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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Andreas Thiel, N. Schütze, Annabelle Buhrow, A. Fouzai
Sustaining agricultural production in arid and semi‐arid regions is of paramount importance to food security, geo‐political independence, and social stability. In this context, it is vital to understand the effectiveness of policies. In this article, we aim to answer the question of what role the state and its policies play for soil protection in rainfed agriculture in Tunisia, and why. Beyond evaluating soil protection, this work contributes to explaining the role of the Tunisian state throughout the current phase of democratization for natural resource protection. That way it enhances our understanding of policy implementation in democratizing countries and contribute to theorizing of the policy process. We use qualitative methods and literature to understand the state infrastructural power of the Tunisian state in regard to soil protection. Land degradation in Tunisia remains a large problem. We explain the weak role of the state in effectively protecting soils as a result of subnational variation, and interrelated capabilities and weight of the state. Besides the overarching fiscal crisis that becomes worse over the years, neopatrimonial traits of the Tunisian state facilitate discrimination of rural areas, marginalization of parts of the farming population, and rainfed agriculture. Thereby, willingness and abilities of farmers and administrations to implement sustainable land management are undermined. Together with institutional uncertainty in administrations as a result of the current open‐ended democratization process, neopatrimonialist traits weaken administrative capacities.
{"title":"State infrastructural power in a neopatrimonialist democratization context: Why Tunisian sustainable land management fails","authors":"Andreas Thiel, N. Schütze, Annabelle Buhrow, A. Fouzai","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12617","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12617","url":null,"abstract":"Sustaining agricultural production in arid and semi‐arid regions is of paramount importance to food security, geo‐political independence, and social stability. In this context, it is vital to understand the effectiveness of policies. In this article, we aim to answer the question of what role the state and its policies play for soil protection in rainfed agriculture in Tunisia, and why. Beyond evaluating soil protection, this work contributes to explaining the role of the Tunisian state throughout the current phase of democratization for natural resource protection. That way it enhances our understanding of policy implementation in democratizing countries and contribute to theorizing of the policy process. We use qualitative methods and literature to understand the state infrastructural power of the Tunisian state in regard to soil protection. Land degradation in Tunisia remains a large problem. We explain the weak role of the state in effectively protecting soils as a result of subnational variation, and interrelated capabilities and weight of the state. Besides the overarching fiscal crisis that becomes worse over the years, neopatrimonial traits of the Tunisian state facilitate discrimination of rural areas, marginalization of parts of the farming population, and rainfed agriculture. Thereby, willingness and abilities of farmers and administrations to implement sustainable land management are undermined. Together with institutional uncertainty in administrations as a result of the current open‐ended democratization process, neopatrimonialist traits weaken administrative capacities.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141342140","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":"Stories, emotions, and governmental strategies","authors":"N. Bandelow, Johanna Hornung, Ilana Schröder","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12626","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12626","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141342521","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 analyzes the causal relationship between the carbon tax's revenue recycling measures and political acceptability. The Irish carbon tax reform of 2019 forms the basis of the study. The findings are based on deductive content analysis and semi‐structured, elite interviews with key politicians, climate policy advisors, and other influential figures involved in the policy‐making process. Analyzing the extensive Irish revenue recycling scheme, encompassing compensatory measures and various forms of climate spending, provides researchers with the chance to track distinctive causal mechanisms over the course of a politically intense period, leading up to general elections. The results show that relief measures were crucial to alleviate concerns about the negative distributional impact of the policy, which was fiercely attacked by some opposition parties. Additionally, climate spending increased political acceptance by offering low‐carbon alternatives to consumers, even though the policy was initially construed as punitive measure, especially in regions and sectors where switching to low‐carbon options, public transport, or less carbon intense heating, were challenging or even impossible. A unique finding of the study is that revenue recycling facilitates the emergence of cross‐party agreement among ideologically distant parties. Another crucial contribution of this study is the detailed comparison, from the perspective of political acceptability, of two alternative social compensation models, the fee and dividend model, and the integration of targeted social cushioning and climate spending (hypothecation).
{"title":"Investigating the mechanisms linking revenue recycling to increased political acceptability of carbon pricing","authors":"Daniel Muth","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12625","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12625","url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyzes the causal relationship between the carbon tax's revenue recycling measures and political acceptability. The Irish carbon tax reform of 2019 forms the basis of the study. The findings are based on deductive content analysis and semi‐structured, elite interviews with key politicians, climate policy advisors, and other influential figures involved in the policy‐making process. Analyzing the extensive Irish revenue recycling scheme, encompassing compensatory measures and various forms of climate spending, provides researchers with the chance to track distinctive causal mechanisms over the course of a politically intense period, leading up to general elections. The results show that relief measures were crucial to alleviate concerns about the negative distributional impact of the policy, which was fiercely attacked by some opposition parties. Additionally, climate spending increased political acceptance by offering low‐carbon alternatives to consumers, even though the policy was initially construed as punitive measure, especially in regions and sectors where switching to low‐carbon options, public transport, or less carbon intense heating, were challenging or even impossible. A unique finding of the study is that revenue recycling facilitates the emergence of cross‐party agreement among ideologically distant parties. Another crucial contribution of this study is the detailed comparison, from the perspective of political acceptability, of two alternative social compensation models, the fee and dividend model, and the integration of targeted social cushioning and climate spending (hypothecation).","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141355770","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 article aims to examine the emergence of a system of multi‐level governance in Higher Education quality assurance during recent decades in Spain, as a particular case within the European Space of Higher Education. Although there is a well‐established multi‐level structure in the governance of this area at the European level, it is not very common to find countries having an internal multi‐level configuration. Most countries have allocated quality assurance at the national level, either concentrating responsibilities into a single agency or allowing competition between accreditation bodies. Thus, the Spanish scenario stands out as very singular model for the governance of Higher Education quality assurance, deserving attention to comprehend the intricacies of its coordination. Here we examine its development over the last two decades, and discuss three factors that have shaped inter‐agencies' relations: first, the sequence of agency creation and their accumulated expertise; second, the role of institutional structures for multi‐level coordination; and third, informal practices related to inter‐governmental relations, and the influence of country administrative traditions. From discussing this case, this article identifies three key lessons for understanding agency relations in multilevel governance environments: first, path dependence significantly impacts‐regulatory interactions over time; second, the Administrative culture, particularly centralist traditions, considerably shapes relationships in multi‐level bodies; and, third, the coordination models in regulatory networks (hierarchical, network or market‐based) tend to reflect those underlying political dynamics.
{"title":"Multi‐level governance in higher education quality assurance: Agencification and policy coordination in Spain","authors":"Ana García‐Juanatey, J. Jordana, David Sancho","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12624","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12624","url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to examine the emergence of a system of multi‐level governance in Higher Education quality assurance during recent decades in Spain, as a particular case within the European Space of Higher Education. Although there is a well‐established multi‐level structure in the governance of this area at the European level, it is not very common to find countries having an internal multi‐level configuration. Most countries have allocated quality assurance at the national level, either concentrating responsibilities into a single agency or allowing competition between accreditation bodies. Thus, the Spanish scenario stands out as very singular model for the governance of Higher Education quality assurance, deserving attention to comprehend the intricacies of its coordination. Here we examine its development over the last two decades, and discuss three factors that have shaped inter‐agencies' relations: first, the sequence of agency creation and their accumulated expertise; second, the role of institutional structures for multi‐level coordination; and third, informal practices related to inter‐governmental relations, and the influence of country administrative traditions. From discussing this case, this article identifies three key lessons for understanding agency relations in multilevel governance environments: first, path dependence significantly impacts‐regulatory interactions over time; second, the Administrative culture, particularly centralist traditions, considerably shapes relationships in multi‐level bodies; and, third, the coordination models in regulatory networks (hierarchical, network or market‐based) tend to reflect those underlying political dynamics.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141379285","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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
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：