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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
{"title":"Cultural biases, agenda setting, and the regulation of policy processes","authors":"N. Bandelow, Johanna Hornung, Ilana Schröder","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12613","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12613","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140729360","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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Valeria de Oliveira Lemos Novato, C. M. Toscano, Vicente da Rocha Soares Ferreira, Shivani A Patel
The Covid‐19 pandemic greatly impacted global public policy implementation. There is a lack of research synthesizing the lessons learned during Covid‐19 from a policy perspective. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines to examine the literature on public policy implementation during the Covid‐19 pandemic in order to gain comprehensive insights into current topics and future directions. Five clusters of topics were identified: lessons from science, crisis governance, behavior and mental health, beyond the crisis, and frontlines and trust. Extensive collaboration among public health departments emerged as a significant research theme. Thirty recommendations for future research were identified, including the examination of frontline worker behavior, the use of just tech in policy implementation, and the investigation of policies driving improvements in global public health. The findings indicate that current research on public policy implementation during the Covid‐19 pandemic extends beyond health and economic crisis‐related policies. However, further studies in a post‐pandemic context are needed to validate the identified topics and future directions.
{"title":"A systematic review of public policy implementation during the Covid‐19 pandemic: Current topics and future directions","authors":"Valeria de Oliveira Lemos Novato, C. M. Toscano, Vicente da Rocha Soares Ferreira, Shivani A Patel","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12607","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12607","url":null,"abstract":"The Covid‐19 pandemic greatly impacted global public policy implementation. There is a lack of research synthesizing the lessons learned during Covid‐19 from a policy perspective. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines to examine the literature on public policy implementation during the Covid‐19 pandemic in order to gain comprehensive insights into current topics and future directions. Five clusters of topics were identified: lessons from science, crisis governance, behavior and mental health, beyond the crisis, and frontlines and trust. Extensive collaboration among public health departments emerged as a significant research theme. Thirty recommendations for future research were identified, including the examination of frontline worker behavior, the use of just tech in policy implementation, and the investigation of policies driving improvements in global public health. The findings indicate that current research on public policy implementation during the Covid‐19 pandemic extends beyond health and economic crisis‐related policies. However, further studies in a post‐pandemic context are needed to validate the identified topics and future directions.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140361945","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}
Leah W. Buchman, Carol L Goldsmith, Elizabeth Heitman, Kiran Kang, Xinsheng Liu
Public trust in government agencies plays an important role in the formation of public opinion about public policy issues. However, the association between public trust in regulatory agencies and public support for policy development in emergent biotechnologies such as gene drive is not well understood. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are tasked with coordinating and regulating biotechnology. Drawing on past literature, this study examines how public trust in these federal agencies is associated with public opinion on various options for gene drive policy. Using data from a nationally representative public opinion survey (n = 1220) conducted in 2021, our statistical analyses show that respondents who report higher levels of trust in regulatory agencies are more likely to support policy proposals that promote gene drive research and ultimately, may lead to regulatory policies that allow gene drive to be researched and employed to manage agricultural pests, establishing a pathway for scientists, developers, producers, and consumers alike to realize the benefits of this technology.
{"title":"Public trust in regulatory agencies and support for policies on agricultural gene drive","authors":"Leah W. Buchman, Carol L Goldsmith, Elizabeth Heitman, Kiran Kang, Xinsheng Liu","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12610","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12610","url":null,"abstract":"Public trust in government agencies plays an important role in the formation of public opinion about public policy issues. However, the association between public trust in regulatory agencies and public support for policy development in emergent biotechnologies such as gene drive is not well understood. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are tasked with coordinating and regulating biotechnology. Drawing on past literature, this study examines how public trust in these federal agencies is associated with public opinion on various options for gene drive policy. Using data from a nationally representative public opinion survey (n = 1220) conducted in 2021, our statistical analyses show that respondents who report higher levels of trust in regulatory agencies are more likely to support policy proposals that promote gene drive research and ultimately, may lead to regulatory policies that allow gene drive to be researched and employed to manage agricultural pests, establishing a pathway for scientists, developers, producers, and consumers alike to realize the benefits of this technology.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140376894","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 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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
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：