“Global Commissions of Inquiry” have usually been associated with the multilateral initiatives of governments and international organizations. However, various styles of “global commission” have emerged over time. During the COVID-19 pandemic, global commissions have been a key aspect of the COVID-19 international policy landscape, quickly emerging, in 2020 and 2021, to corral knowledge and evidence. These include “formal” commissions, such as the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response and the Global Commission for Post-Pandemic Policy, and “informal” commissions, including the Reform for Resilience and The Lancet Covid Commissions. This paper considers whether these Commissions have been engines for new ideas and global policy knowledge or whether this “chorus” of COVID Commissions represented a “clutter” of ideas at a time when global policy focus was needed. Global Commissions, in general, deserve greater scholarly attention to their design and the construction of their legitimate authority as hybrid and private commissions enter global policy making alongside official commissions.
{"title":"Expert knowledge for global pandemic policy: a chorus of evidence or a clutter of global commissions?","authors":"Diane Stone, A. Schmider","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad022","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 “Global Commissions of Inquiry” have usually been associated with the multilateral initiatives of governments and international organizations. However, various styles of “global commission” have emerged over time. During the COVID-19 pandemic, global commissions have been a key aspect of the COVID-19 international policy landscape, quickly emerging, in 2020 and 2021, to corral knowledge and evidence. These include “formal” commissions, such as the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response and the Global Commission for Post-Pandemic Policy, and “informal” commissions, including the Reform for Resilience and The Lancet Covid Commissions. This paper considers whether these Commissions have been engines for new ideas and global policy knowledge or whether this “chorus” of COVID Commissions represented a “clutter” of ideas at a time when global policy focus was needed. Global Commissions, in general, deserve greater scholarly attention to their design and the construction of their legitimate authority as hybrid and private commissions enter global policy making alongside official commissions.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"91 3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86552706","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}
Abstract Think tanks and their roles in rendering expertise in policy advice have been the subject of historical and ongoing research in policy sciences. However, the widening trend of digital behaviors of think tanks in the social media era is yet to be investigated. While social media is reshaping the political ecology and challenging conventional sources of knowledge, it also serves as a potential channel for think tanks to publicly share their expertise and policy advice with the public and decision-makers, thus evolving into “digital advocators.” Based on social media big data methods, this paper has constructed two sets of new think tank indicators with “network centrality” of social media accounts and “ripple effect” of social media citations from Facebook and Twitter to capture and observe the digital activities of 207 prominent think tanks in 62 countries or regions. We have concluded that think tanks have displayed their opinion and values and increased visibility as digital advocators by spreading expertise on social media platforms with online marketing skills. With various values and ideas, social media not only is hosting massive policy advocacy activities and being an expertise spreading arena for think tanks but has also been changing the ecology of the think tank industry and expertise markets.
{"title":"Spreading expertise: think tanks as digital advocators in the social media era","authors":"Jing Zhao, Xufeng Zhu","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad025","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Think tanks and their roles in rendering expertise in policy advice have been the subject of historical and ongoing research in policy sciences. However, the widening trend of digital behaviors of think tanks in the social media era is yet to be investigated. While social media is reshaping the political ecology and challenging conventional sources of knowledge, it also serves as a potential channel for think tanks to publicly share their expertise and policy advice with the public and decision-makers, thus evolving into “digital advocators.” Based on social media big data methods, this paper has constructed two sets of new think tank indicators with “network centrality” of social media accounts and “ripple effect” of social media citations from Facebook and Twitter to capture and observe the digital activities of 207 prominent think tanks in 62 countries or regions. We have concluded that think tanks have displayed their opinion and values and increased visibility as digital advocators by spreading expertise on social media platforms with online marketing skills. With various values and ideas, social media not only is hosting massive policy advocacy activities and being an expertise spreading arena for think tanks but has also been changing the ecology of the think tank industry and expertise markets.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"76 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135889386","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}
Giliberto Capano, Michael Howlett, Leslie A Pal, M Ramesh
Abstract Policy advice has been the subject of ongoing research in the policy sciences as it raises fundamental issues about what constitutes policy knowledge, expertise, and their effects on policymaking. This introduction reviews the existing literature on the subject and introduces the themes motivating the articles in the issue. It highlights the need to consider several key subjects in the topic in the contemporary era: namely the challenge of legitimacy, that of values, and the challenge of politics. The papers in the issue shed light on the ongoing delegitimization of conventional knowledge providers, the problem of the normative basis of experts’ advice, the increasing politicization of expertise in policymaking, and the relevance of political context in influencing not only the role of experts but also whether or not their advice is accepted and implemented. It is argued that these modern challenges, when not addressed, reinforce trends toward the inclusion of antidemocratic values and uninformed ideas in contemporary policymaking.
{"title":"Dealing with the challenges of legitimacy, values, and politics in policy advice","authors":"Giliberto Capano, Michael Howlett, Leslie A Pal, M Ramesh","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad026","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Policy advice has been the subject of ongoing research in the policy sciences as it raises fundamental issues about what constitutes policy knowledge, expertise, and their effects on policymaking. This introduction reviews the existing literature on the subject and introduces the themes motivating the articles in the issue. It highlights the need to consider several key subjects in the topic in the contemporary era: namely the challenge of legitimacy, that of values, and the challenge of politics. The papers in the issue shed light on the ongoing delegitimization of conventional knowledge providers, the problem of the normative basis of experts’ advice, the increasing politicization of expertise in policymaking, and the relevance of political context in influencing not only the role of experts but also whether or not their advice is accepted and implemented. It is argued that these modern challenges, when not addressed, reinforce trends toward the inclusion of antidemocratic values and uninformed ideas in contemporary policymaking.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135831034","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 the face of the complexities of problem-solving , experts are gaining centrality in policymaking (Weiss, 1979). At the same time, they are increasingly challenged in their legitimacy, which is not only technical but also political. Challenges to the legitimacy of experts suggest that other types of legitimacy are important for policymaking. Issues of legitimacy are particularly important for sound policymaking when the authority of experts and the value of evidence are contested and when the debate over policy solutions is particularly conflictual and ideological. In this paper, I use three exploratory cases of the use of expertise in education policy in Italy to show how policymakers design different advisory committees to enhance different types of legitimacy (epistemic, bureaucratic, and political). The findings suggest that while policymakers design advisory committees primarily to meet their legitimacy needs, the legitimacy of a decision requires different types of sources to generate consent and to allow for the impact of expertise.
{"title":"Expert legitimacy and competing legitimation in Italian school reforms","authors":"Maria Tullia Galanti","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad024","url":null,"abstract":"In the face of the complexities of problem-solving , experts are gaining centrality in policymaking (Weiss, 1979). At the same time, they are increasingly challenged in their legitimacy, which is not only technical but also political. Challenges to the legitimacy of experts suggest that other types of legitimacy are important for policymaking. Issues of legitimacy are particularly important for sound policymaking when the authority of experts and the value of evidence are contested and when the debate over policy solutions is particularly conflictual and ideological. In this paper, I use three exploratory cases of the use of expertise in education policy in Italy to show how policymakers design different advisory committees to enhance different types of legitimacy (epistemic, bureaucratic, and political). The findings suggest that while policymakers design advisory committees primarily to meet their legitimacy needs, the legitimacy of a decision requires different types of sources to generate consent and to allow for the impact of expertise.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"112 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165232","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}
Natália Massaco Koga, Ana Paula Karruz, Pedro Lucas de Moura Palotti, Marcos Luiz Vieira Soares Filho, Bruno Gontyjo do Couto
In looking at the complex relationship between expertise and power in policymaking, what is amiss are studies on how the expertise exchange bargain between politicians and bureaucracy works in practice, especially in antidemocratic contexts. To deal with this limitation, we use Christensen’s (Christensen, J. (2022). When bureaucratic expertise comes under attack. Public Administration) expertise bargain change model for examining the authority transaction between politicians and bureaucrats. Upon external shocks, such as democratic backsliding with the sidelining of policy advice, the extant expertise bargain is challenged. We explore how the bureaucracy acted toward the government’s adversarial (and even antagonistic) stance and how that relationship toward the expertise bargain changed in two policy areas in Brazil (health and environment) during Bolsonaro’s administration (2019–2022). Notably, this article relies mainly on qualitative data from in-depth interviews with bureaucrats who provided expertise to the government on these policy areas during the Bolsonaro administration’s transition. Ancillary documentary sources were examined to detail the strategies of attack from government toward bureaucratic expertise and ancillary documentary sources of quantitative data from a survey with bureaucrats fielded during the Bolsonaro administration’s first year. Results show three factors that condition bureaucratic expertise’s resilience: the nature of the attack (local or extensive), the knowledge base’s and epistemic community’s level of cohesion, and the advice system’s degree of institutionalization. This case study sheds light on how different policy advice arrangements respond and function under antidemocratic contexts, allowing the application and enrichment of policy expertise literature outside regular democratic politics.
{"title":"When bargaining is and is not possible: the politics of bureaucratic expertise in the context of democratic backsliding","authors":"Natália Massaco Koga, Ana Paula Karruz, Pedro Lucas de Moura Palotti, Marcos Luiz Vieira Soares Filho, Bruno Gontyjo do Couto","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad023","url":null,"abstract":"In looking at the complex relationship between expertise and power in policymaking, what is amiss are studies on how the expertise exchange bargain between politicians and bureaucracy works in practice, especially in antidemocratic contexts. To deal with this limitation, we use Christensen’s (Christensen, J. (2022). When bureaucratic expertise comes under attack. Public Administration) expertise bargain change model for examining the authority transaction between politicians and bureaucrats. Upon external shocks, such as democratic backsliding with the sidelining of policy advice, the extant expertise bargain is challenged. We explore how the bureaucracy acted toward the government’s adversarial (and even antagonistic) stance and how that relationship toward the expertise bargain changed in two policy areas in Brazil (health and environment) during Bolsonaro’s administration (2019–2022). Notably, this article relies mainly on qualitative data from in-depth interviews with bureaucrats who provided expertise to the government on these policy areas during the Bolsonaro administration’s transition. Ancillary documentary sources were examined to detail the strategies of attack from government toward bureaucratic expertise and ancillary documentary sources of quantitative data from a survey with bureaucrats fielded during the Bolsonaro administration’s first year. Results show three factors that condition bureaucratic expertise’s resilience: the nature of the attack (local or extensive), the knowledge base’s and epistemic community’s level of cohesion, and the advice system’s degree of institutionalization. This case study sheds light on how different policy advice arrangements respond and function under antidemocratic contexts, allowing the application and enrichment of policy expertise literature outside regular democratic politics.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"110 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165254","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}
Extending previous works on major changes in policy advisory systems (PASs), such as externalization (locus) and politicization (government control), this study examines whether and how democratization (citizensourcing) of PASs works based on the case of the Kwanghwamun Citizensourcing Policy Platform, which operated for 4 years under the Moon Jae-in administration in South Korea. Analyzing more than 11,000 policy suggestions proposed by ordinary citizens on the digital policy platform, this study investigates how citizensourced policy ideas are discussed, incubated, and finally adopted through interactions among ordinary citizens, policy experts, and government agencies. Based on the belief that the operation of PASs becomes increasingly complicated and often dysfunctional as societies face more “wicked”, cross-cutting, and volatile policy problems than ever, this study argues that citizensourcing policymaking is critical to ensuring policy legitimacy and receptivity. This study suggests that both the quality and features of citizensourced policy ideas are important for advancing policymaking processes. This study also finds that political cycle and active citizen policy entrepreneurs are also critical factors, while it shows noteworthy limits on the quality and features of citizensourced policy ideas, which, in fact, lead to a frustratingly low policy adoption rate. This study suggests that governments need to actively capitalize on the power of ordinary citizens as citizen experts, while the shortcomings and risks of citizensourcing PASs also need to be carefully addressed.
{"title":"Citizensourcing policy advisory systems in a turbulent era","authors":"M. Jae Moon, Seulgi Lee, Seunggyu Park","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad017","url":null,"abstract":"Extending previous works on major changes in policy advisory systems (PASs), such as externalization (locus) and politicization (government control), this study examines whether and how democratization (citizensourcing) of PASs works based on the case of the Kwanghwamun Citizensourcing Policy Platform, which operated for 4 years under the Moon Jae-in administration in South Korea. Analyzing more than 11,000 policy suggestions proposed by ordinary citizens on the digital policy platform, this study investigates how citizensourced policy ideas are discussed, incubated, and finally adopted through interactions among ordinary citizens, policy experts, and government agencies. Based on the belief that the operation of PASs becomes increasingly complicated and often dysfunctional as societies face more “wicked”, cross-cutting, and volatile policy problems than ever, this study argues that citizensourcing policymaking is critical to ensuring policy legitimacy and receptivity. This study suggests that both the quality and features of citizensourced policy ideas are important for advancing policymaking processes. This study also finds that political cycle and active citizen policy entrepreneurs are also critical factors, while it shows noteworthy limits on the quality and features of citizensourced policy ideas, which, in fact, lead to a frustratingly low policy adoption rate. This study suggests that governments need to actively capitalize on the power of ordinary citizens as citizen experts, while the shortcomings and risks of citizensourcing PASs also need to be carefully addressed.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"110 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165255","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 examines the relationship between policy compliance, the emergence of alternate epistemes and authorities in online spaces, and the decline of trust and legitimacy in democratic institutions. Drawing on insights from public policy, regulation theory, and political theory, the paper critically engages with scholarship on “policy-takers” to illuminate the tensions of compliance and legitimacy in liberal states. It proposes a compliance–legitimacy matrix that identifies the features of policy compliance—including consent, legitimacy, expertise, and trust—and their relationship to the disaggregation of policy knowledge. The article applies this framework to a case study of social media posts that respond to policy information during the management of the Covid-19 pandemic in Australia. Through analysis of these posts, the study reveals the distrust in “the science” and experts advocated by government and the calls from skeptic groups for noncompliance with public health measures. The paper argues that public policy faces an epistemic crisis of public confidence, with significant downstream consequences for compliance with public policy initiatives that has been brought on both by the failures of states to cultivate trust in science and the government. The compliance–legitimacy matrix offers a useful tool for policymakers to anticipate and address objections from policy-takers and to preempt and diffuse their fears.
{"title":"“I do not consent”: political legitimacy, misinformation, and the compliance challenge in Australia’s Covid-19 policy response","authors":"M. Dowling, Tim Legrand","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad018","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper examines the relationship between policy compliance, the emergence of alternate epistemes and authorities in online spaces, and the decline of trust and legitimacy in democratic institutions. Drawing on insights from public policy, regulation theory, and political theory, the paper critically engages with scholarship on “policy-takers” to illuminate the tensions of compliance and legitimacy in liberal states. It proposes a compliance–legitimacy matrix that identifies the features of policy compliance—including consent, legitimacy, expertise, and trust—and their relationship to the disaggregation of policy knowledge. The article applies this framework to a case study of social media posts that respond to policy information during the management of the Covid-19 pandemic in Australia. Through analysis of these posts, the study reveals the distrust in “the science” and experts advocated by government and the calls from skeptic groups for noncompliance with public health measures. The paper argues that public policy faces an epistemic crisis of public confidence, with significant downstream consequences for compliance with public policy initiatives that has been brought on both by the failures of states to cultivate trust in science and the government. The compliance–legitimacy matrix offers a useful tool for policymakers to anticipate and address objections from policy-takers and to preempt and diffuse their fears.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76339727","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 inquiry reports from the commissions charged with investigating government crisis management of the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway and Sweden. Such postcrises commissions have been a common feature in many countries as they seek to systematize their experiences and learn from the crisis. In this article, we used various dimensions of governance capacity and governance legitimacy as assessment criteria. It reveals that the commissions’ assessment criteria were not very specific in their reports, but a reanalysis of their findings shows that governance capacity and governance legitimacy dimensions are useful to assess the reports themselves. The two reports reveal a lack of preparedness in both countries, but they differ in their conclusions about governance regulation and output legitimacy.
{"title":"Assessing the crisis management of the COVID-19 pandemic: a study of inquiry commission reports in Norway and Sweden","authors":"Tom Christensen, Per Lægreid","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad020","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article examines the inquiry reports from the commissions charged with investigating government crisis management of the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway and Sweden. Such postcrises commissions have been a common feature in many countries as they seek to systematize their experiences and learn from the crisis. In this article, we used various dimensions of governance capacity and governance legitimacy as assessment criteria. It reveals that the commissions’ assessment criteria were not very specific in their reports, but a reanalysis of their findings shows that governance capacity and governance legitimacy dimensions are useful to assess the reports themselves. The two reports reveal a lack of preparedness in both countries, but they differ in their conclusions about governance regulation and output legitimacy.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80394351","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}
Foundations are one of the oldest organizational forms globally; their number and resources, as well as their socio-political and economic importance, have steadily continued to grow. Yet, foundations’ attributes, activities, and actual achievements remain underexplored and poorly understood. This is particularly noticeable in the context of global policy and transnational administration, an area where foundations tend to be subliminal players, acting as a widely unrecognized socio-political undercurrent. Addressing the resulting need for better and alternative conceptualizations of foundations, our paper uses French pragmatic sociology of critique (FPSC), a non-structuralist, post-Bourdesian, approach to sociology, to theorize philanthropic foundations within the policy agora. Through FPSC, we present foundations as a composite setup of activity, where critically reflexive actors bring normative ideologies and knowledge to policy, providing a new avenue for how scholarship can interpret and critique foundations and their influence.
{"title":"Pragmatism, partnerships, and persuasion: theorizing philanthropic foundations in the global policy agora","authors":"Janis Petzinger, T. Jung, K. Orr","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad016","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Foundations are one of the oldest organizational forms globally; their number and resources, as well as their socio-political and economic importance, have steadily continued to grow. Yet, foundations’ attributes, activities, and actual achievements remain underexplored and poorly understood. This is particularly noticeable in the context of global policy and transnational administration, an area where foundations tend to be subliminal players, acting as a widely unrecognized socio-political undercurrent. Addressing the resulting need for better and alternative conceptualizations of foundations, our paper uses French pragmatic sociology of critique (FPSC), a non-structuralist, post-Bourdesian, approach to sociology, to theorize philanthropic foundations within the policy agora. Through FPSC, we present foundations as a composite setup of activity, where critically reflexive actors bring normative ideologies and knowledge to policy, providing a new avenue for how scholarship can interpret and critique foundations and their influence.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"2013 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78918428","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 Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban)—Housing for All mission (PMAY-U), a flagship mission of the Government of India, aims to address the need for affordable housing in urban areas through five different schemes. One of these schemes is a housing subsidy scheme, the Credit Linked Subsidy Scheme (CLSS), which has significantly contributed to the success of PMAY-U. However, the design of the CLSS scheme favors households considered creditworthy, with stable and secure income streams. This article examines the gap between the policy design and practice of the CLSS scheme to explore how biases get embedded into the policy, resulting in the exclusion of economically vulnerable households. Schneider and Ingram’s Social Construction of Target Population (SCTP) framework is used to identify the target groups involved in the CLSS policy chain. These target groups and policymakers were interviewed to understand their interpretations of the concept of affordable housing. Using a relational lens, these interpretations are compared to know how the meanings of affordable housing get represented within CLSS policy documents. The analysis presents two key insights. First, the power and interests of the target groups predict their representation in policy design and policymaking. Second, privatized implementation design of the subsidy scheme embeds negative selectivism creating exclusionary tendencies in the CLSS design. Lastly, given the shrinking of the welfare state across the globe, this study raises the critical question of “who benefits and who loses?” while challenging the normative aspects of the policy goal of affordable housing.
Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana(城市)-全民住房任务(PMAY-U)是印度政府的旗舰任务，旨在通过五种不同的计划解决城市地区对经济适用房的需求。其中一个计划是房屋补贴计划，即信贷挂钩补贴计划(CLSS)，该计划对PMAY-U的成功作出了重大贡献。然而，CLSS计划的设计有利于被认为有信誉、有稳定和安全收入流的家庭。本文考察了CLSS计划的政策设计和实践之间的差距，以探讨偏见如何嵌入政策，导致经济弱势家庭被排除在外。施耐德和英格拉姆的目标人群社会建构(Social Construction of Target Population, SCTP)框架用于识别CLSS政策链中涉及的目标群体。我们采访了这些目标群体和政策制定者，以了解他们对经济适用房概念的理解。使用关系透镜，比较这些解释，以了解如何在CLSS政策文件中表示经济适用房的含义。该分析提出了两个关键见解。首先，目标群体的权力和利益预测了他们在政策设计和决策中的代表性。其次，私有化的补贴方案实施设计嵌入了消极的选择主义，在CLSS设计中产生了排他性倾向。最后，鉴于全球范围内福利国家的缩减，这项研究提出了一个关键问题:“谁受益，谁输家?”，同时挑战经济适用房政策目标的规范性方面。
{"title":"Exclusion by design: a case study of an Indian urban housing subsidy scheme","authors":"Manav Khaire","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad015","url":null,"abstract":"The Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban)—Housing for All mission (PMAY-U), a flagship mission of the Government of India, aims to address the need for affordable housing in urban areas through five different schemes. One of these schemes is a housing subsidy scheme, the Credit Linked Subsidy Scheme (CLSS), which has significantly contributed to the success of PMAY-U. However, the design of the CLSS scheme favors households considered creditworthy, with stable and secure income streams. This article examines the gap between the policy design and practice of the CLSS scheme to explore how biases get embedded into the policy, resulting in the exclusion of economically vulnerable households. Schneider and Ingram’s Social Construction of Target Population (SCTP) framework is used to identify the target groups involved in the CLSS policy chain. These target groups and policymakers were interviewed to understand their interpretations of the concept of affordable housing. Using a relational lens, these interpretations are compared to know how the meanings of affordable housing get represented within CLSS policy documents. The analysis presents two key insights. First, the power and interests of the target groups predict their representation in policy design and policymaking. Second, privatized implementation design of the subsidy scheme embeds negative selectivism creating exclusionary tendencies in the CLSS design. Lastly, given the shrinking of the welfare state across the globe, this study raises the critical question of “who benefits and who loses?” while challenging the normative aspects of the policy goal of affordable housing.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"32 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165494","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：