Pub Date : 2000-10-01DOI: 10.1080/13876980008412643
D. Dill
As countries convert from state to market-centered public policies, there is increasing interest in new forms of public accountability. Capacity building initiatives that reform institutional frameworks are useful policy instruments during this period of transition. What are the impacts and implementation problems characteristic of this approach? This article reviews the experience with "Academic Audit," a capacity building accountability instrument for universities adopted in the UK, Sweden, New Zealand, and Hong Kong. Academic audits altered the incentives for cooperative behavior among faculty members to improve student learning. Identified implementation problems included: training for the new process, the uncertainty of capacity building benefits, and the central role of information.
{"title":"Capacity Building as an Instrument of Institutional Reform: Improving the Quality of Higher Education through Academic Audits in the UK, New Zealand, Sweden, and Hong Kong","authors":"D. Dill","doi":"10.1080/13876980008412643","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876980008412643","url":null,"abstract":"As countries convert from state to market-centered public policies, there is increasing interest in new forms of public accountability. Capacity building initiatives that reform institutional frameworks are useful policy instruments during this period of transition. What are the impacts and implementation problems characteristic of this approach? This article reviews the experience with \"Academic Audit,\" a capacity building accountability instrument for universities adopted in the UK, Sweden, New Zealand, and Hong Kong. Academic audits altered the incentives for cooperative behavior among faculty members to improve student learning. Identified implementation problems included: training for the new process, the uncertainty of capacity building benefits, and the central role of information.","PeriodicalId":47229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2000-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13876980008412643","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60015097","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-10-01DOI: 10.1080/13876980008412642
B. Levin, Jonathan C. Young
This article is an examination of the language of recent large-scale education reform in England, New Zealand, and the Canadian provinces of Alberta and Manitoba. In each jurisdiction, we review both the official documents and the parliamentary debate around a set of major educational reforms, looking at both the similarities and differences between jurisdictions and at the overall nature of official discourse. Although some similar rhetoric was used in all four settings, we conclude that the differences in justifications were more significant than the commonalities. Our analysis supports a view of official rhetoric as being primarily symbolic and intended to create or support particular definitions of problems and solutions, but also as shaped by the historical context, institutional structure, and political culture of each setting.
{"title":"The Rhetoric of Educational Reform","authors":"B. Levin, Jonathan C. Young","doi":"10.1080/13876980008412642","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876980008412642","url":null,"abstract":"This article is an examination of the language of recent large-scale education reform in England, New Zealand, and the Canadian provinces of Alberta and Manitoba. In each jurisdiction, we review both the official documents and the parliamentary debate around a set of major educational reforms, looking at both the similarities and differences between jurisdictions and at the overall nature of official discourse. Although some similar rhetoric was used in all four settings, we conclude that the differences in justifications were more significant than the commonalities. Our analysis supports a view of official rhetoric as being primarily symbolic and intended to create or support particular definitions of problems and solutions, but also as shaped by the historical context, institutional structure, and political culture of each setting.","PeriodicalId":47229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2000-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13876980008412642","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60015068","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-10-01DOI: 10.1080/13876980008412641
John A. Hoornbeek
In recent years, scholars and practitioners have focused increasing attention on the role of information in achieving environmental policy goals. This article develops a framework for understanding how information is used in making environmental policy, and compares the kinds of information development and communication efforts undertaken by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Environment Agency (EEA). The analysis suggests that institutional factors such as organizational structure and the mix of policy instruments used by the agency affect the kinds of information efforts undertaken. It also suggests possible areas of focus for environmental information efforts within the EPA and the EEA. These suggestions and the framework provided may also be of use to other environmental agencies.
{"title":"Information and Environmental Policy: A Tale of Two Agencies","authors":"John A. Hoornbeek","doi":"10.1080/13876980008412641","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876980008412641","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, scholars and practitioners have focused increasing attention on the role of information in achieving environmental policy goals. This article develops a framework for understanding how information is used in making environmental policy, and compares the kinds of information development and communication efforts undertaken by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Environment Agency (EEA). The analysis suggests that institutional factors such as organizational structure and the mix of policy instruments used by the agency affect the kinds of information efforts undertaken. It also suggests possible areas of focus for environmental information efforts within the EPA and the EEA. These suggestions and the framework provided may also be of use to other environmental agencies.","PeriodicalId":47229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2000-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13876980008412641","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60015022","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-08-23DOI: 10.1080/13876980008412644
J. Gal, Elazer Leshem
Settlement policies for immigrants seek to provide services for the needs of the newcomers during their initial stay in their new country. These services can be differentiated by the degree of discretion clients have over the manner in which the services are provided, i.e., in the form of in-kind or cash benefits, and by the conditions linked to receipt of these services. In recent years, the Israeli government has implemented an unusually liberal and relatively generous settlement policy that provides virtually unconditional cash benefits to immigrants. An examination of the decision-making process surrounding the adoption of this unique policy indicates that it can be linked to the need to deal with the mass influx of Soviet Jews during the early 1990s, power struggles between the agencies charged with immigrant integration, and the dominant Zionist and free market values of the decision-makers. This study of the settlement policy adopted in Israel during the 1990s not only can contribute to a better understanding of the decision-making process involved in social policy formulation but, on a more practical level, can serve as a model of dealing with immigrants that may be of relevance to other welfare states.
{"title":"Examining Changes in Settlement Policies for Immigrants: The Israeli Case","authors":"J. Gal, Elazer Leshem","doi":"10.1080/13876980008412644","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876980008412644","url":null,"abstract":"Settlement policies for immigrants seek to provide services for the needs of the newcomers during their initial stay in their new country. These services can be differentiated by the degree of discretion clients have over the manner in which the services are provided, i.e., in the form of in-kind or cash benefits, and by the conditions linked to receipt of these services. In recent years, the Israeli government has implemented an unusually liberal and relatively generous settlement policy that provides virtually unconditional cash benefits to immigrants. An examination of the decision-making process surrounding the adoption of this unique policy indicates that it can be linked to the need to deal with the mass influx of Soviet Jews during the early 1990s, power struggles between the agencies charged with immigrant integration, and the dominant Zionist and free market values of the decision-makers. This study of the settlement policy adopted in Israel during the 1990s not only can contribute to a better understanding of the decision-making process involved in social policy formulation but, on a more practical level, can serve as a model of dealing with immigrants that may be of relevance to other welfare states.","PeriodicalId":47229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2000-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13876980008412644","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60015100","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-04-27DOI: 10.1080/13876980108412665
A. Timmermans
In comparative approaches to the policy process, policymaking institutions are usually considered at the level of political systems. Countries, however, may vary not only in systemic institutions but also in types of policymaking arenas within specific domains. Systematic attention to this variation in policy arenas at both levels may complement existing theories of the policy process that focus on other explanatory variables and may increase the comparative potential of these approaches. As an explanatory variable, arena variation makes a difference to policy results in that it may increase or decrease the potential for policy change sought by policy entrepreneurs.
{"title":"Arenas as Institutional Sites for Policymaking: Patterns and Effects in Comparative Perspective","authors":"A. Timmermans","doi":"10.1080/13876980108412665","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876980108412665","url":null,"abstract":"In comparative approaches to the policy process, policymaking institutions are usually considered at the level of political systems. Countries, however, may vary not only in systemic institutions but also in types of policymaking arenas within specific domains. Systematic attention to this variation in policy arenas at both levels may complement existing theories of the policy process that focus on other explanatory variables and may increase the comparative potential of these approaches. As an explanatory variable, arena variation makes a difference to policy results in that it may increase or decrease the potential for policy change sought by policy entrepreneurs.","PeriodicalId":47229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2000-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13876980108412665","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60015467","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-04-01DOI: 10.1080/13876980008412635
R. Goodin, Anneloes Smitsman
Typologies categorize welfare regimes either on the basis of their history or of their program characteristics or of their policy outputs. These three approaches often converge; but they do not always lead to the same conclusions. Reanalyzing data from Esping-Andersen's THREE WORLDS OF WELFARE CAPITALISM and elsewhere, we show that the Dutch welfare regime looks very different depending upon which basis for classification is used.
{"title":"Placing Welfare States: The Netherlands as a Crucial Test Case","authors":"R. Goodin, Anneloes Smitsman","doi":"10.1080/13876980008412635","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876980008412635","url":null,"abstract":"Typologies categorize welfare regimes either on the basis of their history or of their program characteristics or of their policy outputs. These three approaches often converge; but they do not always lead to the same conclusions. Reanalyzing data from Esping-Andersen's THREE WORLDS OF WELFARE CAPITALISM and elsewhere, we show that the Dutch welfare regime looks very different depending upon which basis for classification is used.","PeriodicalId":47229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2000-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13876980008412635","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60014965","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-04-01DOI: 10.1080/13876980008412634
C. Weare, E. Smolensky
When giving policy advice, economists often proceed as if efficiency is the only valid social goal. Although efficiency is important, we argue that single-minded pursuit of it is counterproductive. It unnecessarily erects political hurdles to the enactment of efficiency-enhancing reforms because policy proposals that ignore valid, nonefficiency concerns are more likely to meet political and bureaucratic resistance. Moreover, such resistance may be avoided. A number of design principals can be employed to craft proposals that address political goals without abandoning efficiency. We describe three classes of principles: creative design of market mechanisms, maintenance of marginal incentives, and compensation for losers.We then illustrate their practical application in the context of Japanese financial-sector deregulation. This policy area usefully illustrates the importance of considering multiple goals in policy design. While efficiency is a frequently expressed goal, Japan's continued policy paralysis indicates that the bureaucratic and political goals of major stakeholders make the straightforward deregulation of financial markets difficult to achieve. We do not purport to resolve the entrenched barriers to economic reform in Japan, but to the extent that we identify and address valid nonefficiency goals, the conclusions of the analysis are relevant.
{"title":"Winners, Losers, and Efficiency: Achieving Multiple Goals in Japan's Financial System Reforms","authors":"C. Weare, E. Smolensky","doi":"10.1080/13876980008412634","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876980008412634","url":null,"abstract":"When giving policy advice, economists often proceed as if efficiency is the only valid social goal. Although efficiency is important, we argue that single-minded pursuit of it is counterproductive. It unnecessarily erects political hurdles to the enactment of efficiency-enhancing reforms because policy proposals that ignore valid, nonefficiency concerns are more likely to meet political and bureaucratic resistance. Moreover, such resistance may be avoided. A number of design principals can be employed to craft proposals that address political goals without abandoning efficiency. We describe three classes of principles: creative design of market mechanisms, maintenance of marginal incentives, and compensation for losers.We then illustrate their practical application in the context of Japanese financial-sector deregulation. This policy area usefully illustrates the importance of considering multiple goals in policy design. While efficiency is a frequently expressed goal, Japan's continued policy paralysis indicates that the bureaucratic and political goals of major stakeholders make the straightforward deregulation of financial markets difficult to achieve. We do not purport to resolve the entrenched barriers to economic reform in Japan, but to the extent that we identify and address valid nonefficiency goals, the conclusions of the analysis are relevant.","PeriodicalId":47229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2000-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13876980008412634","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60014948","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-04-01DOI: 10.1080/13876980008412636
B. Radin, J. Boase
Two of the three large countries on the North American continent—the United States and Canada—share a number of similarities that often make it difficult for the untrained observer to differentiate between the two nations. On the surface, the two are structured similarly as federal systems that, by definition, exhibit shared power between the national government and provincial or state political entities.Although there are other important social and economic characteristics of the two countries that help explain differences in policy processes and outcomes, it is the contention of this article that one gets the clearest sense of what Elazar has called “thinking federal” by utilizing an analytical approach that joins questions related to federalism with some conceptual frameworks of the public policy field. Two frameworks undergird the argument in this article—the Lowi typology of different types of policies and Deil Wright's typology of different models that describe the American inter-governmental system.In both countries, policies must be sensitive to the greater interdependencies between units of government as well as to linkages between policy areas. The mechanisms or instrumentalities for dealing with policy issues are intrinsically complex. It is also clear that the intergovernmental networks that exist in both the U.S. and Canada are composed of an array of actors. The differing political structures of the systems do impact the types of intergovernmental policies that have emerged in the two countries. The executive dominance so imbedded in Canadian governments has contributed to their ability to adopt and implement certain controversial redistributive policies, such as a national health insurance program. By contrast, the fragmentation of the U.S. system makes redistributive policies more difficult.
{"title":"Federalism, Political Structure, and Public Policy in the United States and Canada","authors":"B. Radin, J. Boase","doi":"10.1080/13876980008412636","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876980008412636","url":null,"abstract":"Two of the three large countries on the North American continent—the United States and Canada—share a number of similarities that often make it difficult for the untrained observer to differentiate between the two nations. On the surface, the two are structured similarly as federal systems that, by definition, exhibit shared power between the national government and provincial or state political entities.Although there are other important social and economic characteristics of the two countries that help explain differences in policy processes and outcomes, it is the contention of this article that one gets the clearest sense of what Elazar has called “thinking federal” by utilizing an analytical approach that joins questions related to federalism with some conceptual frameworks of the public policy field. Two frameworks undergird the argument in this article—the Lowi typology of different types of policies and Deil Wright's typology of different models that describe the American inter-governmental system.In both countries, policies must be sensitive to the greater interdependencies between units of government as well as to linkages between policy areas. The mechanisms or instrumentalities for dealing with policy issues are intrinsically complex. It is also clear that the intergovernmental networks that exist in both the U.S. and Canada are composed of an array of actors. The differing political structures of the systems do impact the types of intergovernmental policies that have emerged in the two countries. The executive dominance so imbedded in Canadian governments has contributed to their ability to adopt and implement certain controversial redistributive policies, such as a national health insurance program. By contrast, the fragmentation of the U.S. system makes redistributive policies more difficult.","PeriodicalId":47229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2000-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13876980008412636","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60015003","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Well-Being in the Welfare State: Level Not Higher, Distribution Not More Equitable","authors":"R. Veenhoven","doi":"10.1023/A:1010058615425","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010058615425","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1023/A:1010058615425","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57011977","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","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：