The proliferation of concerns over the transparency, accountability, and democracy of international organizations has contributed to an increase in accountability mechanisms to hold global governors to account, by both state and non-state actors. Much of the scholarly focus on this subject has been on how levers of accountability can improve global governance for Member States and actors seeking to improve decision-making, and thus outputs. This article instead examines how individuals and communities, or neglected publics, are using accountability mechanisms designed to provide them with recourse for environmental and social harm. It probes the use of the grievance mechanisms for the multilateral development banks to examine what kinds of actors use them (e.g., international nongovernmental organizations, nongovernmental organizations, or project-affected people [PAP]) and to what effect. To explore these questions, we analyze 500 complaints submitted to the grievance mechanisms of the World Bank Group; the Asian, African, and Inter-American Development Banks; and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The results demonstrate that claims for recourse come from a range of primarily local actors, but that PAP in developing countries will more often achieve positive outcomes from the grievance mechanism process if they receive assistance from international and national nongovernmental organizations. These findings therefore demonstrate that transnational activists can fulfill a facilitating role as “accountability enablers” and that domestic representatives are especially effective in problem-solving processes, while international representatives are especially effective in compliance processes.
{"title":"Accountability enablers? The role of transnational activism in the use of the multilateral development bank grievance mechanisms","authors":"Eda Gunaydin, Susan Park","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The proliferation of concerns over the transparency, accountability, and democracy of international organizations has contributed to an increase in accountability mechanisms to hold global governors to account, by both state and non-state actors. Much of the scholarly focus on this subject has been on how levers of accountability can improve global governance for Member States and actors seeking to improve decision-making, and thus outputs. This article instead examines how individuals and communities, or neglected publics, are using accountability mechanisms designed to provide them with recourse for environmental and social harm. It probes the use of the grievance mechanisms for the multilateral development banks to examine what kinds of actors use them (e.g., international nongovernmental organizations, nongovernmental organizations, or project-affected people [PAP]) and to what effect. To explore these questions, we analyze 500 complaints submitted to the grievance mechanisms of the World Bank Group; the Asian, African, and Inter-American Development Banks; and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The results demonstrate that claims for recourse come from a range of primarily local actors, but that PAP in developing countries will more often achieve positive outcomes from the grievance mechanism process if they receive assistance from international and national nongovernmental organizations. These findings therefore demonstrate that transnational activists can fulfill a facilitating role as “accountability enablers” and that domestic representatives are especially effective in problem-solving processes, while international representatives are especially effective in compliance processes.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73595606","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}
So far, interest in policy and political sciences has mostly centered around the varieties of policy advisory systems (PASs) and knowledge regimes in consolidated democracies rather than in consolidated autocracies, which largely remain as black boxes. Drawing on a hybrid literature review, this article aims to fill this gap. It reviews selected articles published between 1992 and February 2023 in the Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge Social Science Citation Index database to not only to reveal the current state of empirical and theoretical knowledge and persistent knowledge gaps but also to offer an integration of the literature that leads to a preliminary conceptual framework in this emerging topic. In doing so, it contributes to the body of knowledge on this topic in three main ways. First, it provides a comprehensive review of PASs in consolidated autocracies to identify the central features of policy knowledge production within and across autocracies. Second, it proposes “the vicious circle of authoritarian PAS and knowledge regime” as a conceptual approach. In doing so, it takes a modest step toward a holistic conceptualization and synthesis of this literature to date. Third, it establishes connections between fragmented literature studies; identifies theoretical, conceptual, empirical, and methodological gaps; and proposes suggestions concerning promising paths for future research.
{"title":"The vicious circle of policy advisory systems and knowledge regimes in consolidated authoritarian regimes","authors":"Caner Bakir","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad013","url":null,"abstract":"So far, interest in policy and political sciences has mostly centered around the varieties of policy advisory systems (PASs) and knowledge regimes in consolidated democracies rather than in consolidated autocracies, which largely remain as black boxes. Drawing on a hybrid literature review, this article aims to fill this gap. It reviews selected articles published between 1992 and February 2023 in the Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge Social Science Citation Index database to not only to reveal the current state of empirical and theoretical knowledge and persistent knowledge gaps but also to offer an integration of the literature that leads to a preliminary conceptual framework in this emerging topic. In doing so, it contributes to the body of knowledge on this topic in three main ways. First, it provides a comprehensive review of PASs in consolidated autocracies to identify the central features of policy knowledge production within and across autocracies. Second, it proposes “the vicious circle of authoritarian PAS and knowledge regime” as a conceptual approach. In doing so, it takes a modest step toward a holistic conceptualization and synthesis of this literature to date. Third, it establishes connections between fragmented literature studies; identifies theoretical, conceptual, empirical, and methodological gaps; and proposes suggestions concerning promising paths for future research.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"5 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165687","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 delegitimization of policy advice has generated a defensive response that combines an assertion of the superior scientific character of expertise with a forthright affirmation of social and political values. This more value-driven discourse of policy expertise is examined with the case study of the Global Solutions Summit/World Policy Forum, launched in 2017 to support the Think20 network of global policy advisors supporting the G20 meetings under the German presidency. The Global Solutions Summit has evolved into a more policy-wonkish version of the World Economic Forum held annually in Davos and now is a switching point of global policy advice for the G7 as well. Through participant observation and an analysis of the proceedings of the annual summits since 2017, the article shows a distinctive configuration of normatively framed policy advice designed to overcome the social and political pathologies that have been the foundation of populist critiques of policy expertise.
{"title":"Speaking good to power: repositioning global policy advice through normative framing","authors":"Leslie A Pal","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad012","url":null,"abstract":"The delegitimization of policy advice has generated a defensive response that combines an assertion of the superior scientific character of expertise with a forthright affirmation of social and political values. This more value-driven discourse of policy expertise is examined with the case study of the Global Solutions Summit/World Policy Forum, launched in 2017 to support the Think20 network of global policy advisors supporting the G20 meetings under the German presidency. The Global Solutions Summit has evolved into a more policy-wonkish version of the World Economic Forum held annually in Davos and now is a switching point of global policy advice for the G7 as well. Through participant observation and an analysis of the proceedings of the annual summits since 2017, the article shows a distinctive configuration of normatively framed policy advice designed to overcome the social and political pathologies that have been the foundation of populist critiques of policy expertise.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"5 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165691","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 analyzes the “politics of experts”—or the struggle between scientific advisers to gain visibility and influence—in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy and the UK. Modifying classic studies of policy communities of interest groups and civil servants, we classify relevant policy experts in the two countries into the following categories: “core insiders,” “specialist insiders,” “peripheral insiders,” and “outsiders.” Within these categories, we distinguish between “high-profile” and “low-profile” experts, depending on media exposure. The comparison between the UK and Italian cases helps to identify how actors interpret and follow formal and informal “rules of the game.” We identify a contest between experts to influence policy with reference to two competing “rules of the game.” The first set of rules comes from government, while the second comes from science advice principles. These rules collide, such as when governments require secrecy and nonconfrontation and scientists expect transparency and independent criticism. Therefore, experts face dilemmas regarding which rules to favor: some accept the limits to their behavior to ensure insider access; others are free to criticize the policies that they struggle to influence.
{"title":"The politics of COVID-19 experts: comparing winners and losers in Italy and the UK","authors":"Paul Cairney, Federico Toth","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad011","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes the “politics of experts”—or the struggle between scientific advisers to gain visibility and influence—in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy and the UK. Modifying classic studies of policy communities of interest groups and civil servants, we classify relevant policy experts in the two countries into the following categories: “core insiders,” “specialist insiders,” “peripheral insiders,” and “outsiders.” Within these categories, we distinguish between “high-profile” and “low-profile” experts, depending on media exposure. The comparison between the UK and Italian cases helps to identify how actors interpret and follow formal and informal “rules of the game.” We identify a contest between experts to influence policy with reference to two competing “rules of the game.” The first set of rules comes from government, while the second comes from science advice principles. These rules collide, such as when governments require secrecy and nonconfrontation and scientists expect transparency and independent criticism. Therefore, experts face dilemmas regarding which rules to favor: some accept the limits to their behavior to ensure insider access; others are free to criticize the policies that they struggle to influence.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"54 16","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165973","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 worldwide explosion of social welfare has been described as the “quiet revolution” of our time. This paper analyses the expansion of social welfare in India during the early part of the 2000s. What explains this expansion of encompassing social welfare in India, following a history of disparate and fragmented social policies? The answer, I argue, lies in recognizing the importance of the “politics of the poor,” the ensemble of negotiations that encompass both electoral participation and contentious politics vis-à-vis the political institutions in India. The paper develops this argument by drawing together insights from discursive institutionalism, Indian politics, and the politics of welfare literature. Doing so enables me to examine the ways in which poor people’s political practices were interpreted by India’s parliamentarians to justify the legislation of India’s flagship social welfare program the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. I analyze the discourses communicated through 78 parliamentary debates in English and Hindi to enact the law. I blend this analysis with process tracing of electoral behavior of India’s poor and the Maoist insurrection that exploded in the country’s poorest districts at the turn of the century.
{"title":"How welfare wins: Discursive institutionalism, the politics of the poor, and the expansion of social welfare in India during the early 21st century","authors":"I. Roy","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad010","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The worldwide explosion of social welfare has been described as the “quiet revolution” of our time. This paper analyses the expansion of social welfare in India during the early part of the 2000s. What explains this expansion of encompassing social welfare in India, following a history of disparate and fragmented social policies? The answer, I argue, lies in recognizing the importance of the “politics of the poor,” the ensemble of negotiations that encompass both electoral participation and contentious politics vis-à-vis the political institutions in India. The paper develops this argument by drawing together insights from discursive institutionalism, Indian politics, and the politics of welfare literature. Doing so enables me to examine the ways in which poor people’s political practices were interpreted by India’s parliamentarians to justify the legislation of India’s flagship social welfare program the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. I analyze the discourses communicated through 78 parliamentary debates in English and Hindi to enact the law. I blend this analysis with process tracing of electoral behavior of India’s poor and the Maoist insurrection that exploded in the country’s poorest districts at the turn of the century.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82673148","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 2021 American Rescue Plan included the temporary expansion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC)—the largest individual income tax credit program in the United States—for most families with children. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, how did the public perceive this social policy benefit for families, especially in relation to other traditional social programs? By focusing on the CTC, an understudied policy area, and presenting original survey data, this paper first shows that, while the majority of respondents favored the CTC, levels of support for these benefits were lower than support for other social programs. Second, the paper suggests that, compared to older people and people with disabilities, Americans view families as part of the “undeserving” population. Third, by presenting panel data, we show that there is no change in levels of CTC support even among recipients of these benefits. Overall, these findings shed light on important challenges to the development and implementation of family policy in the USA, as well as the possibility of recalibrating the US liberal welfare state.
{"title":"Assessing public support for social policy in times of crisis: evidence from the Child Tax Credit during the COVID-19 era in the United States","authors":"Mariely López-Santana, Lucas Núñez, Daniel Béland","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad009","url":null,"abstract":"The 2021 American Rescue Plan included the temporary expansion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC)—the largest individual income tax credit program in the United States—for most families with children. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, how did the public perceive this social policy benefit for families, especially in relation to other traditional social programs? By focusing on the CTC, an understudied policy area, and presenting original survey data, this paper first shows that, while the majority of respondents favored the CTC, levels of support for these benefits were lower than support for other social programs. Second, the paper suggests that, compared to older people and people with disabilities, Americans view families as part of the “undeserving” population. Third, by presenting panel data, we show that there is no change in levels of CTC support even among recipients of these benefits. Overall, these findings shed light on important challenges to the development and implementation of family policy in the USA, as well as the possibility of recalibrating the US liberal welfare state.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"31 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166051","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 paper aims to add to the debate on the varieties of neoliberalism and the homogenizing effects of megaproject-based urban development. It examines the acculturation of the growth imperative as the master discourse that supports the development and implementation of two projects aimed at transforming the centers of Tampere, Finland, and Łódź, Poland. The selected cities shared similar traits as industrial centers in the past, but their current socioeconomic situation is entirely different. Tampere holds the title of “Finland’s most likeable city,” while rapidly depopulating Łódź was labeled the “Polish Detroit.” Nevertheless, both municipalities became attracted by the idea of boosting their development through implementing large-scale infrastructural investments to reshape their centers. Inspired by discursive institutionalism, which defines discourse as a set of policy ideas and values, and interactive policy communication and formulation processes, the paper reconstructs and compares the strategic visions of Tampere’s “Five Star City Centre” and “The New Centre of Łódź.” It demonstrates how the proponents of the projects discursively forced consent around proposed ideas. Namely, it shows how the issues of complexity, risk, and potential conflict of the two megaprojects have been addressed. On a conceptual level, the paper shows how policy convergence can be discursively facilitated in different socioeconomic, cultural, and political circumstances.
{"title":"Discourses of growth in megaproject-based urban development: a comparative study of Poland and Finland","authors":"Magdalena Rek-Woźniak","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The paper aims to add to the debate on the varieties of neoliberalism and the homogenizing effects of megaproject-based urban development. It examines the acculturation of the growth imperative as the master discourse that supports the development and implementation of two projects aimed at transforming the centers of Tampere, Finland, and Łódź, Poland. The selected cities shared similar traits as industrial centers in the past, but their current socioeconomic situation is entirely different. Tampere holds the title of “Finland’s most likeable city,” while rapidly depopulating Łódź was labeled the “Polish Detroit.” Nevertheless, both municipalities became attracted by the idea of boosting their development through implementing large-scale infrastructural investments to reshape their centers. Inspired by discursive institutionalism, which defines discourse as a set of policy ideas and values, and interactive policy communication and formulation processes, the paper reconstructs and compares the strategic visions of Tampere’s “Five Star City Centre” and “The New Centre of Łódź.” It demonstrates how the proponents of the projects discursively forced consent around proposed ideas. Namely, it shows how the issues of complexity, risk, and potential conflict of the two megaprojects have been addressed. On a conceptual level, the paper shows how policy convergence can be discursively facilitated in different socioeconomic, cultural, and political circumstances.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91020569","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 recent debate on megaprojects (MPs), greater attention is devoted to the functioning of the interorganizational and multiactor networks that are one of the most innovative features in recent years. The complexity of these structures brings out governability issues for an MP’s management. Mutual recognition and consent become elements capable of inaugurating more collaborative processes and practices to reduce organizational and management criticalities in MPs. This paper focuses on a neglected relational dimension, namely legitimacy. We argue that legitimacy is instead the central dimension that attributes effectiveness and capacity for action to the organizations involved. Legitimacy regulates the relationship between various organizations—and especially—between organizations and the public sphere. Institutionalist theory assigns a central role to legitimacy in the construction of social processes, defining it as a generalized form of social acceptance toward an actor, an idea, or a project. In this paper, we hypothesize that the legitimacy attributed and “held” by the stakeholders is a crucial element in countering three critical aspects of MPs, namely the uncertainty, complexity, and conflict acting on the construction of public consensus and the quality of relationships between the participating stakeholders. We verify our hypothesis by analyzing a cross-border MP, the Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link between Germany and Denmark. The paper concentrates on the mechanisms with which stakeholders can acquire legitimacy using the Eriksen discursive legitimation scheme. These mechanisms are different (evidence-based, public participation, and legislators’ command) and produce different outcomes in terms of increasing or containing these three criticalities.
{"title":"Bridging the “consent gap”: mechanisms of legitimization in a cross-border megaproject","authors":"Silvia Lucciarini, Rossana Galdini","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad007","url":null,"abstract":"In the recent debate on megaprojects (MPs), greater attention is devoted to the functioning of the interorganizational and multiactor networks that are one of the most innovative features in recent years. The complexity of these structures brings out governability issues for an MP’s management. Mutual recognition and consent become elements capable of inaugurating more collaborative processes and practices to reduce organizational and management criticalities in MPs. This paper focuses on a neglected relational dimension, namely legitimacy. We argue that legitimacy is instead the central dimension that attributes effectiveness and capacity for action to the organizations involved. Legitimacy regulates the relationship between various organizations—and especially—between organizations and the public sphere. Institutionalist theory assigns a central role to legitimacy in the construction of social processes, defining it as a generalized form of social acceptance toward an actor, an idea, or a project. In this paper, we hypothesize that the legitimacy attributed and “held” by the stakeholders is a crucial element in countering three critical aspects of MPs, namely the uncertainty, complexity, and conflict acting on the construction of public consensus and the quality of relationships between the participating stakeholders. We verify our hypothesis by analyzing a cross-border MP, the Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link between Germany and Denmark. The paper concentrates on the mechanisms with which stakeholders can acquire legitimacy using the Eriksen discursive legitimation scheme. These mechanisms are different (evidence-based, public participation, and legislators’ command) and produce different outcomes in terms of increasing or containing these three criticalities.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"59 13","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166237","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 mobilization of narratives is essential in integrating people and constructing identities that help in navigating complexity, uncertainty, and conflictuality. This paper explores how comparisons are used as a discursive tool to shape narratives and bring about changes in policy and society, using the High Speed Two megaproject in the UK as a case study. We examine the comparisons that promoters and protesters employ in an organizational setting. In particular, we explore how the narratives that result from these comparisons—on questions including the need for the megaproject, the benefits of the megaproject, alternatives to the megaproject, and issues of noise, sustainability, compensation, and branding—help their efforts to organize. The research highlights how comparisons serve as an important cue in discourse and how different forms of comparison can help to create narratives and shape policy outcomes.
{"title":"Comparisons as a discursive tool: shaping megaproject narratives in the United Kingdom","authors":"N. Sergeeva, Johan Ninan","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The mobilization of narratives is essential in integrating people and constructing identities that help in navigating complexity, uncertainty, and conflictuality. This paper explores how comparisons are used as a discursive tool to shape narratives and bring about changes in policy and society, using the High Speed Two megaproject in the UK as a case study. We examine the comparisons that promoters and protesters employ in an organizational setting. In particular, we explore how the narratives that result from these comparisons—on questions including the need for the megaproject, the benefits of the megaproject, alternatives to the megaproject, and issues of noise, sustainability, compensation, and branding—help their efforts to organize. The research highlights how comparisons serve as an important cue in discourse and how different forms of comparison can help to create narratives and shape policy outcomes.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75125453","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}
Project management theory often reduces development to a simplistic and smooth process of consultation leading to a consensual set of requirements. However, in large public infrastructure projects, this is rarely the case as development is often subject to major power struggles. This article shows that public policy theory has an excellent potential to shed a fresh light on project development. An integrated model combining the theoretical insights from the Advocacy Coalition Framework and project development studies is presented and illustrated using the case of a major Canadian city streetcar network megaproject. The implications of the model for understanding “wicked problems” are discussed.
{"title":"The development of large public infrastructure projects: integrating policy and project studies models","authors":"Pierre-André Hudon, Serghei Floricel","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad004","url":null,"abstract":"Project management theory often reduces development to a simplistic and smooth process of consultation leading to a consensual set of requirements. However, in large public infrastructure projects, this is rarely the case as development is often subject to major power struggles. This article shows that public policy theory has an excellent potential to shed a fresh light on project development. An integrated model combining the theoretical insights from the Advocacy Coalition Framework and project development studies is presented and illustrated using the case of a major Canadian city streetcar network megaproject. The implications of the model for understanding “wicked problems” are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"58 41","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166246","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：