published to date by providing an overview of 70 related publications (peer review articles, book chapters, theses, reports, and catalogs) and the extent that they engage the policy literature. This review demonstrates the underexplored practitioner perspective, which serves as the theme for this special issue. Next, the six articles that comprise this special issue are introduced. They are written from a practitioner perspective and include contributions from Brazil, Canada, Finland, and the United Kingdom. Finally, suggestions for future research are highlighted, including the role of PILs in policy work, PILs as street-level policy entrepreneurship settings, and the need for more rigorous inferential methods.
{"title":"Policy innovation lab scholarship: past, present, and the future – Introduction to the special issue on policy innovation labs","authors":"A. Wellstead, Anat Gofen, Angie Carter","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1940700","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1940700","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The past decade has seen a rapid rise in the number of policy innovation labs (PILs). PILs that are found both inside and outside of government address a wide range of social issues. Many PILs share a few distinct common characteristics: a commitment to the design-thinking methodology, a focus on applying experimental approaches to testing and measuring the efficacy of comprehensive public policy and intervention program prototypes, and the use of user-centric techniques to stakeholders in the design process. In this introduction to the special issue on PILs, we begin by taking stock of the policy lab literature published to date by providing an overview of 70 related publications (peer review articles, book chapters, theses, reports, and catalogs) and the extent that they engage the policy literature. This review demonstrates the underexplored practitioner perspective, which serves as the theme for this special issue. Next, the six articles that comprise this special issue are introduced. They are written from a practitioner perspective and include contributions from Brazil, Canada, Finland, and the United Kingdom. Finally, suggestions for future research are highlighted, including the role of PILs in policy work, PILs as street-level policy entrepreneurship settings, and the need for more rigorous inferential methods.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"4 1","pages":"193 - 211"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/25741292.2021.1940700","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45160616","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 : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1930686
Elisabete Ferrarezi, I. Brandalise, Joselene Lemos
Abstract This paper presents an initial evaluation of the GNova lab, with the aim of contributing to the policy lab literature and debate on the value generated by public sector innovation labs. GNova is a Brazilian federal government innovation lab dedicated to developing creative solutions to public policy problems through design-led experiments that involve the active participation of members of partner teams. In the context of a political transition, GNova carried out an evaluation process to assess the results of its projects. By using working principles as evaluation criteria, the process was design-led and consisted of two phases. The first was a workshop with project partners, followed by a series of in-depth interviews with participants in six selected projects. The findings were grouped into three types of effects (effects of the process, effects of products and effects of the participation). The evaluation, even though with a limited scope, confirmed the assumption that, in addition to effects from specific products delivered, the lab contributes to the development of competencies in the civil servants who participate in the process, in resonance with a public administration paradigm based on public value.
{"title":"Evaluating experimentation in the public sector: learning from a Brazilian innovation lab","authors":"Elisabete Ferrarezi, I. Brandalise, Joselene Lemos","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1930686","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1930686","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper presents an initial evaluation of the GNova lab, with the aim of contributing to the policy lab literature and debate on the value generated by public sector innovation labs. GNova is a Brazilian federal government innovation lab dedicated to developing creative solutions to public policy problems through design-led experiments that involve the active participation of members of partner teams. In the context of a political transition, GNova carried out an evaluation process to assess the results of its projects. By using working principles as evaluation criteria, the process was design-led and consisted of two phases. The first was a workshop with project partners, followed by a series of in-depth interviews with participants in six selected projects. The findings were grouped into three types of effects (effects of the process, effects of products and effects of the participation). The evaluation, even though with a limited scope, confirmed the assumption that, in addition to effects from specific products delivered, the lab contributes to the development of competencies in the civil servants who participate in the process, in resonance with a public administration paradigm based on public value.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"4 1","pages":"292 - 308"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/25741292.2021.1930686","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42613514","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 : 2021-03-18DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1883834
A. Whicher
Abstract At the intersection between theory and practice on “design” and “policy,” there is small but expanding knowledge base on the concept of “design for policy.” Government interest in design methods for policy-making has grown significantly since the late 1990s, particularly within policy labs. Policy labs are multidisciplinary government teams experimenting with a range of innovation methods, including design, to involve citizens in public policy development. There are more than 100 labs across the globe and around 14 at national and regional levels in the UK. While new policy labs continue to pop up, some are changing and some are closing their doors. How have the operating models of policy labs evolved? How might we enhance the resilience of labs? These are some of the questions explored in a 2-year Arts and Humanities Research Council Fellowship called People Powering Policy. The research draws on insight from established Labs including Policy Lab in the Cabinet Office, HMRC Policy Lab and the Northern Ireland Innovation Lab as well as emerging labs to address the research question: how might policy labs be developed, reviewed and evaluated? Based on interviews, workshops and immersive residencies the main outputs were a Typology of Policy Lab Financing Models and a Lab Proposition Framework for establishing, reviewing and evaluating policy labs. The typology outlines four models for UK labs financing models – Sponsorship (funding from one or multiple departments), Contribution (labs recover part of the costs of projects), Cost Recovery (labs charge for projects on a not-for-profit basis), Hybrid (labs benefit from multiple income sources such as Sponsorship, charging and knowledge exchange funding) and Consultancy (labs charge a consultancy rate with a profit margin to expand operations). The Lab Proposition Framework comprises of four components (1) Proposition – the vision, governance and finance models; (2) Product – the offering, user needs and tools; (3) People – the people skills, knowledge diffusion and wider capacity building; (4) Process – the routes to engagement, user journey and promotion mechanism.
{"title":"Evolution of policy labs and use of design for policy in UK government","authors":"A. Whicher","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1883834","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1883834","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract At the intersection between theory and practice on “design” and “policy,” there is small but expanding knowledge base on the concept of “design for policy.” Government interest in design methods for policy-making has grown significantly since the late 1990s, particularly within policy labs. Policy labs are multidisciplinary government teams experimenting with a range of innovation methods, including design, to involve citizens in public policy development. There are more than 100 labs across the globe and around 14 at national and regional levels in the UK. While new policy labs continue to pop up, some are changing and some are closing their doors. How have the operating models of policy labs evolved? How might we enhance the resilience of labs? These are some of the questions explored in a 2-year Arts and Humanities Research Council Fellowship called People Powering Policy. The research draws on insight from established Labs including Policy Lab in the Cabinet Office, HMRC Policy Lab and the Northern Ireland Innovation Lab as well as emerging labs to address the research question: how might policy labs be developed, reviewed and evaluated? Based on interviews, workshops and immersive residencies the main outputs were a Typology of Policy Lab Financing Models and a Lab Proposition Framework for establishing, reviewing and evaluating policy labs. The typology outlines four models for UK labs financing models – Sponsorship (funding from one or multiple departments), Contribution (labs recover part of the costs of projects), Cost Recovery (labs charge for projects on a not-for-profit basis), Hybrid (labs benefit from multiple income sources such as Sponsorship, charging and knowledge exchange funding) and Consultancy (labs charge a consultancy rate with a profit margin to expand operations). The Lab Proposition Framework comprises of four components (1) Proposition – the vision, governance and finance models; (2) Product – the offering, user needs and tools; (3) People – the people skills, knowledge diffusion and wider capacity building; (4) Process – the routes to engagement, user journey and promotion mechanism.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"4 1","pages":"252 - 270"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/25741292.2021.1883834","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49152967","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 : 2021-02-27DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1887576
Emma Blomkamp
Abstract As the complexity of policy problems is increasingly recognized, and participatory approaches gain popularity, policy workers are applying different methods to engage a wide range of stakeholders and citizens in policy development and implementation. Alongside burgeoning interest in various forms of design and systems thinking, systemic design has emerged as a descriptor for a practice that integrates dialogue, design and co-creation for sensemaking and decision-making. As an approach to participatory policymaking, systemic design involves creating the conditions for stakeholders to more meaningfully participate in building shared knowledge and taking collective action. This article puts forth a new practice framework for systemic design in public policy and social innovation. It distills insights from the author’s experience and knowledge as a researcher, evaluator, practitioner and educator in the design and delivery of public policy and human services. The five core domains of the practice framework—principles, place, people, process and practice—are based on established understandings of design-led, systems-informed and participatory approaches to policymaking, as well as knowledge from critical practice reflections, recent research and evaluation reports. The relevance of the practice framework is illustrated through a case study of a design-led approach to a community services policy in New Zealand. Examples from the case study demonstrate some of the benefits and challenges of systemic innovation and participatory policy design.
{"title":"Systemic design practice for participatory policymaking","authors":"Emma Blomkamp","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1887576","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1887576","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract As the complexity of policy problems is increasingly recognized, and participatory approaches gain popularity, policy workers are applying different methods to engage a wide range of stakeholders and citizens in policy development and implementation. Alongside burgeoning interest in various forms of design and systems thinking, systemic design has emerged as a descriptor for a practice that integrates dialogue, design and co-creation for sensemaking and decision-making. As an approach to participatory policymaking, systemic design involves creating the conditions for stakeholders to more meaningfully participate in building shared knowledge and taking collective action. This article puts forth a new practice framework for systemic design in public policy and social innovation. It distills insights from the author’s experience and knowledge as a researcher, evaluator, practitioner and educator in the design and delivery of public policy and human services. The five core domains of the practice framework—principles, place, people, process and practice—are based on established understandings of design-led, systems-informed and participatory approaches to policymaking, as well as knowledge from critical practice reflections, recent research and evaluation reports. The relevance of the practice framework is illustrated through a case study of a design-led approach to a community services policy in New Zealand. Examples from the case study demonstrate some of the benefits and challenges of systemic innovation and participatory policy design.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"5 1","pages":"12 - 31"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/25741292.2021.1887576","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44335141","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 : 2021-02-24DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1885797
G. Ferraro, P. Failler
Abstract Although many legal instruments have been adopted at the international and European Union levels to conserve biodiversity, continued degradation calls for reflections on their national and local implementation. The article examines biodiversity policy implementation in the outermost European region of Canary Islands, a Spanish archipelago rich in biodiversity. In particular it focuses on the policy uptake of new concepts. It deals with the valuation and integration of the services provided by nature into decision-making, and the application of policy measures based on the use of the planet’s natural assets. The article also analyses the challenges encountered in such institutional change. The concepts of ecosystem services and nature-based solutions are relatively new in the scientific literature and almost absent in policy literature. This article aims to stress the relevance of these concepts for the development of more innovative policies that bring nature and its services into decision-making and policy practice.
{"title":"Bringing nature into decision-making and policy design: Experiences from overseas Europe","authors":"G. Ferraro, P. Failler","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1885797","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1885797","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Although many legal instruments have been adopted at the international and European Union levels to conserve biodiversity, continued degradation calls for reflections on their national and local implementation. The article examines biodiversity policy implementation in the outermost European region of Canary Islands, a Spanish archipelago rich in biodiversity. In particular it focuses on the policy uptake of new concepts. It deals with the valuation and integration of the services provided by nature into decision-making, and the application of policy measures based on the use of the planet’s natural assets. The article also analyses the challenges encountered in such institutional change. The concepts of ecosystem services and nature-based solutions are relatively new in the scientific literature and almost absent in policy literature. This article aims to stress the relevance of these concepts for the development of more innovative policies that bring nature and its services into decision-making and policy practice.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"5 1","pages":"226 - 244"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/25741292.2021.1885797","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45835773","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 : 2021-02-24DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1888399
André Nogueira, R. Schmidt
Abstract The complexity of 21st-century socio-ecological-technical challenges increasingly strains the capacity of 20th-century policy design approaches. This new context opens an opportunity to evolve norms and perspectives on what is the intent of policy, but perhaps more importantly, on how policy is constructed – and for whom. In this article, we share an alternative to conventional policy design, expanding the notion of “policy-as-content” to embrace a more participatory approach to frame, make, and implement policy. We briefly present how we combined systems and behavioral design frameworks to scaffold prototyping activities during a design research project that explored food waste as a critical path for co-designing sustainable and equitable food systems in the City of Chicago. We highlight relevant activities of this project to show how our approach can challenge embedded norms and privileges in existing urban food systems and interrogate traditional ownership of problem definition and solution finding in policy design processes. Finally, we conclude with the implications of employing this approach to policy design when promoting large-scale change.
{"title":"Participatory policy design: igniting systems change through prototyping","authors":"André Nogueira, R. Schmidt","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1888399","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1888399","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The complexity of 21st-century socio-ecological-technical challenges increasingly strains the capacity of 20th-century policy design approaches. This new context opens an opportunity to evolve norms and perspectives on what is the intent of policy, but perhaps more importantly, on how policy is constructed – and for whom. In this article, we share an alternative to conventional policy design, expanding the notion of “policy-as-content” to embrace a more participatory approach to frame, make, and implement policy. We briefly present how we combined systems and behavioral design frameworks to scaffold prototyping activities during a design research project that explored food waste as a critical path for co-designing sustainable and equitable food systems in the City of Chicago. We highlight relevant activities of this project to show how our approach can challenge embedded norms and privileges in existing urban food systems and interrogate traditional ownership of problem definition and solution finding in policy design processes. Finally, we conclude with the implications of employing this approach to policy design when promoting large-scale change.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"5 1","pages":"32 - 50"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/25741292.2021.1888399","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60142152","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 : 2021-02-17DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1887592
Peter De Smedt, K. Borch
Abstract Governments are affected by an unprecedented technological acceleration that is transforming societies. Most technologies unfold in complex and unpredictable ways. Unfolding technologies have been both a source of societal and environmental challenges as well as a possible response to address them. This complexity challenges the ability of policy makers to recognize the systemic dimension of innovation and to learn from stakeholders engagement. For these reasons, sustainable transitions have progressively become a policy discourse on how to guide innovation trajectories. In this paper, we argue that a system innovation approach has great potential for governments to improve their policy design for sustainable transitions. This participatory approach requires a more systemic understanding of technological change and a better organization of stakeholder engagement than most traditional practices (e.g. an evidence-driven, technocratic or an idealistic, consensus approach) can offer. How can a participatory policy design tool with a strong emphasis on sustainable transitions be developed? In this paper, we applied a reflexive understanding of knowledge creation in stakeholder networks to develop such a tool in accordance with a system innovation approach.
{"title":"Participatory policy design in system innovation","authors":"Peter De Smedt, K. Borch","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1887592","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1887592","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Governments are affected by an unprecedented technological acceleration that is transforming societies. Most technologies unfold in complex and unpredictable ways. Unfolding technologies have been both a source of societal and environmental challenges as well as a possible response to address them. This complexity challenges the ability of policy makers to recognize the systemic dimension of innovation and to learn from stakeholders engagement. For these reasons, sustainable transitions have progressively become a policy discourse on how to guide innovation trajectories. In this paper, we argue that a system innovation approach has great potential for governments to improve their policy design for sustainable transitions. This participatory approach requires a more systemic understanding of technological change and a better organization of stakeholder engagement than most traditional practices (e.g. an evidence-driven, technocratic or an idealistic, consensus approach) can offer. How can a participatory policy design tool with a strong emphasis on sustainable transitions be developed? In this paper, we applied a reflexive understanding of knowledge creation in stakeholder networks to develop such a tool in accordance with a system innovation approach.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"5 1","pages":"51 - 65"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/25741292.2021.1887592","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60142110","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 : 2021-02-02DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1880063
Kathy L. Brock
Abstract Upon election in 2015, the Justin Trudeau Liberal government announced its intention to transform government operations by bringing nonprofit and private sector partners into the center of public sector decision making through new structures such as Policy Hubs and Innovation labs. These collaborative arrangements were intended to yield the benefits of Michael Barber’s theory of deliverology by breaking through the public sector aversion to risk and change and by creating new spaces for devising effective solutions to the increasingly complex social and economic challenges facing government. A preliminary examination of the use of policy hubs and innovation labs in Canada between 2015 and 2020 indicates that the results have been mixed for the nonprofit sector partners. Collaborative relations have offered nonprofit sector partners new opportunities and access to influence policy decisions. However, this influence also poses risks to their independence, legitimacy and effectiveness as policy advocates. Both public and nonprofit sector partners in PILs should heed certain cautions in choosing future partnerships or they may find their ability to achieve meaningful policy change is limited.
{"title":"Policy labs, partners and policy effectiveness in Canada","authors":"Kathy L. Brock","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1880063","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1880063","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Upon election in 2015, the Justin Trudeau Liberal government announced its intention to transform government operations by bringing nonprofit and private sector partners into the center of public sector decision making through new structures such as Policy Hubs and Innovation labs. These collaborative arrangements were intended to yield the benefits of Michael Barber’s theory of deliverology by breaking through the public sector aversion to risk and change and by creating new spaces for devising effective solutions to the increasingly complex social and economic challenges facing government. A preliminary examination of the use of policy hubs and innovation labs in Canada between 2015 and 2020 indicates that the results have been mixed for the nonprofit sector partners. Collaborative relations have offered nonprofit sector partners new opportunities and access to influence policy decisions. However, this influence also poses risks to their independence, legitimacy and effectiveness as policy advocates. Both public and nonprofit sector partners in PILs should heed certain cautions in choosing future partnerships or they may find their ability to achieve meaningful policy change is limited.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"4 1","pages":"228 - 241"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44736892","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：