Jose Antonio Reyes‐Gonzalez, Filip Agneessens, Marc Esteve
Information exchange is critical to the functionality of governance networks. Traditionally, it has been argued that actors within governance networks tend to engage in information exchange with others who share similar beliefs and motivations, as these are deemed catalysts for achieving collective objectives. An alternative viewpoint posits that actors may prioritize strategies aimed at minimizing transaction costs and maximizing returns when selecting their partners. This paper proposes that information exchange predominantly occurs with partners who are easily accessible (i.e., where transaction costs are low) and with partners who are perceived as influential (i.e., where benefits are high). To investigate these alternative propositions, we examine three distinct opportunity structures that actors may utilize, which are based on their preferences for (1) partners with similar participatory motivations, (2) partners who co‐participate in institutional committees, and (3) those perceived as influential. We empirically test these opportunity structures using unique survey data gathered from 10 anti‐corruption multi‐stakeholder partnerships within the public infrastructure domain in countries of Latin America, Africa, and Eurasia. Results from Exponential Random Graph Models suggest that shared participatory motivations do not significantly impact information exchange within our context, whereas the perceived influence of a partner emerges as a critical predictor. In addition, co‐participation in institutional committees significantly facilitates information dissemination, particularly when those committees involve discussions on deliberating about strategies to communicate findings on public‐sector infrastructure discrepancies and formulating recommendations to governments on transparency and accountability. These findings prompt discussions on four network management strategies aimed at restructuring networks and fostering stakeholder involvement and inclusivity.
{"title":"Unraveling the dynamics of information exchange in governance networks: Opportunity structures in anti‐corruption multi‐stakeholder partnerships","authors":"Jose Antonio Reyes‐Gonzalez, Filip Agneessens, Marc Esteve","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12629","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12629","url":null,"abstract":"Information exchange is critical to the functionality of governance networks. Traditionally, it has been argued that actors within governance networks tend to engage in information exchange with others who share similar beliefs and motivations, as these are deemed catalysts for achieving collective objectives. An alternative viewpoint posits that actors may prioritize strategies aimed at minimizing transaction costs and maximizing returns when selecting their partners. This paper proposes that information exchange predominantly occurs with partners who are easily accessible (i.e., where transaction costs are low) and with partners who are perceived as influential (i.e., where benefits are high). To investigate these alternative propositions, we examine three distinct opportunity structures that actors may utilize, which are based on their preferences for (1) partners with similar participatory motivations, (2) partners who co‐participate in institutional committees, and (3) those perceived as influential. We empirically test these opportunity structures using unique survey data gathered from 10 anti‐corruption multi‐stakeholder partnerships within the public infrastructure domain in countries of Latin America, Africa, and Eurasia. Results from Exponential Random Graph Models suggest that shared participatory motivations do not significantly impact information exchange within our context, whereas the perceived influence of a partner emerges as a critical predictor. In addition, co‐participation in institutional committees significantly facilitates information dissemination, particularly when those committees involve discussions on deliberating about strategies to communicate findings on public‐sector infrastructure discrepancies and formulating recommendations to governments on transparency and accountability. These findings prompt discussions on four network management strategies aimed at restructuring networks and fostering stakeholder involvement and inclusivity.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142257157","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Information and expertise in public policy","authors":"Nils C. Bandelow, Johanna Hornung, Ilana Schröder","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12628","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12628","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"78 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141939877","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Societal transformations for addressing climate change are intensely contested and at risk of resistance and backlash to ambitious policy action. But they are frequently modeled through heuristics such as S‐curves which abstract from such conflicts, assuming increasing returns to scale as a driver of transformations. This is the case even while scholars accept the presence of political conflict in transformation processes. Within political science and allied disciplines, the notions of policy feedback and policy coalitions have been deployed to understand how such political conflicts may be understood. But these approaches risk gravitating toward an instrumental design impulse that inadvertently downplays conflict. We argue that policy action for societal transformations should be re‐conceptualized as an unfolding series of battle‐settlement events whereby heated episodic political struggles over a certain policy object or issue play out and eventually settle in ways that structure future debates while nonetheless remaining indeterminate and open to challenge or reversal. Such an approach reflects the varied empirical experiences of climate policy action to date which include both accumulation and reversal. It also helps explain trajectories of change that are discontinuous and lurching in contrast to common images of transformation as progressive and cumulative. We illustrate this approach through two cases of unfolding societal transformation on climate change: coal phaseout in the United Kingdom and renewable energy uptake in Australia.
为应对气候变化而进行的社会变革存在着激烈的争议，并有可能对雄心勃勃的政策行动造成阻力和反弹。但是，人们经常通过诸如 S 曲线之类的启发式方法对其进行建模，这些方法对此类冲突进行了抽象，并假定规模收益递增是转型的驱动力。即使学者们承认转型过程中存在政治冲突，情况也是如此。在政治学和相关学科中，政策反馈和政策联盟的概念被用来理解如何理解此类政治冲突。但这些方法有可能倾向于工具性的设计冲动，无意中淡化了冲突。我们认为，应将社会转型的政策行动重新概念化为一系列不断展开的战斗--解决事件，在这些事件中，围绕某一政策对象或问题的激烈的偶发性政治斗争不断上演，并最终以某种方式平息，从而形成未来辩论的结构，但同时仍具有不确定性，可接受挑战或逆转。这种方法反映了迄今为止气候政策行动的各种经验，其中既有积累，也有逆转。它还有助于解释变化的轨迹，这种轨迹是不连续的、摇摆不定的，与通常所说的渐进式和累积式转变形成鲜明对比。我们通过两个关于气候变化的社会转型案例来说明这种方法：英国的煤炭淘汰和澳大利亚的可再生能源利用。
{"title":"Embracing the politics of transformation: Policy action as “battle‐settlement events”","authors":"James Patterson, Matthew Paterson","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12627","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12627","url":null,"abstract":"Societal transformations for addressing climate change are intensely contested and at risk of resistance and backlash to ambitious policy action. But they are frequently modeled through heuristics such as S‐curves which abstract from such conflicts, assuming increasing returns to scale as a driver of transformations. This is the case even while scholars accept the presence of political conflict in transformation processes. Within political science and allied disciplines, the notions of policy feedback and policy coalitions have been deployed to understand how such political conflicts may be understood. But these approaches risk gravitating toward an instrumental design impulse that inadvertently downplays conflict. We argue that policy action for societal transformations should be re‐conceptualized as an unfolding series of <jats:italic>battle‐settlement events</jats:italic> whereby heated episodic political struggles over a certain policy object or issue play out and eventually settle in ways that structure future debates while nonetheless remaining indeterminate and open to challenge or reversal. Such an approach reflects the varied empirical experiences of climate policy action to date which include both accumulation and reversal. It also helps explain trajectories of change that are discontinuous and lurching in contrast to common images of transformation as progressive and cumulative. We illustrate this approach through two cases of unfolding societal transformation on climate change: coal phaseout in the United Kingdom and renewable energy uptake in Australia.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141783654","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study deals with reputation management, addressing collective issues, strategic communication by the government, and the dynamics between this communication and counter‐symbols from societal stakeholders. Empirically, it examines the political debates in Norway in recent years regarding the conflict over establishing a “ground rent” tax on extra profit earned through use of natural resources belonging to the community, related to salmon farming. The overall research question is how major concepts from reputation theory can explain the process and outcome of the decision‐making process. A main finding is that reputation varies across reputational dimensions and actors, and between government and audiences. Another is that it is necessary to examine reputation in relation to the field, the actors, and the task environment it concerns. The study also shows that reputation management is informed by the politics of reputation, revealing the challenge of balancing evidence‐based policy making and being responsive to opinion‐based stakeholder input, and that reputational threats and strategic communication are interlinked.
{"title":"Reputation management in turmoil—An analysis of the clashing narratives in the introduction of a “salmon tax” in Norway","authors":"Tom Christensen, Per Lægreid","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12615","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12615","url":null,"abstract":"This study deals with reputation management, addressing collective issues, strategic communication by the government, and the dynamics between this communication and counter‐symbols from societal stakeholders. Empirically, it examines the political debates in Norway in recent years regarding the conflict over establishing a “ground rent” tax on extra profit earned through use of natural resources belonging to the community, related to salmon farming. The overall research question is how major concepts from reputation theory can explain the process and outcome of the decision‐making process. A main finding is that reputation varies across reputational dimensions and actors, and between government and audiences. Another is that it is necessary to examine reputation in relation to the field, the actors, and the task environment it concerns. The study also shows that reputation management is informed by the politics of reputation, revealing the challenge of balancing evidence‐based policy making and being responsive to opinion‐based stakeholder input, and that reputational threats and strategic communication are interlinked.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141190738","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper re‐evaluates conventional Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) scholarship which has traditionally prioritized the study of specific rules configurations and their role in forming effective institutional arrangements. We suggest that effective institutional governance may actually be more reliant on the narrative foundations and personal cognitive interpretations of these rules than on the explicit rules themselves. By drawing insights from the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), which delves into the internal cognitive processes of individuals, we seek to enrich the understanding of institutional‐actor‐rule dynamics. We contend that policy actors often rely on narrative heuristics to navigate complex institutional landscapes, underscoring the role of narratives in both understanding institutional structures and instigating collective action. Although institutional scholarship recognizes the centrality of communication, its impact on shaping institutional arrangements and rule formation remains insufficiently explored. This paper advocates for the integration of the NPF and the Institutional Grammar Tools' (IGT) ADICO, identifying potential parallels between the two frameworks. Our preliminary theorization suggests a cyclical relationship between narratives and institutions, with narratives shaping and being shaped by institutional rules and norms. Building upon Narrative Attention Theory, we aim to understand the broader implications of institutional narratives in driving or reinforcing policy stasis. Our paper represents a foundational step toward a comprehensive theoretical framework on the role of narratives in institutions, spotlighting institutional rules and pointing to future research directions. Through the proposed integration of NPF and IGT's ADICO, we hope to provide a more nuanced understanding of narrative dynamics in institutional arrangements and pave the way for empirical exploration of this relationship.
{"title":"The narrative policy framework and institutions","authors":"Rachel McGovern, Michael D. Jones","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12616","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12616","url":null,"abstract":"This paper re‐evaluates conventional Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) scholarship which has traditionally prioritized the study of specific rules configurations and their role in forming effective institutional arrangements. We suggest that effective institutional governance may actually be more reliant on the narrative foundations and personal cognitive interpretations of these rules than on the explicit rules themselves. By drawing insights from the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), which delves into the internal cognitive processes of individuals, we seek to enrich the understanding of institutional‐actor‐rule dynamics. We contend that policy actors often rely on narrative heuristics to navigate complex institutional landscapes, underscoring the role of narratives in both understanding institutional structures and instigating collective action. Although institutional scholarship recognizes the centrality of communication, its impact on shaping institutional arrangements and rule formation remains insufficiently explored. This paper advocates for the integration of the NPF and the Institutional Grammar Tools' (IGT) ADICO, identifying potential parallels between the two frameworks. Our preliminary theorization suggests a cyclical relationship between narratives and institutions, with narratives shaping and being shaped by institutional rules and norms. Building upon Narrative Attention Theory, we aim to understand the broader implications of institutional narratives in driving or reinforcing policy stasis. Our paper represents a foundational step toward a comprehensive theoretical framework on the role of narratives in institutions, spotlighting institutional rules and pointing to future research directions. Through the proposed integration of NPF and IGT's ADICO, we hope to provide a more nuanced understanding of narrative dynamics in institutional arrangements and pave the way for empirical exploration of this relationship.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141190208","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The formal engagement of diverse stakeholder groups in environmental policy design and implementation is increasingly common. While engaging diverse stakeholders in common fora can help address complex environmental dilemmas, insofar as different stakeholders have varying perspectives and resources to contribute, this same variance can lead to intractable conflicts. While policy scholars have developed various conceptual approaches to understanding conflict in the policy process, few scholars have applied conceptual approaches to understand how policy conflicts are reflected in interpersonal communications among diverse stakeholders. In this article, we draw on environmental justice council meeting minutes and use qualitative, computational, and statistical methods to analyze, over time: (i) the extent and severity of policy conflict observed among council actors; (ii) the association between actor‐level attributes and conflict, as conveyed in two‐way communication between actors; (iii) the association between actor's sector and change in conflict; and (iv) variation in conflict across council activities. By exploring the overtime association between policy conflict and attributes of policy actors (e.g., sectoral affiliation and interpersonal attributes), our analysis addresses not only the influence of the number of interactions for an actor at the meeting but also how they are interacting at the meeting by leveraging their position in the meeting communication network. Our article contributes to the study of the public policy process and collaborative governance, drawing attention to how conflict materializes in a collaborative forum engaged in policy making.
{"title":"Evaluating conflict in collaborative environmental governance: A study of environmental justice councils","authors":"Graham Ambrose, Jangmin Kim, Saba Siddiki","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12614","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12614","url":null,"abstract":"The formal engagement of diverse stakeholder groups in environmental policy design and implementation is increasingly common. While engaging diverse stakeholders in common fora can help address complex environmental dilemmas, insofar as different stakeholders have varying perspectives and resources to contribute, this same variance can lead to intractable conflicts. While policy scholars have developed various conceptual approaches to understanding conflict in the policy process, few scholars have applied conceptual approaches to understand how policy conflicts are reflected in interpersonal communications among diverse stakeholders. In this article, we draw on environmental justice council meeting minutes and use qualitative, computational, and statistical methods to analyze, over time: (i) the extent and severity of policy conflict observed among council actors; (ii) the association between actor‐level attributes and conflict, as conveyed in two‐way communication between actors; (iii) the association between actor's sector and change in conflict; and (iv) variation in conflict across council activities. By exploring the overtime association between policy conflict and attributes of policy actors (e.g., sectoral affiliation and interpersonal attributes), our analysis addresses not only the influence of the number of interactions for an actor at the meeting but also how they are interacting at the meeting by leveraging their position in the meeting communication network. Our article contributes to the study of the public policy process and collaborative governance, drawing attention to how conflict materializes in a collaborative forum engaged in policy making.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140832653","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Citizen Income (Reddito di cittadinanza—RdC) is the most extensive program to fight poverty ever adopted in Italy. RdC is a Minimum Income Scheme that grants a cash amount to beneficiaries but obliges some specific groups to participate in active measures and in social inclusion programs. After 4 years of implementation, RdC seems not to have fully achieved its goals and scholars blame policy legacies as one of the main causes of its failures. Drawing on the literature on policy feedback, the paper proposes an analytical framework that identifies the mechanisms related to resources, incentives, and meanings affecting policy actors (public administration, organized civil society, and citizens). The framework is then applied to the case of RdC to detect through what specific mechanisms deriving from past anti‐poverty, active, and social policies impacted on the implementation of the RdC. The paper is moreover aimed at advancing the debate about policy legacies and their effects on current policies through the elaboration of a framework specifying the mechanisms through which policy feedback produces change or stability.
{"title":"The impact of policy legacies on the implementation of Citizen Income in Italy: A policy feedback perspective","authors":"Giorgia Nesti, Paolo Graziano","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12608","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12608","url":null,"abstract":"The Citizen Income (<jats:italic>Reddito di cittadinanza</jats:italic>—RdC) is the most extensive program to fight poverty ever adopted in Italy. RdC is a Minimum Income Scheme that grants a cash amount to beneficiaries but obliges some specific groups to participate in active measures and in social inclusion programs. After 4 years of implementation, RdC seems not to have fully achieved its goals and scholars blame policy legacies as one of the main causes of its failures. Drawing on the literature on policy feedback, the paper proposes an analytical framework that identifies the mechanisms related to resources, incentives, and meanings affecting policy actors (public administration, organized civil society, and citizens). The framework is then applied to the case of RdC to detect through what specific mechanisms deriving from past anti‐poverty, active, and social policies impacted on the implementation of the RdC. The paper is moreover aimed at advancing the debate about policy legacies and their effects on current policies through the elaboration of a framework specifying the mechanisms through which policy feedback produces change or stability.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140599794","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Multilevel governance is theorized to facilitate effective policy implementation by encouraging the use of local knowledge and expertise, enabling the participation of non‐government actors, and capitalizing on the coordinating and sanctioning authority of centralized governments. Whether a particular multilevel governance arrangement achieves this, however, depends in part on the degree to which it enables coordination among governmental and non‐governmental actors representing different levels and jurisdictions. Using a comparative case study of education governance reform in the United States, this study investigates how differences in state policy implementation approach impact the structure and mode of coordination in multilevel governance systems and considers the effects this has on policy implementation processes. The results indicate that a state's implementation approach impacts coordination by structuring how different levels of government interact, share information, and influence policy. Specifically, variation in the structure of the central governing agency directly enables or restricts the influence of bottom‐up coordination from lower levels of government. The results also highlight the theoretical limitations of current binary structure models of multilevel governance (i.e., centralized vs. decentralized, top‐down vs. bottom‐up, hierarchy vs. network) for capturing important nuances in policy coordination. These findings advance the understanding of policy coordination in multilevel governance systems and inform the design of institutional arrangements that balance trade‐offs in centralization and the delegation of authority across governance systems during policy implementation.
{"title":"Coordinating school improvement: Understanding the impact of state implementation approach on coordination in multilevel governance systems","authors":"Jordyn E. Green, Elizabeth A. Koebele","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12612","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12612","url":null,"abstract":"Multilevel governance is theorized to facilitate effective policy implementation by encouraging the use of local knowledge and expertise, enabling the participation of non‐government actors, and capitalizing on the coordinating and sanctioning authority of centralized governments. Whether a particular multilevel governance arrangement achieves this, however, depends in part on the degree to which it enables coordination among governmental and non‐governmental actors representing different levels and jurisdictions. Using a comparative case study of education governance reform in the United States, this study investigates how differences in state policy implementation approach impact the structure and mode of coordination in multilevel governance systems and considers the effects this has on policy implementation processes. The results indicate that a state's implementation approach impacts coordination by structuring how different levels of government interact, share information, and influence policy. Specifically, variation in the structure of the central governing agency directly enables or restricts the influence of bottom‐up coordination from lower levels of government. The results also highlight the theoretical limitations of current binary structure models of multilevel governance (i.e., centralized vs. decentralized, top‐down vs. bottom‐up, hierarchy vs. network) for capturing important nuances in policy coordination. These findings advance the understanding of policy coordination in multilevel governance systems and inform the design of institutional arrangements that balance trade‐offs in centralization and the delegation of authority across governance systems during policy implementation.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140599799","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
EU member states have adopted Minimum Income Schemes (MIS) to prevent destitution and ensure a minimum standard of living through means‐tested income support combined with Active Labor Market Policies (ALMPs). However, the effectiveness of MIS has been hindered by limited coverage, low take‐up rates, inadequate cash transfers, strict conditionalities, and the limited impact of ALMPs. Public opinion is polarized, leading to potential policy changes. Pilot projects have emerged as a strategy to address implementation barriers, facilitate evidence‐based policy making, and improve stakeholder relationships. This paper investigates the political conditions under which pilots are promoted and the effects these policy decisions have on scaling up through a qualitative analysis and comparison, using two exemplary cases—B‐MINCOME in Barcelona and Weten Wat Werkt in Utrecht.
欧盟成员国已采用最低收入计划（MIS），通过经济情况调查收入支持与积极劳动力市场政策（ALMPs）相结合，防止赤贫并确保最低生活标准。然而，由于覆盖面有限、参与率低、现金转移不足、条件限制严格以及积极劳动力市场政策的影响有限，最低收入计划的有效性受到了阻碍。公众舆论两极分化，导致政策可能发生变化。试点项目已成为解决实施障碍、促进循证决策和改善利益相关者关系的一项战略。本文利用巴塞罗那的 B-MINCOME 和乌得勒支的 Weten Wat Werkt 这两个典范案例，通过定性分析和比较，研究了推动试点项目的政治条件以及这些政策决定对扩大规模的影响。
{"title":"The politics of piloting. The case of minimum income schemes in European cities","authors":"Giorgia Nesti, Matide Cittadini, Matteo Bassoli","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12611","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12611","url":null,"abstract":"EU member states have adopted Minimum Income Schemes (MIS) to prevent destitution and ensure a minimum standard of living through means‐tested income support combined with Active Labor Market Policies (ALMPs). However, the effectiveness of MIS has been hindered by limited coverage, low take‐up rates, inadequate cash transfers, strict conditionalities, and the limited impact of ALMPs. Public opinion is polarized, leading to potential policy changes. Pilot projects have emerged as a strategy to address implementation barriers, facilitate evidence‐based policy making, and improve stakeholder relationships. This paper investigates the political conditions under which pilots are promoted and the effects these policy decisions have on scaling up through a qualitative analysis and comparison, using two exemplary cases—B‐MINCOME in Barcelona and <jats:italic>Weten Wat Werkt</jats:italic> in Utrecht.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140599717","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pamela Rittelmeyer, Mark Lubell, Meredith Hovis, Tanya Heikkila, Andrea Gerlak, Tara Pozzi
The link between knowledge and decision‐making in polycentric systems is shaped by the process of collective learning, where policy actors participate in multiple policy forums to acquire, translate, and disseminate knowledge. This article argues that the relationship between learning and participation in polycentric systems differs for actors with executive responsibilities versus specialized staff. Using a mix of quantitative and qualitative data, we show that executive staff are less likely to learn because of their incentives, resources, and position in the system. In contrast, specialized staff are more likely to learn as they form epistemic communities focused on specific policy issues. The different learning experiences of executive versus technical staff contributes to the disjunction between knowledge and power that is a feature of all polycentric systems. Bridging this gap requires institutional arrangements and training to enable the development of trust‐based relationships between decision‐makers, scientists, and other types of specialized knowledge communities.
{"title":"Knowledge is not power: Learning in polycentric governance systems","authors":"Pamela Rittelmeyer, Mark Lubell, Meredith Hovis, Tanya Heikkila, Andrea Gerlak, Tara Pozzi","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12606","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12606","url":null,"abstract":"The link between knowledge and decision‐making in polycentric systems is shaped by the process of collective learning, where policy actors participate in multiple policy forums to acquire, translate, and disseminate knowledge. This article argues that the relationship between learning and participation in polycentric systems differs for actors with executive responsibilities versus specialized staff. Using a mix of quantitative and qualitative data, we show that executive staff are less likely to learn because of their incentives, resources, and position in the system. In contrast, specialized staff are more likely to learn as they form epistemic communities focused on specific policy issues. The different learning experiences of executive versus technical staff contributes to the disjunction between knowledge and power that is a feature of all polycentric systems. Bridging this gap requires institutional arrangements and training to enable the development of trust‐based relationships between decision‐makers, scientists, and other types of specialized knowledge communities.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140599793","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"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：