Abstract The ongoing fight against the COVID‐19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of adaptive policy change and the critical role of policy learning in responding to public health crises. This study utilizes policy change and policy learning theories to investigate how instrumental and political learning intertwined to explain the policy change decisions made by six U.S. states from May to December 2020. By employing a multi‐value Qualitative Comparative Analysis, this study finds that the decision to impose stricter public gathering restrictions is primarily driven by instrumental learning, which is a response to the deteriorating pandemic situation. On the contrary, the decision to relax gathering restrictions is not only driven by the policymakers' perception of the improving pandemic situation but also influenced by the political motivations, such as the desire to suppress protests and address concerns for the decreased approval for the governor's handling of the crisis. The findings highlight the varied utilization of different policy learning types in response to different directions of policy change. Additionally, this study underscores the joint impact of instrumental and political learning in explaining changes in policy stringency. Overall, these findings contribute to a deeper understanding of policy change through learning activities in a complex and rapidly evolving policy landscape.
{"title":"The role of policy learning in explaining <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 policy changes","authors":"Chan Wang","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12578","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12578","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The ongoing fight against the COVID‐19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of adaptive policy change and the critical role of policy learning in responding to public health crises. This study utilizes policy change and policy learning theories to investigate how instrumental and political learning intertwined to explain the policy change decisions made by six U.S. states from May to December 2020. By employing a multi‐value Qualitative Comparative Analysis, this study finds that the decision to impose stricter public gathering restrictions is primarily driven by instrumental learning, which is a response to the deteriorating pandemic situation. On the contrary, the decision to relax gathering restrictions is not only driven by the policymakers' perception of the improving pandemic situation but also influenced by the political motivations, such as the desire to suppress protests and address concerns for the decreased approval for the governor's handling of the crisis. The findings highlight the varied utilization of different policy learning types in response to different directions of policy change. Additionally, this study underscores the joint impact of instrumental and political learning in explaining changes in policy stringency. Overall, these findings contribute to a deeper understanding of policy change through learning activities in a complex and rapidly evolving policy landscape.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"53 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136382023","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}
Richard J. McAlexander, Joonseok Yang, Johannes Urpelainen
Abstract Why do some governments subsidize gasoline consumption, despite its very high economic and environmental costs? We answer this question by examining how a state's political regime and level of institutional capacity jointly determine its level of fossil fuel price distortion. We find that, without sufficient institutional capacity, democratic regimes do not necessarily provide less fuel subsidies, as those governments are unable to pursue other more efficient welfare policies. Using data on monthly domestic gasoline prices from 2003 to 2015, we demonstrate that democratic governments with high institutional capacity are less likely to control domestic gasoline prices. Democratic institutions and strong institutional capacity jointly mitigate the effect of the benchmark oil price increases on the domestic price. These results suggest that the combination of motive (democratic accountability) and means (institutional capacity) can help countries avoid inefficient subsidy policies.
{"title":"Political regime, institutional capacity, and inefficient policy: Evidence from gasoline subsidies","authors":"Richard J. McAlexander, Joonseok Yang, Johannes Urpelainen","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12580","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12580","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Why do some governments subsidize gasoline consumption, despite its very high economic and environmental costs? We answer this question by examining how a state's political regime and level of institutional capacity jointly determine its level of fossil fuel price distortion. We find that, without sufficient institutional capacity, democratic regimes do not necessarily provide less fuel subsidies, as those governments are unable to pursue other more efficient welfare policies. Using data on monthly domestic gasoline prices from 2003 to 2015, we demonstrate that democratic governments with high institutional capacity are less likely to control domestic gasoline prices. Democratic institutions and strong institutional capacity jointly mitigate the effect of the benchmark oil price increases on the domestic price. These results suggest that the combination of motive (democratic accountability) and means (institutional capacity) can help countries avoid inefficient subsidy policies.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135274029","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}
Abstract Lobbying, and its role in the policy process, has been extensively studied in democratic states, but much less is known about similar practices in authoritarian political systems. Although a few studies have identified lobbying in China, most have focused on big businesses and national policy making, and some have argued that it is unaffected by differences in political institutions. Our paper challenges this portrayal of business lobbying in autocracies. Through a study of the lobbying activities of business associations based on documentary research and fieldwork in the northern Chinese city of Tianjin between 2011 and 2013, we show that although business associations have similar lobbying motivations to their counterparts in democracies, their specific practices are often shaped by authoritarian political institutions. While they are similar in seeking to build informal relationships with public officials, provide expertise to shape policies, and raise their profile through public relations activities and media engagement, they differ in focusing their relationship‐building efforts on helping officials with routine work, helping Communist Party organizations establish cells in businesses, and brokering between businesses and government. Rather than donating to political campaigns like their counterparts in democracies, they become legislators themselves, hire retired officials, and seek positions on advisory bodies. Rigged elections, an unreliable legal system, and restrictions on media and freedom of movement are key authoritarian institutions that shape these distinctive lobbying practices.
{"title":"Local lobbying in single‐party authoritarian systems: Do institutions matter?","authors":"Hua Wang, Jane Duckett","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12582","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12582","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Lobbying, and its role in the policy process, has been extensively studied in democratic states, but much less is known about similar practices in authoritarian political systems. Although a few studies have identified lobbying in China, most have focused on big businesses and national policy making, and some have argued that it is unaffected by differences in political institutions. Our paper challenges this portrayal of business lobbying in autocracies. Through a study of the lobbying activities of business associations based on documentary research and fieldwork in the northern Chinese city of Tianjin between 2011 and 2013, we show that although business associations have similar lobbying motivations to their counterparts in democracies, their specific practices are often shaped by authoritarian political institutions. While they are similar in seeking to build informal relationships with public officials, provide expertise to shape policies, and raise their profile through public relations activities and media engagement, they differ in focusing their relationship‐building efforts on helping officials with routine work, helping Communist Party organizations establish cells in businesses, and brokering between businesses and government. Rather than donating to political campaigns like their counterparts in democracies, they become legislators themselves, hire retired officials, and seek positions on advisory bodies. Rigged elections, an unreliable legal system, and restrictions on media and freedom of movement are key authoritarian institutions that shape these distinctive lobbying practices.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135778485","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}
Abstract With heated political and public debate over government vaccine mandates, COVID‐19 offers an opportunity to better understand the role of policy justifications on people's perceptions towards a policy. Through this study, we aim to move beyond the partisan and ideological arguments for and against vaccine mandates to illustrate how individuals' worldviews, based on Cultural Theory, can better explain why people have different perceptions towards vaccine mandates. Using the judiciary and judicial reasoning as the setting, and controlling for individuals' preexisting opinion on COVID‐19 vaccines, we hypothesize that people who prefer vaccine mandates will agree with judicial reasoning that appeals towards individualistic and hierarchical statements. Additionally, we hypothesize that those who have confidence in the judiciary will agree with individualistic and hierarchical statements. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a conjoint survey experiment through Amazon Mechanical Turk. The results confirm the hypotheses.
{"title":"Judicial reasoning, individual cultural types, and support for COVID‐19 vaccine mandates","authors":"Christopher Brough, Li‐Yin Liu, Yao‐Yuan Yeh","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12579","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12579","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract With heated political and public debate over government vaccine mandates, COVID‐19 offers an opportunity to better understand the role of policy justifications on people's perceptions towards a policy. Through this study, we aim to move beyond the partisan and ideological arguments for and against vaccine mandates to illustrate how individuals' worldviews, based on Cultural Theory, can better explain why people have different perceptions towards vaccine mandates. Using the judiciary and judicial reasoning as the setting, and controlling for individuals' preexisting opinion on COVID‐19 vaccines, we hypothesize that people who prefer vaccine mandates will agree with judicial reasoning that appeals towards individualistic and hierarchical statements. Additionally, we hypothesize that those who have confidence in the judiciary will agree with individualistic and hierarchical statements. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a conjoint survey experiment through Amazon Mechanical Turk. The results confirm the hypotheses.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136032757","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}
Abstract An individual's political attitudes have been documented as the most important predictor of acceptance of government measures against the COVID‐19 pandemic. Their effect, however, is somewhat unclear and cannot be reduced to one dimension. In this article, we test whether general attitudes toward policy instruments might, together with left–right orientation, authoritarianism, social liberalism, and attitudes to state intervention, explain attitudes to policy instruments used to combat COVID‐19. The predictiveness of models of attitudes toward three different types of policy instruments to address the COVID‐19 pandemic was tested using a study of Czech university students). We found that individuals' general attitudes toward policy instruments are best measured by posing direct survey questions. Structural equation modeling was used to estimate the independent effects of general attitudes toward three different types of policy instruments on attitudes toward specific policy instruments for combating COVID‐19. We found that an individuals' general tendency to prefer an information, regulatory, or economic instrument significantly affects their attitude toward specific policy solutions, even after controlling for political orientation. These results provide novel empirical evidence for the autonomy of policy instruments attitudes (APIA) theory. The general attitudes toward policy instrument types are reflected in individuals' attitudes toward specific policy instruments, such as those used to combat COVID‐19.
{"title":"Policy instruments attitudes and support for government responses against Covid‐19","authors":"Arnošt Veselý, Ivan Petrúšek, Petr Soukup","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12581","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12581","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract An individual's political attitudes have been documented as the most important predictor of acceptance of government measures against the COVID‐19 pandemic. Their effect, however, is somewhat unclear and cannot be reduced to one dimension. In this article, we test whether general attitudes toward policy instruments might, together with left–right orientation, authoritarianism, social liberalism, and attitudes to state intervention, explain attitudes to policy instruments used to combat COVID‐19. The predictiveness of models of attitudes toward three different types of policy instruments to address the COVID‐19 pandemic was tested using a study of Czech university students). We found that individuals' general attitudes toward policy instruments are best measured by posing direct survey questions. Structural equation modeling was used to estimate the independent effects of general attitudes toward three different types of policy instruments on attitudes toward specific policy instruments for combating COVID‐19. We found that an individuals' general tendency to prefer an information, regulatory, or economic instrument significantly affects their attitude toward specific policy solutions, even after controlling for political orientation. These results provide novel empirical evidence for the autonomy of policy instruments attitudes (APIA) theory. The general attitudes toward policy instrument types are reflected in individuals' attitudes toward specific policy instruments, such as those used to combat COVID‐19.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135992883","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}
Climate change, as one of the most pressing problems of our time, affects different levels of governance. At the international level, countries negotiate to find common ground on various topics related to climate change, but most importantly on how to share the burden of mitigating global warming and its effects on humankind. At the national level, national governments formulate greenhouse gas reduction (GHG) targets, set out climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies, and formulate respective framework policies. But when it comes to the implementation of these targets, strategies, or policies, the protagonists are most often local governments or administrations. This is particularly the case for adaption measures, but also in the traffic, energy, or building sector, i.e., such sectors that concern infrastructural matters. In these areas, local communities have a high problem-solving capacity due to local knowledge and experience and should therefore engage actively in climate protection or adaptation endeavors (Domorenok & Zito, 2021; van der Heijden, 2021). This special issue on “Local Climate Governance” brings together 11 research teams that engage with a wide diversity of topics related to local climate policy, as well as different theoretical and methodological approaches. In this editorial, we summarize the most important findings of this special issue, link it to the most recent research on local climate policy, and make some suggestions for further research. Overall, it can be stated that the findings of this special issue speak well to the recent literature on the drivers of local climate policy. In a nutshell, this literature finds several factors that drive the adoption of climate policies at the local level, such as the wealth and the size of a municipality, as more populated and richer local communities are usually better equipped with financial resources and have higher institutional and staff capacity at their disposal (see for example, Hui et al., 2019; Rhodes et al., 2021). Hence, a city's or municipality's climate protection ambition depends on a beneficial combination of socio-demographic and socio-economic conditions (Haupt & Kern, 2022). Furthermore, researchers link the adoption of mitigation policies with a green, left, or liberal political ideology in the respective municipality, the engagement in transnational city networks, but also geographical proximity to forerunning local communities or the existence of regional leaders (e.g., Abel, 2021; An et al., 2023; Kammerer et al., 2023; Kern et al., 2023). For adaptation policy, the most important drivers seem to be the perceived need to respond, in other words, climate change vulnerability (for example Bausch & Koziol, 2020; Kammerer et al., 2023), but also the possibility of citizens participating (Cattino & Reckien, 2021; Haupt et al., 2022). The findings in this issue show that local communities are actively involved in climate change mitigation under certain ci
，局部性灾害的存在是适应政策制定的重要驱动因素。最后，Gmoser-Daskalakis等人(2023)运用项目反应理论(IRT)模型研究了积极参与多个政策论坛并形成初始政策偏好的政策行为者。在他们对加州旧金山湾地区新生的子系统海平面上升的分析中，他们发现参与者积极地制定政策偏好，这些政策偏好受到他们的参与和先前的组织信念的影响。虽然作者在社会和环境方面发现了海平面上升的专门兴趣，但他们无法确定强大的联盟，并得出结论，这些联盟可能需要在未来在这个新兴的子系统中形成。关于政策学习和框架的文献表明，通过成功使地方气候政策合法化是很重要的。但是，气候政策的成功往往受到缺乏财政和人力资源或法律权威的阻碍。此外，地方气候政策往往不能很好地与其他地区的现有政策相结合(Neij & Heiskanen, 2021)。通过系统评估和比较政策工具的有效性，更多地了解政策工具，从而有助于地方层面的政策学习，从而实施更成功的政策(Domorenok & Zito, 2021;Neij & Heiskanen, 2021;Otto et al.， 2021)。在本期特刊中，Kern等人(2023)、Soni等人(2023)以及Schulze和Schoenefeld(2023)强调了通过系统评估和比较进行政策学习的重要性。Kern等人(2023)研究了中型城市图尔库、格罗宁根、罗斯托克和波茨坦，并比较了它们的气候政策和转型途径。除了比较适应和减缓气候变化方面的优势和劣势之外，作者还认为，匹配城市之间的合作是开发可应用于其他城市的新解决方案的有用工具。他们的研究通过评估机构和组织创新、参与性和综合性方法或领导力等地方实验的规模潜力做出了贡献。Soni等人(2023)借鉴气候行动和政策组合文献，研究了城市为适应和缓解气候变化影响而采取的各种政策行动。作者通过研究城市中各种危害和气候行动组合的多样性之间的相互作用来作出贡献。作者开发了一个改进的香农多样性指数，通过不同行动的广度和这些努力的深度来衡量气候行动的混合，这些努力是通过政策周期的进展来衡量的。他们在美国162个城市对他们的方法进行了实证测试，发现气候危害推动了城市的当地气候行动。面临多重威胁的城市，采取了多种多样的气候行动。这些网络主要是提供政策学习机会的全球气候网络和就如何应对环境威胁达成共识的地方网络。Schulze和Schoenefeld(2023)认识到有必要评估和比较适应措施，并在他们的论文中提出了一个新的二维框架来衡量公共适应政策的产出。他们的“气候适应政策指数(CAPI)”结合了两个维度:制度化维度和措施维度。利用来自德国不同城市样本的调查数据，作者通过因子分析证明，这两个维度构成了对城市适应政策产出的有意义的衡量。聚类分析还用于识别适应政策的不同阶段。通过回归分析进一步检查了地方适应政策制定的潜在决定因素——例如市政当局的规模和财富。内格尔和Schäfer(2023)撰写的这篇文章重点介绍了德国两个中型城市当地气候行动的有力故事。该研究假设可以通过叙述来改善地方气候行动，以传播信息，以实现气候中和并更好地适应气候影响。作者使用“叙事率”指数，通过追踪不同的叙事来比较两个城市。本文的结论是，除了可测量的减排值等“硬事实”外，叙事等“软事实”在城市生态转型中也发挥了经常被低估的作用。目前的文献表明，地方气候政策高度依赖于政治制度、多层次系统的嵌入性以及上级的干预(例如，Kern et al.， 2023;Osthorst, 2021;施瓦兹,2019)。因此，例如，根据Kern等人(2023)，欧盟监管受到《巴黎协定》等国际协议的影响，并为地方层面的环境政策提供了强有力的框架和监管。 因此，基于欧盟绿色协议，欧盟气候政策计划到2050年实现零排放目标。这些雄心已不同程度地转化为成员国当地的气候政策。其他相关因素也在本期特刊的文章中有涉及，如能源系统的特点和国家能源结构、市政当局的财政自主权或国家资助计划。例如，在德国，有一个对当地气候政策有影响的国家气候倡议(NKI)(见Zeigermann et al.， 2023)。Kern等人(2023)将欧盟城市图尔库、格罗宁根与德国城市罗斯托克和波茨坦进行比较，以分析向气候中和和恢复力转型的驱动因素。在这种背景下，Corcaci和Kemmerzell(2023)调查了四个德国城市(达姆施塔特、哈根、奥芬巴赫和奥尔登堡)的欧洲多层次系统中的跨地方活动。他们得出的结论是，有利的环境条件，如上述社会经济、社会人口或意识形态因素，可以使多层次系统的强大参与，从而可能加速气候创新。因此，它是有利条件和对各自治理结构的有力参与的结合，这与成功的当地气候政策有关。Stoddart和Yang(2023)对当地气候政策提出了一个有点不同但也很有见地的观点。在他们的文章中，他们利用媒体数据调查了省政府和市政府在加拿大多层次体系中的作用。他们得出的结论是，地方政府在地区或全国性报纸上的媒体知名度非常低。因此，科学文献中对地方一级行动者日益增长的兴趣没有反映在媒体上，这意味着公众没有意识到地方政府在应对气候变化方面可以或应该发挥的重要作用。虽然这期特刊中的文章涵盖了广泛的主题和案例研究，但它们在理论观点方面尤其多样化。它们涵盖了广泛的不同概念方法和框架，展示了可应用于当地气候政策研究的理论视角的多样性。第一组理论方法是以行动者为中心的。为此，Gmoser-Daskalakis等人(2023)启动了Sabatier和Jenkins-Smith(1993)的倡导联盟框架(ACF)，研究与气候政策密切相关的“新兴子系统”——海平面上升的行为者偏好。Harvey-Scholes等人(2023)关注公民在气候紧急声明过程中的作用，并利用政策创业理论(例如，见Mintrom, 2019)来展示公民企业家如何通过与传统政治精英积极合作来推动当地气候政策。Nagel和Schäfer(2023)使用叙事政策框架(参见，例如，Shanahan等人，2013)，其中涉及对政策过程的建构主义观点，以追踪两个德国城市的气候政策叙事。最后，Stoddart和Yang(2023)运用框架理论(参见，例如Boykoff, 2011)，以区域和地方政治舞台和行动者的特定观点来调查地方层面气候行动的媒体知名度。第二组理论框架更侧重于研究城市的气候行动和政策措施。Soni等人(2023)将他们的研究置于气候行动和政策混合学者开发的概念性文献中。Corcaci和Kemmerzell(2023)采用了一个概念结构框架，重点关注多层次治理(MLG)和跨地方行动(参见Benz, 2012)。第三组框架涉及城市的背景，这通常用于比较的角度。Nakazawa等人(2023)的实证研究关注城市和地区之间的网络效应，为政策扩散的文献做出了贡献(参见例如Berry & Berry, 2018)。Kern et al.(2023)借鉴了他们在匹配城市和缩放方法方面的工作(例如，Kern et al.， 2023;van der Heijden, 2022)。社会经济决定理论(Schneider & Janning, 2006)为Zeigerman
{"title":"Tackling climate change on the local level: A growing research agenda","authors":"Melanie Nagel, Marlene Kammerer","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12577","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12577","url":null,"abstract":"Climate change, as one of the most pressing problems of our time, affects different levels of governance. At the international level, countries negotiate to find common ground on various topics related to climate change, but most importantly on how to share the burden of mitigating global warming and its effects on humankind. At the national level, national governments formulate greenhouse gas reduction (GHG) targets, set out climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies, and formulate respective framework policies. But when it comes to the implementation of these targets, strategies, or policies, the protagonists are most often local governments or administrations. This is particularly the case for adaption measures, but also in the traffic, energy, or building sector, i.e., such sectors that concern infrastructural matters. In these areas, local communities have a high problem-solving capacity due to local knowledge and experience and should therefore engage actively in climate protection or adaptation endeavors (Domorenok & Zito, 2021; van der Heijden, 2021). This special issue on “Local Climate Governance” brings together 11 research teams that engage with a wide diversity of topics related to local climate policy, as well as different theoretical and methodological approaches. In this editorial, we summarize the most important findings of this special issue, link it to the most recent research on local climate policy, and make some suggestions for further research. Overall, it can be stated that the findings of this special issue speak well to the recent literature on the drivers of local climate policy. In a nutshell, this literature finds several factors that drive the adoption of climate policies at the local level, such as the wealth and the size of a municipality, as more populated and richer local communities are usually better equipped with financial resources and have higher institutional and staff capacity at their disposal (see for example, Hui et al., 2019; Rhodes et al., 2021). Hence, a city's or municipality's climate protection ambition depends on a beneficial combination of socio-demographic and socio-economic conditions (Haupt & Kern, 2022). Furthermore, researchers link the adoption of mitigation policies with a green, left, or liberal political ideology in the respective municipality, the engagement in transnational city networks, but also geographical proximity to forerunning local communities or the existence of regional leaders (e.g., Abel, 2021; An et al., 2023; Kammerer et al., 2023; Kern et al., 2023). For adaptation policy, the most important drivers seem to be the perceived need to respond, in other words, climate change vulnerability (for example Bausch & Koziol, 2020; Kammerer et al., 2023), but also the possibility of citizens participating (Cattino & Reckien, 2021; Haupt et al., 2022). The findings in this issue show that local communities are actively involved in climate change mitigation under certain ci","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135537265","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}
Abstract Previous studies have demonstrated the importance of sociocultural context in the process of government communication, but few studies have elaborated on the underlying mechanisms. By comparing government communication strategies under diverse sociocultural factors, this study aims to explore the role of local culture as a contextual factor in the design of government communication. Drawing on evidence from China's government communication on nuclear power projects, we explore how the central government constructed communication strategies based on different local cultures to enhance public acceptance of nuclear power projects. A comparison of this case in two cities reveals that the government can design communication strategies based on their understanding of local citizens – using local culture as the basis of audience segmentation to create different communication strategies for different citizens.
{"title":"Communicating in diverse local cultures: Analyzing Chinese government communication programs around nuclear power projects","authors":"Yue Guo, Linsheng He","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12576","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12576","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Previous studies have demonstrated the importance of sociocultural context in the process of government communication, but few studies have elaborated on the underlying mechanisms. By comparing government communication strategies under diverse sociocultural factors, this study aims to explore the role of local culture as a contextual factor in the design of government communication. Drawing on evidence from China's government communication on nuclear power projects, we explore how the central government constructed communication strategies based on different local cultures to enhance public acceptance of nuclear power projects. A comparison of this case in two cities reveals that the government can design communication strategies based on their understanding of local citizens – using local culture as the basis of audience segmentation to create different communication strategies for different citizens.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136060480","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}
Information asymmetry is prevalent in the vertical bureaucratic structures of unitary systems. Drawing upon the institutional collective action (ICA) framework and the literature on information politics, this paper investigates the formation of the vertical ICA dilemma and the motivations underlying the collaborative mechanisms to address information asymmetry within the hierarchical bureaucratic structures of the Chinese government. Taking the Targeted Poverty Alleviation campaign as a case, we find a mixture of collective solutions, including informal networks, intergovernmental contracts, delegation, and imposed authority, as alternatives to alleviate the information asymmetry between vertical governments. Our case studies contribute to the literature on central–local relations, information politics, and the development of the vertical ICA framework, which notably incorporates the extent of lower level government autonomy into the determinants of integration mechanisms. In the conclusion, we connect this research to the broader ICA research agenda and studies of the cross‐level policy process, with implications for multi‐level governance in unitary systems like China.
{"title":"Information asymmetry and vertical collective action dilemma: The case of targeted poverty alleviation in China","authors":"Lili Liu, Ge Xin, Hongtao Yi","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12575","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12575","url":null,"abstract":"Information asymmetry is prevalent in the vertical bureaucratic structures of unitary systems. Drawing upon the institutional collective action (ICA) framework and the literature on information politics, this paper investigates the formation of the vertical ICA dilemma and the motivations underlying the collaborative mechanisms to address information asymmetry within the hierarchical bureaucratic structures of the Chinese government. Taking the Targeted Poverty Alleviation campaign as a case, we find a mixture of collective solutions, including informal networks, intergovernmental contracts, delegation, and imposed authority, as alternatives to alleviate the information asymmetry between vertical governments. Our case studies contribute to the literature on central–local relations, information politics, and the development of the vertical ICA framework, which notably incorporates the extent of lower level government autonomy into the determinants of integration mechanisms. In the conclusion, we connect this research to the broader ICA research agenda and studies of the cross‐level policy process, with implications for multi‐level governance in unitary systems like China.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42526357","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}
While recent discussions about Artificial Intelligence (AI) as one of the most powerful technologies of our times tend to portray it as a predominantly technical issue, it also has major social, political and cultural implications. So far these have been mostly studied from ethical, legal and economic perspectives, while politics and policy have received less attention. To address this gap, this special issue brings together nine research articles to advance the studies of politics and policy of AI by identifying emerging themes and setting out future research agenda. Diverse but complementary contributions in this special issue speak to five overarching themes: understanding the AI as co‐shaped by technology and politics; highlighting the role of ideas in AI politics and policy; examining the distribution of power; interrogating the relationship between novel technology and continuity in politics and policy; and exploring interactions among developments at local, national, regional and global levels. This special issue demonstrates that AI policy is not an apolitical field that can be dealt with just by relying on knowledge and expertise but requires an open debate among alternative views, ideas, values and interests.
{"title":"Politics and policy of Artificial Intelligence","authors":"Inga Ulnicane, Tero Erkkilä","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12574","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12574","url":null,"abstract":"While recent discussions about Artificial Intelligence (AI) as one of the most powerful technologies of our times tend to portray it as a predominantly technical issue, it also has major social, political and cultural implications. So far these have been mostly studied from ethical, legal and economic perspectives, while politics and policy have received less attention. To address this gap, this special issue brings together nine research articles to advance the studies of politics and policy of AI by identifying emerging themes and setting out future research agenda. Diverse but complementary contributions in this special issue speak to five overarching themes: understanding the AI as co‐shaped by technology and politics; highlighting the role of ideas in AI politics and policy; examining the distribution of power; interrogating the relationship between novel technology and continuity in politics and policy; and exploring interactions among developments at local, national, regional and global levels. This special issue demonstrates that AI policy is not an apolitical field that can be dealt with just by relying on knowledge and expertise but requires an open debate among alternative views, ideas, values and interests.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48345668","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 United States, some of the most important environmental policy innovations of the past decades have occurred at the state level. Net metering policy is one kind of policy that states have widely adopted in support of decarbonization goals. The widespread adoption of net metering policies varying in policy design, defined here as policy content, offers an opportunity to investigate to what extent policies that diffuse widely bear comparable designs, and furthermore, what factors influence diffusion in policy designs. Availing these opportunities, in this paper, we investigate (1) how (dis‐)similar the designs of American states' original net metering policies were; and (2) what factors explain the diffusion of policies that share similar design elements. To support our investigation, we model using event history analysis in a directed dyad setting, the factors that explain differential duration to adoption of net metering legislation containing specific elements of design by policy receiver states. We find that bipartisan legislatures are more likely to adopt the majority of design elements. This suggests that net metering appeals to policy makers across the political spectrum and that the latter compromise in integrating elements of policy design that benefit or burden different constituents. We also find that over time, states become less likely to emulate policy designs from jurisdictions whose citizenry embraces dissimilar values, suggesting that policy makers learn to tailor incentives to their local policy targets.
{"title":"Evaluating diffusion in policy designs: A study of net metering policies in the United States","authors":"Myriam Gregoire‐Zawilski, Saba Siddiki","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12572","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12572","url":null,"abstract":"In the United States, some of the most important environmental policy innovations of the past decades have occurred at the state level. Net metering policy is one kind of policy that states have widely adopted in support of decarbonization goals. The widespread adoption of net metering policies varying in policy design, defined here as policy content, offers an opportunity to investigate to what extent policies that diffuse widely bear comparable designs, and furthermore, what factors influence diffusion in policy designs. Availing these opportunities, in this paper, we investigate (1) how (dis‐)similar the designs of American states' original net metering policies were; and (2) what factors explain the diffusion of policies that share similar design elements. To support our investigation, we model using event history analysis in a directed dyad setting, the factors that explain differential duration to adoption of net metering legislation containing specific elements of design by policy receiver states. We find that bipartisan legislatures are more likely to adopt the majority of design elements. This suggests that net metering appeals to policy makers across the political spectrum and that the latter compromise in integrating elements of policy design that benefit or burden different constituents. We also find that over time, states become less likely to emulate policy designs from jurisdictions whose citizenry embraces dissimilar values, suggesting that policy makers learn to tailor incentives to their local policy targets.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42746920","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：