Data science is a new link in the long chain of quantitative measurement in public policy. The article analyses the promotion of data science as a tool of public policy by operationalizing the instrument constituency framework. The article expands research on instrument constituencies to two new areas: measurement instruments and the nonprofit sector. The empirical analysis focuses on “Data for Good” initiatives in the UK nonprofit sector and is based on 37 interviews with nonprofit data professionals participating I the initiatives. The analysis focuses on actors, instruments, and promises. The findings show that the innovative potential of digital data and data science is central to the initiatives, but the actual practices promoted by the participants are much more varied. The analysis shows blurred boundaries between different promotional coalitions and underscores the collaboration and competition between initiatives. The article confirms that the instrument constituency framework is applicable to the analysis of measurement techniques in the nonprofit sector. It invites further empirical and conceptual work on the unique elements of instrument constituencies that focus on promoting measurement techniques.
{"title":"An instrument constituency of data science—the case of Data for Good initiatives in the UK nonprofit sector","authors":"Ville Aula","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puaf019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puaf019","url":null,"abstract":"Data science is a new link in the long chain of quantitative measurement in public policy. The article analyses the promotion of data science as a tool of public policy by operationalizing the instrument constituency framework. The article expands research on instrument constituencies to two new areas: measurement instruments and the nonprofit sector. The empirical analysis focuses on “Data for Good” initiatives in the UK nonprofit sector and is based on 37 interviews with nonprofit data professionals participating I the initiatives. The analysis focuses on actors, instruments, and promises. The findings show that the innovative potential of digital data and data science is central to the initiatives, but the actual practices promoted by the participants are much more varied. The analysis shows blurred boundaries between different promotional coalitions and underscores the collaboration and competition between initiatives. The article confirms that the instrument constituency framework is applicable to the analysis of measurement techniques in the nonprofit sector. It invites further empirical and conceptual work on the unique elements of instrument constituencies that focus on promoting measurement techniques.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2025-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144766126","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 explores PAS actors and policy advice quality dynamics within anticorruption policymaking processes in Kiambu and Nairobi City counties, which are two devolved systems of government in Kenya. It is based on empirical research that sought to determine the level of policy advice quality provided by three critical PAS actors—the state, business, and civil society. These actors were of particular interest as they were mentioned in corruption scandals, linked to sycophancy as they sought to curry favor, and exhibited signs of disengagement, due to frustrations within the policymaking process. The study was framed within the multiple streams framework (MSF) and interrogated policy advice quality through the SERVQUAL model of reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy, and responsiveness. The analytical strengths of MSF and SERVQUAL were considered suitable in Kenya’s context where corruption is systemic, in an effort to overcome the limitations of previous approaches that have looked at corruption as a principal-agent problem. Two focus group discussions with key stakeholders were held in each county. Sixty-three respondents from 10 strategic functions, 12 members of the public, and 24 suppliers from each county were interviewed. The results demonstrate the analytical capacity of MSF and SERVQUAL, and provide a theoretical framework within which to ground third-generation policy advice research. The paper addresses the main research problem of inadequate data from the global south, and the lack of measurements for policy advice quality. It also contributes conceptual tools that deepen our understanding by presenting MSF and SERVQUAL as useful models for consideration.
{"title":"Policy advisory system actors or policy entrepreneurs? An analysis of policy advice quality in Kenyan anticorruption policymaking","authors":"Justa Mwangi","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puaf004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puaf004","url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores PAS actors and policy advice quality dynamics within anticorruption policymaking processes in Kiambu and Nairobi City counties, which are two devolved systems of government in Kenya. It is based on empirical research that sought to determine the level of policy advice quality provided by three critical PAS actors—the state, business, and civil society. These actors were of particular interest as they were mentioned in corruption scandals, linked to sycophancy as they sought to curry favor, and exhibited signs of disengagement, due to frustrations within the policymaking process. The study was framed within the multiple streams framework (MSF) and interrogated policy advice quality through the SERVQUAL model of reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy, and responsiveness. The analytical strengths of MSF and SERVQUAL were considered suitable in Kenya’s context where corruption is systemic, in an effort to overcome the limitations of previous approaches that have looked at corruption as a principal-agent problem. Two focus group discussions with key stakeholders were held in each county. Sixty-three respondents from 10 strategic functions, 12 members of the public, and 24 suppliers from each county were interviewed. The results demonstrate the analytical capacity of MSF and SERVQUAL, and provide a theoretical framework within which to ground third-generation policy advice research. The paper addresses the main research problem of inadequate data from the global south, and the lack of measurements for policy advice quality. It also contributes conceptual tools that deepen our understanding by presenting MSF and SERVQUAL as useful models for consideration.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144066106","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}
Policymakers frequently seek scientific expert advice to navigate new and complex policy challenges, but the decisions that must be taken to address these problems often require the cooperation of different levels of government as well as state and non-state actors. While existing literature has acknowledged that the political context influences the processes of scientific policy advice, it lacks the formulation of specific expectations or mechanisms on how such multilevel structures affect scientific policy advice. This article explores the key challenges that scientific policy advice faces in multilevel settings and specifies how multilevel structures can both support and hinder effective problem-solving. The study highlights that while the inclusion of diverse governance levels can enrich policy debates with scientific evidence, it can also lead to fragmented advisory structures that question the hierarchy of scientific evidence and hinder science-policy transfer processes. We underpin this argument with empirical evidence from COVID-19 crisis management in Germany, a country that is exemplary for multilevel governance structures both within its domestic context (federalism) and beyond (as a member of the European Union). The findings underscore the challenges for scientific policy advice in contexts that span across multiple scales.
{"title":"Policy advisory system quality under multilevel governance: the German COVID-19 experience","authors":"Johanna Hornung, Philipp Trein","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puaf005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puaf005","url":null,"abstract":"Policymakers frequently seek scientific expert advice to navigate new and complex policy challenges, but the decisions that must be taken to address these problems often require the cooperation of different levels of government as well as state and non-state actors. While existing literature has acknowledged that the political context influences the processes of scientific policy advice, it lacks the formulation of specific expectations or mechanisms on how such multilevel structures affect scientific policy advice. This article explores the key challenges that scientific policy advice faces in multilevel settings and specifies how multilevel structures can both support and hinder effective problem-solving. The study highlights that while the inclusion of diverse governance levels can enrich policy debates with scientific evidence, it can also lead to fragmented advisory structures that question the hierarchy of scientific evidence and hinder science-policy transfer processes. We underpin this argument with empirical evidence from COVID-19 crisis management in Germany, a country that is exemplary for multilevel governance structures both within its domestic context (federalism) and beyond (as a member of the European Union). The findings underscore the challenges for scientific policy advice in contexts that span across multiple scales.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143945677","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}
People sometimes experience intense emotions with maladaptive behavioral consequences (i.e., dysfunctional emotions) that impair their judgment regarding policy problems, policy tools, and/or target populations, leading to the emergence of policy bubbles (i.e., sustained policy over-investment). In this article, I elaborate on three strategies that governments can implement when faced with policy bubbles driven by such emotions: the wait-and-see approach, the emotional containment approach, and the bubble-pricking approach. Based on studies of policy bubbles as well as financial and asset bubbles, I elaborate on the conditions under which each of these policy options may be the appropriate path to follow when encountering such policy bubbles. I conclude that the case for a wait-and-see approach is strong, among other instances, when such bubbles cannot be detected with a reasonable level of confidence while they are still in the initial overinvestment phase; the case for emotional containment is strong when policymakers are interested in preventing such bubbles from getting out of hand, yet they are politically constrained to better calibrate the level of policy investment to the severity of the policy problem; and the case for the bubble-pricking approach is strong when (i) the growth of policy bubbles driven by dysfunctional emotions causes significant harm and (ii) governments do not have at their disposal the necessary tools to keep the harmful effects of such policy bubbles and their burst at a manageable level. An in-depth understanding of context is critical in determining the best course of action.
{"title":"How can governments respond to policy bubbles driven by dysfunctional emotions?","authors":"Moshe Maor","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puaf008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puaf008","url":null,"abstract":"People sometimes experience intense emotions with maladaptive behavioral consequences (i.e., dysfunctional emotions) that impair their judgment regarding policy problems, policy tools, and/or target populations, leading to the emergence of policy bubbles (i.e., sustained policy over-investment). In this article, I elaborate on three strategies that governments can implement when faced with policy bubbles driven by such emotions: the wait-and-see approach, the emotional containment approach, and the bubble-pricking approach. Based on studies of policy bubbles as well as financial and asset bubbles, I elaborate on the conditions under which each of these policy options may be the appropriate path to follow when encountering such policy bubbles. I conclude that the case for a wait-and-see approach is strong, among other instances, when such bubbles cannot be detected with a reasonable level of confidence while they are still in the initial overinvestment phase; the case for emotional containment is strong when policymakers are interested in preventing such bubbles from getting out of hand, yet they are politically constrained to better calibrate the level of policy investment to the severity of the policy problem; and the case for the bubble-pricking approach is strong when (i) the growth of policy bubbles driven by dysfunctional emotions causes significant harm and (ii) governments do not have at their disposal the necessary tools to keep the harmful effects of such policy bubbles and their burst at a manageable level. An in-depth understanding of context is critical in determining the best course of action.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2025-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143940200","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 second wave of research on Policy Advisory Systems (PAS) dynamics has induced scholars to rethink the received knowledge about the insider–outsider and technical–political divides in policy advice, leading to more nuanced descriptions of PAS configurations. The long-term structural change of PAS has been the focus of this research agenda. In contrast, a research gap exists in analyzing the role of disagreement and conflict in shaping the configuration of advisory systems and their interactions with policymakers. We analyze a case of conflict in the policy advisory system supporting the European Commission in defining the EU Green Taxonomy, i.e., the classification of economic activities that underpins the new EU regulation of public and private sustainable investments. The dynamic effect of conflict is particularly evident in the case of the EU Green Taxonomy, where opposing values and interests have shaped the advisory process, raising questions about how policymakers navigate and utilize contested advice. Our findings contribute to understanding the relationship between pluralistic and conflictual advisory systems and government management of PAS.
{"title":"The divide in the EU green taxonomy: how conflict impacts the quality of policy advisory systems","authors":"Edoardo Esposto, Tiziana Nupieri","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puaf007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puaf007","url":null,"abstract":"The second wave of research on Policy Advisory Systems (PAS) dynamics has induced scholars to rethink the received knowledge about the insider–outsider and technical–political divides in policy advice, leading to more nuanced descriptions of PAS configurations. The long-term structural change of PAS has been the focus of this research agenda. In contrast, a research gap exists in analyzing the role of disagreement and conflict in shaping the configuration of advisory systems and their interactions with policymakers. We analyze a case of conflict in the policy advisory system supporting the European Commission in defining the EU Green Taxonomy, i.e., the classification of economic activities that underpins the new EU regulation of public and private sustainable investments. The dynamic effect of conflict is particularly evident in the case of the EU Green Taxonomy, where opposing values and interests have shaped the advisory process, raising questions about how policymakers navigate and utilize contested advice. Our findings contribute to understanding the relationship between pluralistic and conflictual advisory systems and government management of PAS.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"74 1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143841242","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 environmental impacts of infrastructure projects are widely assessed through a procedure known as environmental impact assessments (EIAs). In many regulatory systems, EIAs are carried out by third-party intermediaries. However, their roles and effectiveness within public policy and regulatory governance remain understudied. This study addresses this gap by examining 24 wind energy projects deliberated in Israeli planning committees between 2003 and 2024. Specifically, we ask: (1) What intermediary roles do EIAs and those responsible for their implementation play? (2) What are the strengths and weaknesses of EIAs as an intermediation mechanism? (3) How do these strengths and weaknesses shape their effectiveness? Our analysis identifies five key intermediary roles: two formal roles, which are legally defined—providing advisory services and facilitating enforcement and compliance—and three informal roles, which extend beyond strict regulatory mandates—interpretation, dialogue facilitation, and advocacy. The formal roles ensure compliance with regulatory guidelines and advance environmental expertise, thereby meeting regulatory requirements and contributing to high procedural effectiveness. However, challenges persist, particularly regarding informal roles, which are often influenced by intermediaries’ alignment with developers’ interests. These challenges contribute to relatively low substantive effectiveness, as planning committees frequently find EIAs insufficient for informed decision-making, leading them to seek external consultants for validation. The gap between EIAs meeting regulatory requirements and planning committees’ inability to fully rely on them highlights weaknesses in EIA governance as a mechanism of regulatory intermediation. We argue that formalizing informal intermediary roles with clearer guidelines could improve EIA effectiveness, enhance objectivity, and strengthen decision-making in the EIA framework.
{"title":"Environmental impact assessments as a mechanism of regulatory intermediation: the case of Israeli wind energy","authors":"Avri Eitan, David Levi-Faur","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puaf006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puaf006","url":null,"abstract":"The environmental impacts of infrastructure projects are widely assessed through a procedure known as environmental impact assessments (EIAs). In many regulatory systems, EIAs are carried out by third-party intermediaries. However, their roles and effectiveness within public policy and regulatory governance remain understudied. This study addresses this gap by examining 24 wind energy projects deliberated in Israeli planning committees between 2003 and 2024. Specifically, we ask: (1) What intermediary roles do EIAs and those responsible for their implementation play? (2) What are the strengths and weaknesses of EIAs as an intermediation mechanism? (3) How do these strengths and weaknesses shape their effectiveness? Our analysis identifies five key intermediary roles: two formal roles, which are legally defined—providing advisory services and facilitating enforcement and compliance—and three informal roles, which extend beyond strict regulatory mandates—interpretation, dialogue facilitation, and advocacy. The formal roles ensure compliance with regulatory guidelines and advance environmental expertise, thereby meeting regulatory requirements and contributing to high procedural effectiveness. However, challenges persist, particularly regarding informal roles, which are often influenced by intermediaries’ alignment with developers’ interests. These challenges contribute to relatively low substantive effectiveness, as planning committees frequently find EIAs insufficient for informed decision-making, leading them to seek external consultants for validation. The gap between EIAs meeting regulatory requirements and planning committees’ inability to fully rely on them highlights weaknesses in EIA governance as a mechanism of regulatory intermediation. We argue that formalizing informal intermediary roles with clearer guidelines could improve EIA effectiveness, enhance objectivity, and strengthen decision-making in the EIA framework.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2025-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143824876","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}
Christopher M Weible, Anna M Crawford, Allegra H Fullerton, Kayla M Gabehart, Katherine E Imhoff, Giulia Mariani
As one of the most established theoretical approaches to public policy, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) has moored most of its theoretical arguments around a textbook policy conflict consisting of two or more advocacy coalitions in a mature adversarial policy subsystem within an advanced polyarchy. This article steps beyond the textbook by introducing deep core coalitions marked by compounding intersectional identities operating at the macro-system. It offers two illustrations of deep core coalitions, one bound by their collective transgender identity and the other by their collective traditionalist identity. Finally, this article concludes with a discussion of what it means for a research program to embrace a diverse research agenda, such as through better linkages with other theoretical approaches, launching more comparative research designs, or, as done here, focusing on a new type of advocacy coalition operating at the macro-system.
{"title":"Deep core advocacy coalitions","authors":"Christopher M Weible, Anna M Crawford, Allegra H Fullerton, Kayla M Gabehart, Katherine E Imhoff, Giulia Mariani","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puaf003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puaf003","url":null,"abstract":"As one of the most established theoretical approaches to public policy, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) has moored most of its theoretical arguments around a textbook policy conflict consisting of two or more advocacy coalitions in a mature adversarial policy subsystem within an advanced polyarchy. This article steps beyond the textbook by introducing deep core coalitions marked by compounding intersectional identities operating at the macro-system. It offers two illustrations of deep core coalitions, one bound by their collective transgender identity and the other by their collective traditionalist identity. Finally, this article concludes with a discussion of what it means for a research program to embrace a diverse research agenda, such as through better linkages with other theoretical approaches, launching more comparative research designs, or, as done here, focusing on a new type of advocacy coalition operating at the macro-system.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143546135","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 rapid and widespread diffusion of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has unlocked new capabilities and changed how content and services are created, shared, and consumed. This special issue builds on the 2021 Policy and Society special issue on the governance of AI by focusing on the legal, organizational, political, regulatory, and social challenges of governing generative AI. This introductory article lays the foundation for understanding generative AI and underscores its key risks, including hallucination, jailbreaking, data training and validation issues, sensitive information leakage, opacity, control challenges, and design and implementation risks. It then examines the governance challenges of generative AI, such as data governance, intellectual property concerns, bias amplification, privacy violations, misinformation, fraud, societal impacts, power imbalances, limited public engagement, public sector challenges, and the need for international cooperation. The article then highlights a comprehensive framework to govern generative AI, emphasizing the need for adaptive, participatory, and proactive approaches. The articles in this special issue stress the urgency of developing innovative and inclusive approaches to ensure that generative AI development is aligned with societal values. They explore the need for adaptation of data governance and intellectual property laws, propose a complexity-based approach for responsible governance, analyze how the dominance of Big Tech is exacerbated by generative AI developments and how this affects policy processes, highlight the shortcomings of technocratic governance and the need for broader stakeholder participation, propose new regulatory frameworks informed by AI safety research and learning from other industries, and highlight the societal impacts of generative AI.
{"title":"Governance of Generative AI","authors":"Araz Taeihagh","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puaf001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puaf001","url":null,"abstract":"The rapid and widespread diffusion of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has unlocked new capabilities and changed how content and services are created, shared, and consumed. This special issue builds on the 2021 Policy and Society special issue on the governance of AI by focusing on the legal, organizational, political, regulatory, and social challenges of governing generative AI. This introductory article lays the foundation for understanding generative AI and underscores its key risks, including hallucination, jailbreaking, data training and validation issues, sensitive information leakage, opacity, control challenges, and design and implementation risks. It then examines the governance challenges of generative AI, such as data governance, intellectual property concerns, bias amplification, privacy violations, misinformation, fraud, societal impacts, power imbalances, limited public engagement, public sector challenges, and the need for international cooperation. The article then highlights a comprehensive framework to govern generative AI, emphasizing the need for adaptive, participatory, and proactive approaches. The articles in this special issue stress the urgency of developing innovative and inclusive approaches to ensure that generative AI development is aligned with societal values. They explore the need for adaptation of data governance and intellectual property laws, propose a complexity-based approach for responsible governance, analyze how the dominance of Big Tech is exacerbated by generative AI developments and how this affects policy processes, highlight the shortcomings of technocratic governance and the need for broader stakeholder participation, propose new regulatory frameworks informed by AI safety research and learning from other industries, and highlight the societal impacts of generative AI.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143084081","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}
Few policymakers initiate policies that they know are malign, and are contrary to the public interest. Well-intentioned policies may, however, have unintended consequences that over time do make them, at least in part, malign. These policies may continue to produce some positive results for society, but they may also have significant negative consequences. Further, given that the malign nature of the policy tends to benefit powerful political and economic interests, once the malign aspects of the policy begin to manifest themselves, they tend to persist. This paper will use four mini-cases to understand better the transition from benign to malign policies. Two of the cases come from the United States and two come from Germany. Two cases will be in health policy, one in infrastructure, and one in crisis management policies. In all four cases policies that have over time began to demonstrate negative features continue to be implemented because of the benefits that they create for some interests in society–interests other than the original targets of the programs. In addition to the emerging literature on malign policies, this paper will have relevance for the large literature on unintended consequences (beginning with Merton in 1936), as well as the literature on Zombie ideas and failed policy ideas.
{"title":"From benign to malign: unintended consequences and the growth of Zombie policies","authors":"B. Guy Peters, Maximilian L Nagel","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae039","url":null,"abstract":"Few policymakers initiate policies that they know are malign, and are contrary to the public interest. Well-intentioned policies may, however, have unintended consequences that over time do make them, at least in part, malign. These policies may continue to produce some positive results for society, but they may also have significant negative consequences. Further, given that the malign nature of the policy tends to benefit powerful political and economic interests, once the malign aspects of the policy begin to manifest themselves, they tend to persist. This paper will use four mini-cases to understand better the transition from benign to malign policies. Two of the cases come from the United States and two come from Germany. Two cases will be in health policy, one in infrastructure, and one in crisis management policies. In all four cases policies that have over time began to demonstrate negative features continue to be implemented because of the benefits that they create for some interests in society–interests other than the original targets of the programs. In addition to the emerging literature on malign policies, this paper will have relevance for the large literature on unintended consequences (beginning with Merton in 1936), as well as the literature on Zombie ideas and failed policy ideas.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142991993","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}
Andrea Krizsán, Katarzyna Jezierska, Adrienne Sörbom
In an era of post-truth, the legitimacy of policy knowledge is questioned, especially in de-democratizing contexts where governments purposefully engage in post-truth politics to support their regimes. In such contexts, technocratic evidence-based policymaking is undermined, and the role played by policy advice changes. Recognizing the significance of political contextual factors that might differ across de-democratizing contexts, we analyzed how changes in policymaking and public administration in de-democratization contexts impact policy advice, focusing on think tanks in two de-democratizing countries of the European Union: Hungary and Poland. We identify four aspects of policymaking that are particularly consequential for the role of think tanks and the knowledge they produce in policymaking processes: questioning and politicizing expertise, centralizing policymaking, politicizing public administration, and dismantling accountability mechanisms. We argue that changes in policymaking along these four aspects are conducive to a controlled policy advice system, favoring short-term policy advice aligned with government ideology, while marginalizing and excluding the actors and knowledge that do not align. Our research, along with other literature on knowledge regimes in consolidated autocracies, suggests that control in these European Union–based contexts is not complete, and the think tank field continues to be characterized by diversity, particularly contestation and polarization between those who are aligned with the regime and those who oppose it. We substantiate our claims using an original interview dataset on think tanks in Hungary and Poland.
{"title":"Policy knowledge production in de-democratizing contexts","authors":"Andrea Krizsán, Katarzyna Jezierska, Adrienne Sörbom","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae037","url":null,"abstract":"In an era of post-truth, the legitimacy of policy knowledge is questioned, especially in de-democratizing contexts where governments purposefully engage in post-truth politics to support their regimes. In such contexts, technocratic evidence-based policymaking is undermined, and the role played by policy advice changes. Recognizing the significance of political contextual factors that might differ across de-democratizing contexts, we analyzed how changes in policymaking and public administration in de-democratization contexts impact policy advice, focusing on think tanks in two de-democratizing countries of the European Union: Hungary and Poland. We identify four aspects of policymaking that are particularly consequential for the role of think tanks and the knowledge they produce in policymaking processes: questioning and politicizing expertise, centralizing policymaking, politicizing public administration, and dismantling accountability mechanisms. We argue that changes in policymaking along these four aspects are conducive to a controlled policy advice system, favoring short-term policy advice aligned with government ideology, while marginalizing and excluding the actors and knowledge that do not align. Our research, along with other literature on knowledge regimes in consolidated autocracies, suggests that control in these European Union–based contexts is not complete, and the think tank field continues to be characterized by diversity, particularly contestation and polarization between those who are aligned with the regime and those who oppose it. We substantiate our claims using an original interview dataset on think tanks in Hungary and Poland.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142991996","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：