The article investigates the implementation of a crucial area of the EU asylum policy, which is asylum adjudication at the appeal stage. According to the Common European Asylum System, Member States must guarantee asylum seekers an effective remedy against first‐instance decisions. However, the EU policy framework leaves space for each country to choose its implementation model. Filling a gap in the literature on asylum policy implementation, the article explores the implementation arrangements (IAs) for asylum appeals in three countries, Italy, France, and Greece, which adopt different models. More precisely, relying on Strategic Analysis of Organizations and the Street‐Level Bureaucracy approach, the article addresses how specific elements of the IA influence organizational autonomy, implementing actors' routines and perceptions, as well as the degree of discretion. Moreover, it investigates the influence of de facto organizational practices on policy performance. The analysis of qualitative data suggests that different IAs, such as the nature of the body, the appointment system, and mechanisms of vertical accountability, shape de facto individual and organizational practices and actors' spaces for discretion. This process seems to impact policy performance, particularly in terms of uniformity, which is a core objective within the broader European policy framework for asylum adjudication.
文章调查了欧盟庇护政策的一个关键领域，即上诉阶段庇护裁决的执行情况。根据《欧洲共同庇护制度》，成员国必须保证寻求庇护者对一审判决获得有效补救。然而，欧盟的政策框架为各国选择其实施模式留下了空间。本文填补了庇护政策实施方面的文献空白，探讨了意大利、法国和希腊这三个采用不同模式的国家的庇护上诉实施安排（IAs）。更确切地说，文章依靠 "组织战略分析"（Strategic Analysis of Organizations）和 "街道官僚机构"（Street-Level Bureaucracy）方法，探讨了执行安排的具体要素如何影响组织自主性、执行者的常规和观念以及自由裁量权的程度。此外，文章还研究了事实上的组织实践对政策绩效的影响。对定性数据的分析表明，不同的执行机构，如机构性质、任命制度和纵向问责机制，塑造了个人和组织的实际做法以及执行者的自由裁量空间。这一过程似乎会影响政策绩效，特别是在统一性方面，而统一性是欧洲庇护裁决政策大框架的核心目标。
{"title":"“Countries you go, asylum adjudication you find.” Asylum appeals implementation arrangements, actors' discretion, and organizational practices","authors":"Cristina Dallara, Alice Lacchei","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12605","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12605","url":null,"abstract":"The article investigates the implementation of a crucial area of the EU asylum policy, which is asylum adjudication at the appeal stage. According to the Common European Asylum System, Member States must guarantee asylum seekers an effective remedy against first‐instance decisions. However, the EU policy framework leaves space for each country to choose its implementation model. Filling a gap in the literature on asylum policy implementation, the article explores the implementation arrangements (IAs) for asylum appeals in three countries, Italy, France, and Greece, which adopt different models. More precisely, relying on Strategic Analysis of Organizations and the Street‐Level Bureaucracy approach, the article addresses how specific elements of the IA influence organizational autonomy, implementing actors' routines and perceptions, as well as the degree of discretion. Moreover, it investigates the influence of de facto organizational practices on policy performance. The analysis of qualitative data suggests that different IAs, such as the nature of the body, the appointment system, and mechanisms of vertical accountability, shape de facto individual and organizational practices and actors' spaces for discretion. This process seems to impact policy performance, particularly in terms of uniformity, which is a core objective within the broader European policy framework for asylum adjudication.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140203679","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 recent adoption of the FuelEU Maritime regulation, aiming to decarbonize maritime shipping, is part of the EU clean energy transition to reach carbon neutrality by 2050. Based on autoethnographic method and qualitative text analysis, applying the multiple streams framework as a theoretical lens, this article explores and explains the politics and the policy process of FuelEU Maritime. A policy window opened with adoption of the Paris Agreement on climate change in 2015, the slow progress on climate policies in the International Maritime Organization, and the subsequent adoption of the European Green Deal in 2019 and the new EU climate law in 2021. Diverging beliefs and narratives of policy entrepreneurs, policy makers, and stakeholders on problems to be addressed and different policy options to be implemented are analyzed. There were mainly two policy entrepreneurs, advocating different problem descriptions and policy options. The European Commission proposed a technology‐neutral, goal‐based approach to reach moderate emission reductions by 2050, while a coalition led by green mobility NGO Transport & Environment advocated a technology‐specific multiplier and subquota for zero‐carbon fuels to reach carbon neutrality by 2050. The article explains the agency of Transport & Environment and allies in influencing the European Parliament and several member states in the Council of the EU to stand the grounds against incumbent shipping and fossil fuel industry that influenced the Commission to present a down‐watered policy proposal. Finally, the article exemplifies the complexity of the second‐generation energy transition required for decarbonization compared to the first‐generation transformation focusing on renewable electricity.
{"title":"At the controls: Politics and policy entrepreneurs in EU policy to decarbonize maritime transport","authors":"Fredrik von Malmborg","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12609","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12609","url":null,"abstract":"The recent adoption of the FuelEU Maritime regulation, aiming to decarbonize maritime shipping, is part of the EU clean energy transition to reach carbon neutrality by 2050. Based on autoethnographic method and qualitative text analysis, applying the multiple streams framework as a theoretical lens, this article explores and explains the politics and the policy process of FuelEU Maritime. A policy window opened with adoption of the Paris Agreement on climate change in 2015, the slow progress on climate policies in the International Maritime Organization, and the subsequent adoption of the European Green Deal in 2019 and the new EU climate law in 2021. Diverging beliefs and narratives of policy entrepreneurs, policy makers, and stakeholders on problems to be addressed and different policy options to be implemented are analyzed. There were mainly two policy entrepreneurs, advocating different problem descriptions and policy options. The <jats:italic>European Commission</jats:italic> proposed a technology‐neutral, goal‐based approach to reach moderate emission reductions by 2050, while a coalition led by green mobility NGO <jats:italic>Transport & Environment</jats:italic> advocated a technology‐specific multiplier and subquota for zero‐carbon fuels to reach carbon neutrality by 2050. The article explains the agency of <jats:italic>Transport & Environment</jats:italic> and allies in influencing the European Parliament and several member states in the Council of the EU to stand the grounds against incumbent shipping and fossil fuel industry that influenced the Commission to present a down‐watered policy proposal. Finally, the article exemplifies the complexity of the second‐generation energy transition required for decarbonization compared to the first‐generation transformation focusing on renewable electricity.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"67 4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140203485","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 utilizes the concept of absorptive capacity as a unique way to view implementations arrangements in resource-scarce public sector organizations. It introduces absorptive capacity as a policy implementation capacity and explains the relationship between potential and Realized Absorptive Capacity and project performance, primarily, in the higher education, primary and secondary health and social welfare departments in the Government of the Punjab, Pakistan. The main research question ascertains the effect of absorptive capacity on project performance and how environmental uncertainty intervenes in the relationship between different aspects of absorptive capacity (potential absorptive capacity, PACAP and realized absorptive capacity, RACAP) and project performance. In order to do so five hypotheses are developed. In order to explore the assumptions, the relationships among variables are ascertained based on 167 responses from ongoing public sector projects/schemes (2020) using bivariate correlations, and linear and multiple linear regression analyses. The results of this study support findings suggested by prior research, confirming a positive influence of absorptive capacity on project performance in terms of knowledge acquisition and assimilation. The same is true for a direct relationship of public sector projects. The public sector projects have used the existing experience and knowledge resources to further enhance their capabilities and exploited knowledge. Further, the actionable knowledge has been transformed into performance goals of the projects. The unstable external environment, unable to predict future environmental conditions and changing project requirements did not seem to affect the existing transferability and utilization of knowledge for achieving social sector projects' performance.
{"title":"Linking absorptive capacity and project performance in environmental uncertainty: A perspective on implementation arrangements","authors":"Jahanzeb Waheed","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12591","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12591","url":null,"abstract":"This study utilizes the concept of absorptive capacity as a unique way to view implementations arrangements in resource-scarce public sector organizations. It introduces absorptive capacity as a policy implementation capacity and explains the relationship between potential and Realized Absorptive Capacity and project performance, primarily, in the higher education, primary and secondary health and social welfare departments in the Government of the Punjab, Pakistan. The main research question ascertains the effect of absorptive capacity on project performance and how environmental uncertainty intervenes in the relationship between different aspects of absorptive capacity (potential absorptive capacity, PACAP and realized absorptive capacity, RACAP) and project performance. In order to do so five hypotheses are developed. In order to explore the assumptions, the relationships among variables are ascertained based on 167 responses from ongoing public sector projects/schemes (2020) using bivariate correlations, and linear and multiple linear regression analyses. The results of this study support findings suggested by prior research, confirming a positive influence of absorptive capacity on project performance in terms of knowledge acquisition and assimilation. The same is true for a direct relationship of public sector projects. The public sector projects have used the existing experience and knowledge resources to further enhance their capabilities and exploited knowledge. Further, the actionable knowledge has been transformed into performance goals of the projects. The unstable external environment, unable to predict future environmental conditions and changing project requirements did not seem to affect the existing transferability and utilization of knowledge for achieving social sector projects' performance.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139968244","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}
Most studies on public sector benchmarking focus on performance indicators, processes, and outcomes of managed benchmarking. This article, instead, explores the formation of spontaneous interstate benchmarking networks among U.S. state agency leaders. Informed by social comparison theory, we first recategorize benchmarking into best practice benchmarking and competitive benchmarking. Then, we quantify two benchmarking networks with a survey dataset and employ the Exponential Random Graph Model to analyze both endogenous and exogenous factors in the formation of both types of benchmarking networks. We find that the best practice benchmarking network has a popularity effect, while the competitive benchmarking network has mutuality and transitivity effects. Both types of benchmarking networks are more likely to form among states with historical policy diffusion ties and similar economic and geographic characteristics. This study contributes to the literature on public sector benchmarking and network research by exploring the factors that influence the formation of benchmarking networks.
{"title":"What shapes the formation of interstate benchmarking networks?","authors":"Shuai Cao, Hongtao Yi","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12604","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12604","url":null,"abstract":"Most studies on public sector benchmarking focus on performance indicators, processes, and outcomes of managed benchmarking. This article, instead, explores the formation of spontaneous interstate benchmarking networks among U.S. state agency leaders. Informed by social comparison theory, we first recategorize benchmarking into best practice benchmarking and competitive benchmarking. Then, we quantify two benchmarking networks with a survey dataset and employ the Exponential Random Graph Model to analyze both endogenous and exogenous factors in the formation of both types of benchmarking networks. We find that the best practice benchmarking network has a popularity effect, while the competitive benchmarking network has mutuality and transitivity effects. Both types of benchmarking networks are more likely to form among states with historical policy diffusion ties and similar economic and geographic characteristics. This study contributes to the literature on public sector benchmarking and network research by exploring the factors that influence the formation of benchmarking networks.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139956173","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}
Do authoritarian regimes adopt similar or equal policies? Despite the large literature on policy convergence in democracies, we know little about whether and to what extent authoritarian regimes follow analogous paths. This article argues that similar policy legacy, political and institutional context, and international influences lead to policy convergence among nondemocratic regimes. Analyzing welfare state trajectories in Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Tajikistan, the empirical analysis finds that the welfare state in the three post-Soviet countries has converged at the level of social spending and the source of welfare financing, while divergence persists in disaggregated levels of social spending; configuration of key welfare programs, particularly in old-age pensions and unemployment; and the extent of welfare state reforms. Overall, the findings provide important insights into the determinants of policy convergence in nondemocratic regimes and yield critical implications for future research on the welfare state's trajectory in former Soviet countries.
{"title":"Policy convergence in authoritarian regimes: A comparative analysis of welfare state trajectories in post-Soviet countries","authors":"Angelo Vito Panaro","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12600","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12600","url":null,"abstract":"Do authoritarian regimes adopt similar or equal policies? Despite the large literature on policy convergence in democracies, we know little about whether and to what extent authoritarian regimes follow analogous paths. This article argues that similar policy legacy, political and institutional context, and international influences lead to policy convergence among nondemocratic regimes. Analyzing welfare state trajectories in Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Tajikistan, the empirical analysis finds that the welfare state in the three post-Soviet countries has converged at the level of social spending and the source of welfare financing, while divergence persists in disaggregated levels of social spending; configuration of key welfare programs, particularly in old-age pensions and unemployment; and the extent of welfare state reforms. Overall, the findings provide important insights into the determinants of policy convergence in nondemocratic regimes and yield critical implications for future research on the welfare state's trajectory in former Soviet countries.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139770985","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}
In this article, we examine the ways in which the futures of climate change and the climate change policy process are constructed as narratives—both explicitly and implicitly—in two different yet interconnected contexts that shape public climate discourse and debate: foresight-based political decision-making and journalism. The featured case is the National Energy and Climate Strategy of Finland for 2030. We employ and expand the Narrative Policy Framework to better understand the co-existent, implicit narratives of the future in the contexts of policy and media. We construct two co-existing yet contradictory underlying narratives of the future of climate change and climate policy. Our approach reveals that the prevailing master narrative of a desirable future is challenged by a co-existing counter narrative where policies in the energy and climate strategy prioritize shorter-term policy interests over climate change. Building on these findings, we argue that, in climate policy communication, communicators convey futures through narratives—both explicitly, as descriptions of what is perceived, hoped, and anticipated to happen, and implicitly, as the sum of the parts included and excluded.
{"title":"Alternative policy narratives of the future of climate change: Analyzing Finland's energy and climate strategy and news reports","authors":"Marjukka Parkkinen, Suvi Vikström","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12602","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12602","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we examine the ways in which the futures of climate change and the climate change policy process are constructed as narratives—both explicitly and implicitly—in two different yet interconnected contexts that shape public climate discourse and debate: foresight-based political decision-making and journalism. The featured case is the National Energy and Climate Strategy of Finland for 2030. We employ and expand the Narrative Policy Framework to better understand the co-existent, implicit narratives of the future in the contexts of policy and media. We construct two co-existing yet contradictory underlying narratives of the future of climate change and climate policy. Our approach reveals that the prevailing master narrative of a desirable future is challenged by a co-existing counter narrative where policies in the energy and climate strategy prioritize shorter-term policy interests over climate change. Building on these findings, we argue that, in climate policy communication, communicators convey futures through narratives—both explicitly, as descriptions of what is perceived, hoped, and anticipated to happen, and implicitly, as the sum of the parts included and excluded.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"145 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139770804","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}
In the literature on policy advice and analytical communities in democratic settings, think tanks are often assumed to be carriers of new ideas that serve as an informed and independent voice in policy debates. However, how much intellectual independence do think tanks have in authoritarian environments? This article tackles this question in a case study of Russian think tanks' discursive responses to two protracted crises: the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change. The study employs a combination of deductive and inductive techniques to identify the discursive strategies used by think tank experts in their publications covering the crises. The findings suggest that there are differences in how think tanks communicate crises, which can be attributed to their institutional structures and position vis-à-vis the state. In some cases, the think tanks resort to polarization and discreditation of Western governments' crisis response, while openly endorsing the Russian state. In other cases, they engage in rationalization and more neutral analyses of the pandemic and climate change. However, regardless of these differences, they rarely concentrate on domestic challenges. Instead, they geopoliticize the crises, overemphasizing problematic developments elsewhere in the world, thus shifting attention in the public discourse away from domestic emergencies.
{"title":"Responding to crises in authoritarian environments: Russian think tanks between policy evaluation and state endorsement","authors":"Vera Axyonova","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12601","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12601","url":null,"abstract":"In the literature on policy advice and analytical communities in democratic settings, think tanks are often assumed to be carriers of new ideas that serve as an informed and independent voice in policy debates. However, how much intellectual independence do think tanks have in authoritarian environments? This article tackles this question in a case study of Russian think tanks' discursive responses to two protracted crises: the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change. The study employs a combination of deductive and inductive techniques to identify the discursive strategies used by think tank experts in their publications covering the crises. The findings suggest that there are differences in how think tanks communicate crises, which can be attributed to their institutional structures and position vis-à-vis the state. In some cases, the think tanks resort to polarization and discreditation of Western governments' crisis response, while openly endorsing the Russian state. In other cases, they engage in rationalization and more neutral analyses of the pandemic and climate change. However, regardless of these differences, they rarely concentrate on domestic challenges. Instead, they geopoliticize the crises, overemphasizing problematic developments elsewhere in the world, thus shifting attention in the public discourse away from domestic emergencies.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139770747","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}
To what extent can nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) communicate policy problems in an authoritarian country, and how limited are they in narrating policy alternatives? This article seeks to develop studies on the application of the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) in Russia, extend our knowledge about the use of narrative strategies in centralized and authoritarian policy processes, highlight certain methodological peculiarities related to the devil–angel shift calculation, and test causal mechanism hypotheses that have not previously been applied to the analysis of policy debates in Russia. The study examines hypotheses based on the narrative strategies (devil–angel shift, scope of conflict, and causal mechanisms) that were used by government and NGO coalitions in the debate about “landscape fire” policies in Russia over the period 2019–2021. The results show that the differences between the coalition's narrative strategies were not as significant as had been shown previously. The government coalition uses a strong angel shift in its narratives and avoids conflict expansion. The NGO coalition demonstrates a moderate angel shift, but with the use of conflict expansion in parts of the narratives. Both coalitions use the intentional or inadvertent causal mechanism blaming the citizens for starting the fires, but differ in employing causal mechanisms when discussing the large scale of landscape fires.
{"title":"Avoiding the blame game: NGOs and government narrative strategies in landscape fire policy debates in Russia","authors":"Tatiana Chalaya, Artem Uldanov","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12598","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12598","url":null,"abstract":"To what extent can nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) communicate policy problems in an authoritarian country, and how limited are they in narrating policy alternatives? This article seeks to develop studies on the application of the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) in Russia, extend our knowledge about the use of narrative strategies in centralized and authoritarian policy processes, highlight certain methodological peculiarities related to the devil–angel shift calculation, and test causal mechanism hypotheses that have not previously been applied to the analysis of policy debates in Russia. The study examines hypotheses based on the narrative strategies (devil–angel shift, scope of conflict, and causal mechanisms) that were used by government and NGO coalitions in the debate about “landscape fire” policies in Russia over the period 2019–2021. The results show that the differences between the coalition's narrative strategies were not as significant as had been shown previously. The government coalition uses a strong angel shift in its narratives and avoids conflict expansion. The NGO coalition demonstrates a moderate angel shift, but with the use of conflict expansion in parts of the narratives. Both coalitions use the intentional or inadvertent causal mechanism blaming the citizens for starting the fires, but differ in employing causal mechanisms when discussing the large scale of landscape fires.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"95 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139770670","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 policy process frameworks and theories that are currently considered mainstream were originally developed in the United States, before traveling to other countries. Despite their roots in democratic values, these frameworks and theories are increasingly applied to autocracies. Given important differences between democracies and autocracies, this raises questions about the desirability, limitations, and future directions of this development. In response, this article synthesizes findings from studies that apply existing policy process frameworks and theories to autocracies with the aim of assessing the extent to which the theories are, can, and should be used to explain key aspects of the policy process in autocracies. Based on qualitative content analysis of 146 English-language peer-reviewed journal articles that apply the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Multiple Streams Framework, the Narrative Policy Framework, and the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory to 39 autocracies, we show that these theories help identify influential institutions, actors, networks, ideas, beliefs, and events. The analysis reveals important differences in policy processes between autocracies and democracies. Future research ought to bring existing literature on authoritarianism and authoritarian politics into policy process research to test existing and new hypotheses.
{"title":"Policy process theories in autocracies: Key observations, explanatory power, and research priorities","authors":"Annemieke van den Dool, Caroline Schlaufer","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12596","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12596","url":null,"abstract":"The policy process frameworks and theories that are currently considered mainstream were originally developed in the United States, before traveling to other countries. Despite their roots in democratic values, these frameworks and theories are increasingly applied to autocracies. Given important differences between democracies and autocracies, this raises questions about the desirability, limitations, and future directions of this development. In response, this article synthesizes findings from studies that apply existing policy process frameworks and theories to autocracies with the aim of assessing the extent to which the theories are, can, and should be used to explain key aspects of the policy process in autocracies. Based on qualitative content analysis of 146 English-language peer-reviewed journal articles that apply the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Multiple Streams Framework, the Narrative Policy Framework, and the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory to 39 autocracies, we show that these theories help identify influential institutions, actors, networks, ideas, beliefs, and events. The analysis reveals important differences in policy processes between autocracies and democracies. Future research ought to bring existing literature on authoritarianism and authoritarian politics into policy process research to test existing and new hypotheses.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139556189","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 influence of visualizations on decision‐making about controversial policy issues is increasingly recognized in the political and policy sciences. In this paper, we explore how combinations of visuals and text on Twitter (now X) lead to the formation of networks of actors sharing similar textual and visual framings about a policy issue in an online setting, which we conceptualize as Multimodal Online Discourse Coalitions (MODCs). MODCs struggle over the meaning of contested policy issues. We examine multiple MODCs in 2018 in the context of the regulatory decisions in that year about CRISPR‐Cas gene editing technology in the USA, Mercosur, and the EU. Based on an SNA and a qualitative visual and discursive analysis in three languages on Twitter in 2018 (covering in total ~ 427 k Tweets), we show that MODCs in English and Spanish focused on technocratic aspects of CRISPR‐Cas, resembling the regulatory decisions in the USA and Mercosur. In Europe, next to technocratic MODCs, an MODC in French formed around ethical/normative framings of the consequences of CRISPR‐Cas applications, using visuals of embryos to represent “GMO babies.” These visuals were emotional triggers in their framing of CRISPR technology. The ethical/normative framing reflected the argument brought to the CJEU by a group of French actors involved in the court case which categorized CRISPR‐Cas as a GMO technology in the EU. These results suggest that the French MODC and their visualization was of influence on the EU decision‐making process; however, more research is needed to verify the role of this online debate in the decision‐making process.
{"title":"Cliquepolitik: Multimodal online discourse coalitions on CRISPR‐Cas genome editing technology","authors":"Eduardo Rojas‐Padilla, Tamara Metze, A. Dewulf","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12590","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12590","url":null,"abstract":"The influence of visualizations on decision‐making about controversial policy issues is increasingly recognized in the political and policy sciences. In this paper, we explore how combinations of visuals and text on Twitter (now X) lead to the formation of networks of actors sharing similar textual and visual framings about a policy issue in an online setting, which we conceptualize as Multimodal Online Discourse Coalitions (MODCs). MODCs struggle over the meaning of contested policy issues. We examine multiple MODCs in 2018 in the context of the regulatory decisions in that year about CRISPR‐Cas gene editing technology in the USA, Mercosur, and the EU. Based on an SNA and a qualitative visual and discursive analysis in three languages on Twitter in 2018 (covering in total ~ 427 k Tweets), we show that MODCs in English and Spanish focused on technocratic aspects of CRISPR‐Cas, resembling the regulatory decisions in the USA and Mercosur. In Europe, next to technocratic MODCs, an MODC in French formed around ethical/normative framings of the consequences of CRISPR‐Cas applications, using visuals of embryos to represent “GMO babies.” These visuals were emotional triggers in their framing of CRISPR technology. The ethical/normative framing reflected the argument brought to the CJEU by a group of French actors involved in the court case which categorized CRISPR‐Cas as a GMO technology in the EU. These results suggest that the French MODC and their visualization was of influence on the EU decision‐making process; however, more research is needed to verify the role of this online debate in the decision‐making process.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"32 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139445784","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：