Joanna Vince, Maree Fudge, Liam Fullbrook, Marcus Haward
An important aspect of policy integration is the need for policymakers to establish integrative capacity. However, very few scholars who refer to this concept have explained what integrative capacity is and what aspects of the policy process policymakers need to focus on to establish that capacity. In this paper, we define integrative capacity and introduce an “integrative capacity framework” that outlines key components required by public agencies to progress policy integration. Drawing on existing literature, we apply three dimensions of policy—the policy process, program, and politics—to identify where integrative capacity can occur. Within those dimensions, we identify four conditions that can impact integration: coordination and coherence; accountability, transparency, and legitimacy; resourcing and adequate institutional architecture. We argue that by unpacking the integrative capacity concept, scholars and policymakers can utilize the framework to identify what elements of the policy process need to be addressed to increase the likelihood of integrative policy success.
{"title":"Understanding policy integration through an integrative capacity framework","authors":"Joanna Vince, Maree Fudge, Liam Fullbrook, Marcus Haward","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae027","url":null,"abstract":"An important aspect of policy integration is the need for policymakers to establish integrative capacity. However, very few scholars who refer to this concept have explained what integrative capacity is and what aspects of the policy process policymakers need to focus on to establish that capacity. In this paper, we define integrative capacity and introduce an “integrative capacity framework” that outlines key components required by public agencies to progress policy integration. Drawing on existing literature, we apply three dimensions of policy—the policy process, program, and politics—to identify where integrative capacity can occur. Within those dimensions, we identify four conditions that can impact integration: coordination and coherence; accountability, transparency, and legitimacy; resourcing and adequate institutional architecture. We argue that by unpacking the integrative capacity concept, scholars and policymakers can utilize the framework to identify what elements of the policy process need to be addressed to increase the likelihood of integrative policy success.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"230 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141915234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Canadian policy style has been described as one of overpromising and underdelivering, where heightened expectations are often met by underwhelming outcomes. Here, we examine the evidentiary style of Canadian policy-making which undergirds and reflects this policy style, particularly the nature of the policy advisory system that contributes to this pattern of policy-making. We do so by assessing how the different components of the advice system, which include academics, consultants, and policy professionals within the public service, are structured and relate to each other within the overall dynamics of information management and policy formulation in the governments of Canada. Using examples from recent efforts to revitalize Canadian government, the paper argues that the federal government in particular shows a pattern of the predominance of non-innovative academic “super-users,” distributed policy shops, and process-oriented analysts and consultants who combine with attributes of federalism and partisan budgetary politics to drive a distinctively fragmented and procedurally-oriented federal policy-making process. In these processes, evidence is often secondary to political posturing and short-term electioneering in program creation and execution, contributing greatly to the national policy style set out above.
{"title":"Words not deeds: the weak culture of evidence in the Canadian policy style","authors":"Andrea Migone, Michael Howlett, Alexander Howlett","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae026","url":null,"abstract":"The Canadian policy style has been described as one of overpromising and underdelivering, where heightened expectations are often met by underwhelming outcomes. Here, we examine the evidentiary style of Canadian policy-making which undergirds and reflects this policy style, particularly the nature of the policy advisory system that contributes to this pattern of policy-making. We do so by assessing how the different components of the advice system, which include academics, consultants, and policy professionals within the public service, are structured and relate to each other within the overall dynamics of information management and policy formulation in the governments of Canada. Using examples from recent efforts to revitalize Canadian government, the paper argues that the federal government in particular shows a pattern of the predominance of non-innovative academic “super-users,” distributed policy shops, and process-oriented analysts and consultants who combine with attributes of federalism and partisan budgetary politics to drive a distinctively fragmented and procedurally-oriented federal policy-making process. In these processes, evidence is often secondary to political posturing and short-term electioneering in program creation and execution, contributing greatly to the national policy style set out above.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141910443","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jörn Ege, Anat Gofen, Susanne Hadorn, Inbal Hakman, Anna Malandrino, Leroy Ramseier, Fritz Sager
This study focuses on street-level managers’ (SLMs) compliance with COVID-19 measures in Switzerland, Germany, Italy, and Israel, in order to better understand their role during policy implementation. Responsible for the direct delivery of public services, street-level organizations serve as the operational arm of the state in general and as the frontline of government policy in times of crisis. SLMs who occupy the top managerial tier within their organization are understudied, although they exert a significant influence on everyday public life. The data comprise 399 “compliance stories” based on interviews with managers in nurseries, schools, health care and welfare offices, police stations, and care homes. Using “codebook thematic analysis,” we identify various levels of (non)compliance and several prominent explanatory factors that shape (non)compliance. Data show that even when asked about particularly challenging measures, managers reported that their organization had been noncompliant (either full or partial) in only about a quarter of the stories. Three influences emerge as primary barriers to compliance—a lack of resources, managers’ relationships with clients, and the perception of the measure’s effectiveness. Emphasizing that SLMs often act as local policy entrepreneurs using their discretion to solve problems and serve the public, our findings further demonstrate the crucial role they play in shaping the face of the government for the people.
{"title":"Understanding street-level managers’ compliance: a comparative study of policy implementation in Switzerland, Italy, Germany, and Israel","authors":"Jörn Ege, Anat Gofen, Susanne Hadorn, Inbal Hakman, Anna Malandrino, Leroy Ramseier, Fritz Sager","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae024","url":null,"abstract":"This study focuses on street-level managers’ (SLMs) compliance with COVID-19 measures in Switzerland, Germany, Italy, and Israel, in order to better understand their role during policy implementation. Responsible for the direct delivery of public services, street-level organizations serve as the operational arm of the state in general and as the frontline of government policy in times of crisis. SLMs who occupy the top managerial tier within their organization are understudied, although they exert a significant influence on everyday public life. The data comprise 399 “compliance stories” based on interviews with managers in nurseries, schools, health care and welfare offices, police stations, and care homes. Using “codebook thematic analysis,” we identify various levels of (non)compliance and several prominent explanatory factors that shape (non)compliance. Data show that even when asked about particularly challenging measures, managers reported that their organization had been noncompliant (either full or partial) in only about a quarter of the stories. Three influences emerge as primary barriers to compliance—a lack of resources, managers’ relationships with clients, and the perception of the measure’s effectiveness. Emphasizing that SLMs often act as local policy entrepreneurs using their discretion to solve problems and serve the public, our findings further demonstrate the crucial role they play in shaping the face of the government for the people.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"126 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141495654","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Introduced by the United Nations, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aim at facilitating inclusive sustainable development. Responsiveness to SDGs is considered a key to addressing pressing development problems. The current literature focuses on the responsiveness of varied public organizations to SDGs, whereas SDGs’ responsiveness of policy innovation labs (PILs) is understudied. Aiming to address both persistent and emerging social and environmental problems, PILs are aligned with SDGs. On the other hand, PILs seek innovative ways to generate policy solutions in collaboration with citizens through experimental methods and thus are more committed to the local public rather than international organizations. This paper investigates to what extent and in what way PILs respond to SDGs during policy formulation processes, both implicitly and explicitly. Data draws on a database the authors developed, identifying 211 European PILs. Thematic coding of PILs’ websites reveals that 62.1% of the PILs implicitly promote at least one SDG. Additionally, sustainable cities and communities (SDG11) and good health and well-being (SDG3) are the two SDGs with the highest implicit-response rates, respectively. We apply grounded theory analysis from semi-structured interviews with senior PIL employees of 31 PILs to gauge their explicit views of SDGs. This inductive approach reveals three dimensions to SDGs: levels of responsiveness, different practices, and considerations that guide PILs on whether to comply with SDGs. A better understanding of PILs’ response to SDGs provides a more nuanced portrayal of PILs as organizations aiming to craft innovative policy solutions that align with international frameworks.
{"title":"Meeting expectations? Response of policy innovation labs to sustainable development goals","authors":"Esti Hoss-Golan, Anat Gofen, Adam M Wellstead","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae023","url":null,"abstract":"Introduced by the United Nations, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aim at facilitating inclusive sustainable development. Responsiveness to SDGs is considered a key to addressing pressing development problems. The current literature focuses on the responsiveness of varied public organizations to SDGs, whereas SDGs’ responsiveness of policy innovation labs (PILs) is understudied. Aiming to address both persistent and emerging social and environmental problems, PILs are aligned with SDGs. On the other hand, PILs seek innovative ways to generate policy solutions in collaboration with citizens through experimental methods and thus are more committed to the local public rather than international organizations. This paper investigates to what extent and in what way PILs respond to SDGs during policy formulation processes, both implicitly and explicitly. Data draws on a database the authors developed, identifying 211 European PILs. Thematic coding of PILs’ websites reveals that 62.1% of the PILs implicitly promote at least one SDG. Additionally, sustainable cities and communities (SDG11) and good health and well-being (SDG3) are the two SDGs with the highest implicit-response rates, respectively. We apply grounded theory analysis from semi-structured interviews with senior PIL employees of 31 PILs to gauge their explicit views of SDGs. This inductive approach reveals three dimensions to SDGs: levels of responsiveness, different practices, and considerations that guide PILs on whether to comply with SDGs. A better understanding of PILs’ response to SDGs provides a more nuanced portrayal of PILs as organizations aiming to craft innovative policy solutions that align with international frameworks.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"93 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141495674","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The launch of ChatGPT in late 2022 led to major controversies about the governance of generative artificial intelligence (AI). This article examines the first international governance and policy initiatives dedicated specifically to generative AI: the G7 Hiroshima process, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development reports, and the UK AI Safety Summit. This analysis is informed by policy framing and governance literature, in particular by the work on technology governance and Responsible Innovation. Emerging governance of generative AI exhibits characteristics of polycentric governance, where multiple and overlapping centers of decision-making are in collaborative relationships. However, it is dominated by a limited number of developed countries. The governance of generative AI is mostly framed in terms of the risk management, largely neglecting issues of purpose and direction of innovation, and assigning rather limited roles to the public. We can see a “paradox of generative AI governance” emerging, namely, that while this technology is being widely used by the public, its governance is rather narrow. This article coins the term “governance fix” to capture this rather narrow and technocratic approach to governing generative AI. As an alternative, it suggests embracing the politics of polycentric governance and Responsible Innovation that highlight democratic and participatory co-shaping of technology for social benefit. In the context of the highly unequal distribution of power in generative AI characterized by a high concentration of power in a small number of large tech companies, the government has a special role in reshaping the power imbalances by enabling wide-ranging public participation in the governance of generative AI.
{"title":"Governance fix? Power and politics in controversies about governing generative AI","authors":"Inga Ulnicane","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae022","url":null,"abstract":"The launch of ChatGPT in late 2022 led to major controversies about the governance of generative artificial intelligence (AI). This article examines the first international governance and policy initiatives dedicated specifically to generative AI: the G7 Hiroshima process, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development reports, and the UK AI Safety Summit. This analysis is informed by policy framing and governance literature, in particular by the work on technology governance and Responsible Innovation. Emerging governance of generative AI exhibits characteristics of polycentric governance, where multiple and overlapping centers of decision-making are in collaborative relationships. However, it is dominated by a limited number of developed countries. The governance of generative AI is mostly framed in terms of the risk management, largely neglecting issues of purpose and direction of innovation, and assigning rather limited roles to the public. We can see a “paradox of generative AI governance” emerging, namely, that while this technology is being widely used by the public, its governance is rather narrow. This article coins the term “governance fix” to capture this rather narrow and technocratic approach to governing generative AI. As an alternative, it suggests embracing the politics of polycentric governance and Responsible Innovation that highlight democratic and participatory co-shaping of technology for social benefit. In the context of the highly unequal distribution of power in generative AI characterized by a high concentration of power in a small number of large tech companies, the government has a special role in reshaping the power imbalances by enabling wide-ranging public participation in the governance of generative AI.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141495526","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper brings insights into ideational robustness to bear on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) fiscal policy thinking. It advances understanding of both the IMF and the concept of ideational robustness by focusing on economic ideas as they are put into practice by expert economic institutions. The IMF has traditionally enjoyed a reputation as a hawkish enforcer of neoliberal doctrine and conservative fiscal discipline, foregrounding deficit bias and fiscal sustainability concerns. Capitalist crises, notably the 2008 crash and COVID, have seen public debt increase while rendering growth and stability increasingly elusive. This turbulence has spurred some rethinking of Fund fiscal ideas. The IMF has added the new concept of fiscal space to its policy commentary and advocacy. Fiscal space seeks to reconcile economic stabilization and supporting growth to the Fund’s overarching concern to maintain fiscal discipline and sustainability. A focus on how ideas are put into practice shows that long-standing Fund fiscal priorities are hardwired into operational frameworks, curtailing the new emphasis and adaptions. Thus, key to the institutional conditions of IMF fiscal policy actions are “baked in” economic ideas. These are operationalized through economic models, analytical tools, fiscal evaluation frameworks, and standard operating procedures. The “politics of economic method,” in the form of deliberation and contestation over different normative ideas that can underpin alternative constructions of such policy frameworks, plays an important role in shaping which economic ideas come to matter, and how, for the IMF. The Fund’s “fiscal space” episode can be interpreted as a quest for ideational robustness (through increased flexibility), which thus far remains unrealized due to the crucial role of these mechanisms, institutional conditions, and ideational path dependencies.
{"title":"How “baked in” ideas hinder ideational robustness: the International Monetary Fund and “fiscal space”","authors":"Ben Clift","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae021","url":null,"abstract":"This paper brings insights into ideational robustness to bear on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) fiscal policy thinking. It advances understanding of both the IMF and the concept of ideational robustness by focusing on economic ideas as they are put into practice by expert economic institutions. The IMF has traditionally enjoyed a reputation as a hawkish enforcer of neoliberal doctrine and conservative fiscal discipline, foregrounding deficit bias and fiscal sustainability concerns. Capitalist crises, notably the 2008 crash and COVID, have seen public debt increase while rendering growth and stability increasingly elusive. This turbulence has spurred some rethinking of Fund fiscal ideas. The IMF has added the new concept of fiscal space to its policy commentary and advocacy. Fiscal space seeks to reconcile economic stabilization and supporting growth to the Fund’s overarching concern to maintain fiscal discipline and sustainability. A focus on how ideas are put into practice shows that long-standing Fund fiscal priorities are hardwired into operational frameworks, curtailing the new emphasis and adaptions. Thus, key to the institutional conditions of IMF fiscal policy actions are “baked in” economic ideas. These are operationalized through economic models, analytical tools, fiscal evaluation frameworks, and standard operating procedures. The “politics of economic method,” in the form of deliberation and contestation over different normative ideas that can underpin alternative constructions of such policy frameworks, plays an important role in shaping which economic ideas come to matter, and how, for the IMF. The Fund’s “fiscal space” episode can be interpreted as a quest for ideational robustness (through increased flexibility), which thus far remains unrealized due to the crucial role of these mechanisms, institutional conditions, and ideational path dependencies.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"336 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141462213","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Benjamin Cashore, Ishani Mukherjee, Altaf Virani, Lahiru S Wijedasa
For over two decades, scientists have documented the alarming decline of global Peatland ecosystems, regarded as the planet’s most crucial carbon sinks. The deterioration of these unique wetlands alongside their policy attention presents a puzzle for policy scientists and for students of anticipatory policy design. Two contrasting explanations have emerged. Some argue that pressures from economic globalization compel governments to relax environmental standards, while others point to deficiencies in policy design and implementation. Our paper applies Cashore’s Four Problem Types framework to assess a more nuanced explanation: that failure of global and local policies to curb ecosystem degradation is owing to a misalignment between how the problem is currently conceived of, and what conception is required for, effective environmental management. We find overwhelming evidence that reversing Peatland degradation necessitates a fundamental shift in applied policy analysis—from treating the crisis as a Type 3 (Compromise), Type 2 (Optimization), or even Type 1 (Commons) problem, to conceiving it as a Type 4 (Prioritization) challenge. Achieving this requires undertaking four essential policy design tasks: engaging sequentialist/lexical ordering processes; identifying key features of the problem that any solution would need to incorporate to effectively overcome; applying path dependency analysis to uncover policy mix innovations capable of “locking-in” sustainability trajectories that can fend off pressures for policy conception drift; and organizing multistakeholder “policy design learning” exercises that integrate complex sources of knowledge produced within, and across, the ecological and policy sciences.
{"title":"Policy design for biodiversity: How problem conception drift undermines “fit-for-purpose” Peatland conservation","authors":"Benjamin Cashore, Ishani Mukherjee, Altaf Virani, Lahiru S Wijedasa","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae019","url":null,"abstract":"For over two decades, scientists have documented the alarming decline of global Peatland ecosystems, regarded as the planet’s most crucial carbon sinks. The deterioration of these unique wetlands alongside their policy attention presents a puzzle for policy scientists and for students of anticipatory policy design. Two contrasting explanations have emerged. Some argue that pressures from economic globalization compel governments to relax environmental standards, while others point to deficiencies in policy design and implementation. Our paper applies Cashore’s Four Problem Types framework to assess a more nuanced explanation: that failure of global and local policies to curb ecosystem degradation is owing to a misalignment between how the problem is currently conceived of, and what conception is required for, effective environmental management. We find overwhelming evidence that reversing Peatland degradation necessitates a fundamental shift in applied policy analysis—from treating the crisis as a Type 3 (Compromise), Type 2 (Optimization), or even Type 1 (Commons) problem, to conceiving it as a Type 4 (Prioritization) challenge. Achieving this requires undertaking four essential policy design tasks: engaging sequentialist/lexical ordering processes; identifying key features of the problem that any solution would need to incorporate to effectively overcome; applying path dependency analysis to uncover policy mix innovations capable of “locking-in” sustainability trajectories that can fend off pressures for policy conception drift; and organizing multistakeholder “policy design learning” exercises that integrate complex sources of knowledge produced within, and across, the ecological and policy sciences.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141333591","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines the challenges of regulating artificial intelligence (AI) systems and proposes an adapted model of regulation suitable for AI’s novel features. Unlike past technologies, AI systems built using techniques like deep learning cannot be directly analyzed, specified, or audited against regulations. Their behavior emerges unpredictably from training rather than intentional design. However, the traditional model of delegating oversight to an expert agency, which has succeeded in high-risk sectors like aviation and nuclear power, should not be wholly discarded. Instead, policymakers must contain risks from today’s opaque models while supporting research into provably safe AI architectures. Drawing lessons from AI safety literature and past regulatory successes, effective AI governance will likely require consolidated authority, licensing regimes, mandated training data and modeling disclosures, formal verification of system behavior, and the capacity for rapid intervention.
{"title":"When code isn’t law: rethinking regulation for artificial intelligence","authors":"Brian Judge, Mark Nitzberg, Stuart Russell","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae020","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the challenges of regulating artificial intelligence (AI) systems and proposes an adapted model of regulation suitable for AI’s novel features. Unlike past technologies, AI systems built using techniques like deep learning cannot be directly analyzed, specified, or audited against regulations. Their behavior emerges unpredictably from training rather than intentional design. However, the traditional model of delegating oversight to an expert agency, which has succeeded in high-risk sectors like aviation and nuclear power, should not be wholly discarded. Instead, policymakers must contain risks from today’s opaque models while supporting research into provably safe AI architectures. Drawing lessons from AI safety literature and past regulatory successes, effective AI governance will likely require consolidated authority, licensing regimes, mandated training data and modeling disclosures, formal verification of system behavior, and the capacity for rapid intervention.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141177193","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The concept of robustness has received increasing scholarly attention regarding public policy and governance, where it has enhanced our understanding of how policies and governance are adapted and innovated in response to disruptive events, challenges, and demands associated with heightened societal turbulence. Yet, we know little about the robustness of the ideas undergirding the efforts to foster robust policymaking and public governance. Based on a review of recent strands of governance theory and the ideational turn in public policy research, we define a new ideational robustness concept, which can help us to explain why some governance and policy ideas persist, while others disappear. As the contributions to this special issue demonstrate, studying ideational robustness opens new avenues for reflecting on how the robustness of ideas may affect the robustness of public policy and governance.
{"title":"Ideational robustness in turbulent times","authors":"Martin B Carstensen, Eva Sørensen, Jacob Torfing","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae016","url":null,"abstract":"The concept of robustness has received increasing scholarly attention regarding public policy and governance, where it has enhanced our understanding of how policies and governance are adapted and innovated in response to disruptive events, challenges, and demands associated with heightened societal turbulence. Yet, we know little about the robustness of the ideas undergirding the efforts to foster robust policymaking and public governance. Based on a review of recent strands of governance theory and the ideational turn in public policy research, we define a new ideational robustness concept, which can help us to explain why some governance and policy ideas persist, while others disappear. As the contributions to this special issue demonstrate, studying ideational robustness opens new avenues for reflecting on how the robustness of ideas may affect the robustness of public policy and governance.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141085561","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article draws on rich qualitative data from two national parliaments—the UK House of Commons and the German Bundestag—to examine knowledge practices in political institutions. This is an important topic, not only because parliaments play a significant role in democratic decision-making, but because it sheds light on debates about how such decision-making is based on and interacts with knowledge and evidence. By adopting an interpretive analytical approach, I analyze the ways in which those practices are shaped by the beliefs and values of parliamentary actors. Indeed, in better understanding everyday practices, beliefs, and ideational traditions, it also contributes to better explaining how components of political and parliamentary cultures contribute to knowledge use more broadly. In the House of Commons, MPs draw on a highly trusted and independent parliamentary administration; meanwhile, committees have become fruitful avenues for MPs to develop policy expertise and engage with knowledge and evidence in a non-partisan way. In the German Bundestag, MPs also develop policy expertise—in fact, they interpret their role as specialists in a “working” parliament—but their knowledge practices are more openly partisan through the structuring role of parliamentary party groups and the skepticism of “neutral” advice from research services. Consequently, committees tend to be sites of political bargaining and conflict, rather than evidence-gathering. In both cases, parliaments’ knowledge practices are shaped by wider webs of beliefs about the role of MPs within the institutions. This suggests that knowledge use in political and policy settings is shaped by broader cultural factors.
{"title":"Comparing evidence use in parliaments: the interplay of beliefs, traditions, and practices in the UK and Germany","authors":"Marc Geddes","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae017","url":null,"abstract":"This article draws on rich qualitative data from two national parliaments—the UK House of Commons and the German Bundestag—to examine knowledge practices in political institutions. This is an important topic, not only because parliaments play a significant role in democratic decision-making, but because it sheds light on debates about how such decision-making is based on and interacts with knowledge and evidence. By adopting an interpretive analytical approach, I analyze the ways in which those practices are shaped by the beliefs and values of parliamentary actors. Indeed, in better understanding everyday practices, beliefs, and ideational traditions, it also contributes to better explaining how components of political and parliamentary cultures contribute to knowledge use more broadly. In the House of Commons, MPs draw on a highly trusted and independent parliamentary administration; meanwhile, committees have become fruitful avenues for MPs to develop policy expertise and engage with knowledge and evidence in a non-partisan way. In the German Bundestag, MPs also develop policy expertise—in fact, they interpret their role as specialists in a “working” parliament—but their knowledge practices are more openly partisan through the structuring role of parliamentary party groups and the skepticism of “neutral” advice from research services. Consequently, committees tend to be sites of political bargaining and conflict, rather than evidence-gathering. In both cases, parliaments’ knowledge practices are shaped by wider webs of beliefs about the role of MPs within the institutions. This suggests that knowledge use in political and policy settings is shaped by broader cultural factors.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141085536","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：