This paper aims to broaden our understanding of public policy characterized by issues of non-consensus. The idea of flexible, independent administrative decision-making for a conflict-oriented policy-type is addressed in terms of chronological constructions of policy process. Distributions of limited resources are a source of public contention likely to draw ambiguous high-level policy decisions that lack practical administrative directives. Conflicting institutional, professional and stakeholder influences, at various levels of policy processes, illuminate circumstances fostering implementations incongruent with politically motivated macro-declarations. Yet, this does not necessarily represent failed policy. A reevaluation of administrative systems, by critical deconstruction of the dominant top-down discourse, provides a frame of reference for valid divergent implementations. A conceptual progression from field-level interpretation and adaptation of macro policy, initiatory orphan implementations emerge as policy itself. This revised bottom-up modality of the policy process implies a working balance of combined outputs, providing equitable outcome to serve largescale public interest.
{"title":"Orphan Implementations of Public Policy for Conflict-Oriented Issues","authors":"Shulamith Gertel Groome","doi":"10.32994/hk.v21i2.269","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32994/hk.v21i2.269","url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims to broaden our understanding of public policy characterized by issues of non-consensus. The idea of flexible, independent administrative decision-making for a conflict-oriented policy-type is addressed in terms of chronological constructions of policy process. Distributions of limited resources are a source of public contention likely to draw ambiguous high-level policy decisions that lack practical administrative directives. Conflicting institutional, professional and stakeholder influences, at various levels of policy processes, illuminate circumstances fostering implementations incongruent with politically motivated macro-declarations. Yet, this does not necessarily represent failed policy. A reevaluation of administrative systems, by critical deconstruction of the dominant top-down discourse, provides a frame of reference for valid divergent implementations. A conceptual progression from field-level interpretation and adaptation of macro policy, initiatory orphan implementations emerge as policy itself. This revised bottom-up modality of the policy process implies a working balance of combined outputs, providing equitable outcome to serve largescale public interest.","PeriodicalId":39182,"journal":{"name":"Halduskultuur","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41439430","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}
After the global financial crisis in 2008-2010, the governance framework of the European Union’s economic and fiscal policy has undergone several changes. The Stability and Growth Pact - the core of the EU’s fiscal governance framework - has been reinforced by the “sixpack”, the “two-pack”, the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union, and the rules are grounded in the European Semester process. After 10 years since the initial major changes were introduced into the EU’s legislative framework and given the current times of fiscal uncertainty as well as ongoing discussions on revising and improving the Stability and Growth Pact rules once again, it is of utmost importance to understand the impacts these past reforms have had on member states in the first place. The paper serves two purposes. First and foremost, the main goal of the paper is to build on the existing knowledge on Europeanization in order to bring into one single framework a whole set of different policy measures and their potential impact on the member state’s budgeting processes. Secondly, the theoretical discussion is followed by an empirical case study of Estonia. The case study not only illustrated and mapped out potential impacts that the EU’s economic and fiscal governance measures can have on a national budgetary process and demonstrated the potential degree of domestic change in response to these various policy measures, but also provided preliminary insights in the possible mediating factors that could additionally influence domestic adaption.
{"title":"The Impact of the EU’s Economic and Fiscal Policy Measures on the Budgeting Process of Estonia","authors":"Kati Keel","doi":"10.32994/hk.v21i2.266","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32994/hk.v21i2.266","url":null,"abstract":"After the global financial crisis in 2008-2010, the governance framework of the European Union’s economic and fiscal policy has undergone several changes. The Stability and Growth Pact - the core of the EU’s fiscal governance framework - has been reinforced by the “sixpack”, the “two-pack”, the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union, and the rules are grounded in the European Semester process. After 10 years since the initial major changes were introduced into the EU’s legislative framework and given the current times of fiscal uncertainty as well as ongoing discussions on revising and improving the Stability and Growth Pact rules once again, it is of utmost importance to understand the impacts these past reforms have had on member states in the first place. The paper serves two purposes. First and foremost, the main goal of the paper is to build on the existing knowledge on Europeanization in order to bring into one single framework a whole set of different policy measures and their potential impact on the member state’s budgeting processes. Secondly, the theoretical discussion is followed by an empirical case study of Estonia. The case study not only illustrated and mapped out potential impacts that the EU’s economic and fiscal governance measures can have on a national budgetary process and demonstrated the potential degree of domestic change in response to these various policy measures, but also provided preliminary insights in the possible mediating factors that could additionally influence domestic adaption.","PeriodicalId":39182,"journal":{"name":"Halduskultuur","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43614374","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}
The Dutch governmental digital infrastructure (Generic Digital Infrastructure; GDI) is a vital element of state functioning. This article investigates the governance of the GDI as exemplified by the activities of the Digi Commissioner (officially the ‘National Coordinator Digital Government’). In 2014 the Digi Commissioner was made responsible for coordinating and re-structuring GDI-governance. Early 2018 his tasks were transferred to the Ministry of Interior Affairs. Some progress was made, but according to the Digi Commissioner himself the GDI still leaves much to be desired and is far from future proof. The article will discuss the Dutch digital infrastructure by adopting several perspectives. First, by defining and describing the development of the GDI. Second, by analysing the activities and achievements of the Digi Commissioner. Third, by applying behavioural economics and securitization concepts offering relevant insights with regard to the (lack of) GDI-progress.
{"title":"The Dutch “Digi Commissioner” (2014-2018)","authors":"A. Claver","doi":"10.32994/hk.v21i2.245","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32994/hk.v21i2.245","url":null,"abstract":"The Dutch governmental digital infrastructure (Generic Digital Infrastructure; GDI) is a vital element of state functioning. This article investigates the governance of the GDI as exemplified by the activities of the Digi Commissioner (officially the ‘National Coordinator Digital Government’). In 2014 the Digi Commissioner was made responsible for coordinating and re-structuring GDI-governance. Early 2018 his tasks were transferred to the Ministry of Interior Affairs. Some progress was made, but according to the Digi Commissioner himself the GDI still leaves much to be desired and is far from future proof. The article will discuss the Dutch digital infrastructure by adopting several perspectives. First, by defining and describing the development of the GDI. Second, by analysing the activities and achievements of the Digi Commissioner. Third, by applying behavioural economics and securitization concepts offering relevant insights with regard to the (lack of) GDI-progress.","PeriodicalId":39182,"journal":{"name":"Halduskultuur","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45185048","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：