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}
Lutfun Nahar Lata, Tim Reddel, Brian W Head, Luke Craven
More collaborative and human-centered approaches to tackle social problems of entrenched disadvantage have been introduced in many countries, including Australia, but with mixed results. Traditional programs that reinforce existing political and bureaucratic processes have been seen as blockers to collaborative modes of policymaking, governance, and delivery. Drawing on collaborative governance perspectives, this paper reports new research undertaken in conjunction with a not-for-profit organization (Collaboration for Impact) involved in supporting place-based collaborative community change efforts. Research findings, based on stakeholder perspectives, highlight not only the potential benefits of a more collaborative model (i.e., placed-based and community driven) but also the significant unresolved challenges for “backbone” coordination bodies, which have recently been established to achieve more “joined-up” policy, funding, and service delivery arrangements. The paper concludes by proposing a practice-driven focus on policy and funding systems, together with implications for policy learning and program design.
{"title":"Advancing collaborative social outcomes through place-based solutions—aligning policy and funding systems","authors":"Lutfun Nahar Lata, Tim Reddel, Brian W Head, Luke Craven","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae018","url":null,"abstract":"More collaborative and human-centered approaches to tackle social problems of entrenched disadvantage have been introduced in many countries, including Australia, but with mixed results. Traditional programs that reinforce existing political and bureaucratic processes have been seen as blockers to collaborative modes of policymaking, governance, and delivery. Drawing on collaborative governance perspectives, this paper reports new research undertaken in conjunction with a not-for-profit organization (Collaboration for Impact) involved in supporting place-based collaborative community change efforts. Research findings, based on stakeholder perspectives, highlight not only the potential benefits of a more collaborative model (i.e., placed-based and community driven) but also the significant unresolved challenges for “backbone” coordination bodies, which have recently been established to achieve more “joined-up” policy, funding, and service delivery arrangements. The paper concludes by proposing a practice-driven focus on policy and funding systems, together with implications for policy learning and program design.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141073916","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}
In this contribution, we identify how the framing strategies employed by policy and political actors make policy ideas robust. We examine the policy ideas of solidarity and sustainability to show how framing strategies that took advantages of the valence and polysemy of both ideas shaped them into robust policy ideas. Both ideas began as wide-ranging concepts designed to build coalitions in debates over a particular large-scale policy problem. Robustness is a quality that emerged over time as these ideas grew to become highly attractive framing devices to justify policy proposals. Moreover, they have proven to be resilient despite changing circumstances or even efforts of their opponents to reframe them in a negative way.
{"title":"How framing strategies foster robust policy ideas","authors":"Daniel Béland, Robert Henry Cox","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae014","url":null,"abstract":"In this contribution, we identify how the framing strategies employed by policy and political actors make policy ideas robust. We examine the policy ideas of solidarity and sustainability to show how framing strategies that took advantages of the valence and polysemy of both ideas shaped them into robust policy ideas. Both ideas began as wide-ranging concepts designed to build coalitions in debates over a particular large-scale policy problem. Robustness is a quality that emerged over time as these ideas grew to become highly attractive framing devices to justify policy proposals. Moreover, they have proven to be resilient despite changing circumstances or even efforts of their opponents to reframe them in a negative way.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140895798","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}
As artificial intelligence (AI) policy has begun to take shape in recent years, policy actors have worked to influence policymakers by strategically promoting issue frames that define the problems and solutions policymakers should attend to. Three such issue frames are especially prominent, surrounding AI’s economic, geopolitical, and ethical dimensions. Relatedly, while technology policy is traditionally expert-dominated, new governance paradigms are encouraging increased public participation along with heightened attention to social and ethical dimensions of technology. This study aims to provide insight into whether members of the public and the issue frames they employ shape—or fail to shape—policymaker agendas, particularly for highly contested and technical policy domains. To assess this question, the study draws on a dataset of approximately five million Twitter messages from members of the public related to AI, as well as corresponding AI messages from the 115th and 116th US Congresses. After using text analysis techniques to identify the prevalence of issue frames, the study applies autoregressive integrated moving average and vector autoregression modeling to determine whether issue frames used by the public appear to influence the subsequent messaging used by federal US policymakers. Results indicate that the public does lead policymaker attention to AI generally. However, the public does not have a special role in shaping attention to ethical implications of AI, as public influence occurs only when the public discusses AI’s economic dimensions. Overall, the results suggest that calls for public engagement in AI policy may be underrealized and potentially circumscribed by strategic considerations.
{"title":"Framing contestation and public influence on policymakers: evidence from US artificial intelligence policy discourse","authors":"Daniel S Schiff","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae007","url":null,"abstract":"As artificial intelligence (AI) policy has begun to take shape in recent years, policy actors have worked to influence policymakers by strategically promoting issue frames that define the problems and solutions policymakers should attend to. Three such issue frames are especially prominent, surrounding AI’s economic, geopolitical, and ethical dimensions. Relatedly, while technology policy is traditionally expert-dominated, new governance paradigms are encouraging increased public participation along with heightened attention to social and ethical dimensions of technology. This study aims to provide insight into whether members of the public and the issue frames they employ shape—or fail to shape—policymaker agendas, particularly for highly contested and technical policy domains. To assess this question, the study draws on a dataset of approximately five million Twitter messages from members of the public related to AI, as well as corresponding AI messages from the 115th and 116th US Congresses. After using text analysis techniques to identify the prevalence of issue frames, the study applies autoregressive integrated moving average and vector autoregression modeling to determine whether issue frames used by the public appear to influence the subsequent messaging used by federal US policymakers. Results indicate that the public does lead policymaker attention to AI generally. However, the public does not have a special role in shaping attention to ethical implications of AI, as public influence occurs only when the public discusses AI’s economic dimensions. Overall, the results suggest that calls for public engagement in AI policy may be underrealized and potentially circumscribed by strategic considerations.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"75 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140552006","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：