Pub Date : 2020-04-01DOI: 10.1332/030557319x15740848311069
E. MacKillop, Sarah Quarmby, James Downe
The claim that evidence-based policy (EBP) produces better outcomes has gained increasing support over the last three decades. Knowledge brokering (KB) is seen as a way to achieve improved policymaking and governments worldwide are investing significant resources in KB initiatives. It is therefore important to understand the range of these activities and to investigate whether and how they facilitate EBP. This article critically reviews the extant literature on KB. It identifies six important limitations: the existence of multiple definitions of KB; a lack of theory-based empirical analysis; a neglect of knowledge brokering organisations; insufficient research on KB in social policy; limited analysis of impact and effectiveness; and a lack of attention to the role played by politics. The paper proposes an agenda for future research that bridges disciplinary boundaries in order to address these gaps and contribute new insights into the politics of evidence use.
{"title":"Does knowledge brokering facilitate evidence-based policy? A review of existing knowledge and an agenda for future research","authors":"E. MacKillop, Sarah Quarmby, James Downe","doi":"10.1332/030557319x15740848311069","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319x15740848311069","url":null,"abstract":"The claim that evidence-based policy (EBP) produces better outcomes has gained increasing support over the last three decades. Knowledge brokering (KB) is seen as a way to achieve improved policymaking and governments worldwide are investing significant resources in KB initiatives. It is therefore important to understand the range of these activities and to investigate whether and how they facilitate EBP. This article critically reviews the extant literature on KB. It identifies six important limitations: the existence of multiple definitions of KB; a lack of theory-based empirical analysis; a neglect of knowledge brokering organisations; insufficient research on KB in social policy; limited analysis of impact and effectiveness; and a lack of attention to the role played by politics. The paper proposes an agenda for future research that bridges disciplinary boundaries in order to address these gaps and contribute new insights into the politics of evidence use.","PeriodicalId":47631,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Politics","volume":"53 1","pages":"335-353"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81887556","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-01DOI: 10.1332/030557319x15734252781048
Johanna Perkiö
The idea of universal and unconditional basic income is gaining increasing traction worldwide. Yet the proposal of unconditional cash seems to run counter to some key normative assumptions in society. This article contributes to an understanding of the political feasibility of basic income from the perspective of framing strategies to legitimise the policy. It examines a framing commonly used by Finnish parties and politicians advocating basic income, that emphasised basic income’s capacity to boost activity and labour market participation. The article finds that basic income was often defended with framing that appealed to activity as a value, and that this framing was most actively pushed by the Greens, and adopted by other parties during the upturns of the debate. The article provides an insight into a strategy of legitimising a politically controversial idea by framing it in a normatively and ideologically resonant way.
{"title":"Legitimising a radical policy idea: framing basic income as a boost to labour market activity","authors":"Johanna Perkiö","doi":"10.1332/030557319x15734252781048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319x15734252781048","url":null,"abstract":"The idea of universal and unconditional basic income is gaining increasing traction worldwide. Yet the proposal of unconditional cash seems to run counter to some key normative assumptions in society. This article contributes to an understanding of the political feasibility of basic\u0000 income from the perspective of framing strategies to legitimise the policy. It examines a framing commonly used by Finnish parties and politicians advocating basic income, that emphasised basic income’s capacity to boost activity and labour market participation. The article finds that\u0000 basic income was often defended with framing that appealed to activity as a value, and that this framing was most actively pushed by the Greens, and adopted by other parties during the upturns of the debate. The article provides an insight into a strategy of legitimising a politically controversial\u0000 idea by framing it in a normatively and ideologically resonant way.","PeriodicalId":47631,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Politics","volume":"14 1","pages":"277-293"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81345279","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Policy positions are used extensively to explain coalition formation, advocacy success and policy outputs, and government consultations and stakeholder surveys are seen as important means of gathering data about policy actors’ positions. However, we know little about how accurately official consultations and stakeholder surveys reflect their views. This study compares advocacy organisations’ publicly stated positions in their responses to official consultations with their positions expressed in confidential surveys conducted by the authors. It compares three decision-making processes in Switzerland – in energy, climate and water protection – to analyse responses via two different types of data gathering methods. The results show a substantial divergence between official and private expressions of policy positions. Specific types of policy actors (losers), instruments (persuasive measures) and subsystems (collaborative network) produce more divergent positions. This has important methodological implications for comparative policy studies that use different data gathering methods and focus on different policy domains.
{"title":"Are responses to official consultations and stakeholder surveys reliable guides to policy actors’ positions?","authors":"K. Ingold, Frédéric Varone, Marlene Kammerer, Florence Metz, Lorenz Kammermann, Chantal Strotz","doi":"10.1332/030557319x15613699478503","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319x15613699478503","url":null,"abstract":"Policy positions are used extensively to explain coalition formation, advocacy success and policy outputs, and government consultations and stakeholder surveys are seen as important means of gathering data about policy actors’ positions. However, we know little about how accurately official consultations and stakeholder surveys reflect their views. This study compares advocacy organisations’ publicly stated positions in their responses to official consultations with their positions expressed in confidential surveys conducted by the authors. It compares three decision-making processes in Switzerland – in energy, climate and water protection – to analyse responses via two different types of data gathering methods. The results show a substantial divergence between official and private expressions of policy positions. Specific types of policy actors (losers), instruments (persuasive measures) and subsystems (collaborative network) produce more divergent positions. This has important methodological implications for comparative policy studies that use different data gathering methods and focus on different policy domains.","PeriodicalId":47631,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Politics","volume":"19 1","pages":"193-222"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79016773","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-01DOI: 10.1332/030557319x15657389008311
P. Sayer
In a remarkably short period, ‘evidence-based policy’ (EBP), and the associated discourses of ‘what works’, have risen to prominence as a set of organising principles for public policy decision-making. Critics of EBP frequently point to its implicit positivist assumptions by highlighting the socially constructed nature of evidence. However, the effectiveness of this critique is limited by the imprecise and often pejorative use of the term ‘positivism’. This article therefore seeks to offer a more precise account of the underlying assumptions of EBP. To do so, it draws on an epistemological position known as process reliabilism, which analyses the justification of a belief by assessing whether it has been reached by means of an epistemically reliable decision-making process or processes. Through this framework, the article advocates a new approach to EBP which is framed around the principle of avoiding error, rather than that of seeking truth.
{"title":"A new epistemology of evidence-based policy","authors":"P. Sayer","doi":"10.1332/030557319x15657389008311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319x15657389008311","url":null,"abstract":"In a remarkably short period, ‘evidence-based policy’ (EBP), and the associated discourses of ‘what works’, have risen to prominence as a set of organising principles for public policy decision-making. Critics of EBP frequently point to its implicit positivist\u0000 assumptions by highlighting the socially constructed nature of evidence. However, the effectiveness of this critique is limited by the imprecise and often pejorative use of the term ‘positivism’. This article therefore seeks to offer a more precise account of the underlying assumptions\u0000 of EBP. To do so, it draws on an epistemological position known as process reliabilism, which analyses the justification of a belief by assessing whether it has been reached by means of an epistemically reliable decision-making process or processes. Through this framework, the article advocates\u0000 a new approach to EBP which is framed around the principle of avoiding error, rather than that of seeking truth.","PeriodicalId":47631,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"241-258"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78179038","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-01DOI: 10.1332/030557319x15707904263616
Louise Reardon, G. Marsden
This paper responds to calls for greater empirical investigation of the interrelationships between depoliticisation and repoliticisation processes. It does so by applying the ‘three faces’ (governmental, societal and discursive) organising perspective to a longitudinal analysis of transport policy in the UK. This case is important because acceptance of the current dominant policy solution ‐ infrastructure spending ‐ appears to have come full circle over a 30-year period. The research finds that today’s focus on infrastructure is enabled through intersecting and reinforcing depoliticisation processes, supporting the ‘three faces’ perspective. However, the paper also highlights the need for greater recognition of the state as a meta-governor of depoliticisation and the need for clarity on which aspect of a policy solution or problem (or the connections between them) is being depoliticised and repoliticised to better elucidate politicisation processes.
{"title":"Exploring the role of the state in the depoliticisation of UK transport policy","authors":"Louise Reardon, G. Marsden","doi":"10.1332/030557319x15707904263616","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319x15707904263616","url":null,"abstract":"This paper responds to calls for greater empirical investigation of the interrelationships between depoliticisation and repoliticisation processes. It does so by applying the ‘three faces’ (governmental, societal and discursive) organising perspective to a longitudinal analysis of transport policy in the UK. This case is important because acceptance of the current dominant policy solution ‐ infrastructure spending ‐ appears to have come full circle over a 30-year period. The research finds that today’s focus on infrastructure is enabled through intersecting and reinforcing depoliticisation processes, supporting the ‘three faces’ perspective. However, the paper also highlights the need for greater recognition of the state as a meta-governor of depoliticisation and the need for clarity on which aspect of a policy solution or problem (or the connections between them) is being depoliticised and repoliticised to better elucidate politicisation processes.","PeriodicalId":47631,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Politics","volume":"108 1","pages":"223-240"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90675584","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1332/030557320x15898191176090
May Chu
This article empirically analyses enforcement strategies that characterise food safety regulations in China. It demonstrates that the Chinese government has deployed a dichotomous approach, resulting in very different regulations in its domestic and export food markets. The export food sector exhibits strong deterrent measures whereas regulation of domestic food markets is reactive and relies on persuasive approaches to enforcement. These variations between the two sectors result from a combination of the internationalisation of regulatory practice in the case of exports and resource constraints, a lack of institutional capacity and resistance to regulation from intertwined business and government interests when it comes to domestic food markets. This article addresses a gap in existing theories of regulation by showing how an industrialising economy with an authoritarian regime employs an accommodative and pragmatic approach to regulation that balances international pressure and national interests and produces contrasting approaches in different sectors.
{"title":"The limits to the internationalisation of regulation: divergent enforcement strategies in China’s food safety regulation","authors":"May Chu","doi":"10.1332/030557320x15898191176090","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320x15898191176090","url":null,"abstract":"This article empirically analyses enforcement strategies that characterise food safety regulations in China. It demonstrates that the Chinese government has deployed a dichotomous approach, resulting in very different regulations in its domestic and export food markets. The export food sector exhibits strong deterrent measures whereas regulation of domestic food markets is reactive and relies on persuasive approaches to enforcement. These variations between the two sectors result from a combination of the internationalisation of regulatory practice in the case of exports and resource constraints, a lack of institutional capacity and resistance to regulation from intertwined business and government interests when it comes to domestic food markets. This article addresses a gap in existing theories of regulation by showing how an industrialising economy with an authoritarian regime employs an accommodative and pragmatic approach to regulation that balances international pressure and national interests and produces contrasting approaches in different sectors.","PeriodicalId":47631,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Politics","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80606804","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1332/030557320x15907721287475
Benjamin Ewert, Kathrin Loer
Behavioural public policy is predominantly based on insights from behavioural economics and psychology in order to ‘nudge’ people to act in line with specific aims and to overcome the dilemma of behaviour that contradicts economic rationality. In contrast, we define behavioural public policy as a multi-disciplinary and multi-methodological concept that utilises insights from the whole range of behavioural research. Based on a scoping review and peer survey we see merit in behavioural insights from disciplines such as anthropology, geography and sociology as well as the application of qualitative methods. Our findings identify the need to advance behavioural public policy conceptually and methodologically. This article challenges our current understanding of behavioural policymaking by integrating ‘foreign’ views and approaches that do not (yet) belong to the core discipline. We argue that behavioural public policy should not be a synonym for a limited number of policy approaches (for example, nudges) based on specific research methods (for example, randomised control trials) to reach individual behaviour change. Instead, our findings suggest a redefinition of the scientific footing of behavioural public policy.
{"title":"Advancing behavioural public policies: in pursuit of a more comprehensive concept","authors":"Benjamin Ewert, Kathrin Loer","doi":"10.1332/030557320x15907721287475","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320x15907721287475","url":null,"abstract":"Behavioural public policy is predominantly based on insights from behavioural economics and psychology in order to ‘nudge’ people to act in line with specific aims and to overcome the dilemma of behaviour that contradicts economic rationality. In contrast, we define behavioural public policy as a multi-disciplinary and multi-methodological concept that utilises insights from the whole range of behavioural research. Based on a scoping review and peer survey we see merit in behavioural insights from disciplines such as anthropology, geography and sociology as well as the application of qualitative methods. Our findings identify the need to advance behavioural public policy conceptually and methodologically. This article challenges our current understanding of behavioural policymaking by integrating ‘foreign’ views and approaches that do not (yet) belong to the core discipline. We argue that behavioural public policy should not be a synonym for a limited number of policy approaches (for example, nudges) based on specific research methods (for example, randomised control trials) to reach individual behaviour change. Instead, our findings suggest a redefinition of the scientific footing of behavioural public policy.","PeriodicalId":47631,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Politics","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79214850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1332/030557320x15835195302535
Ingela K. Naumann, C. Crouch
Governments worldwide have sought to introduce greater choice and competition as mechanisms to improve the quality of education provision and outcomes. However, there is considerable cross-national variation in education policy, particularly regarding the role of local government. To explain such differences, this article focuses on recent reforms in compulsory education in England and Sweden. It shows that although governments in both countries have advocated choice, competition and participation, education reform has led to the centralisation of school governance in England but decentralisation in Sweden. Drawing on the concept of ‘scalecraft’ as a specific form of ‘statecraft’, it argues that these differences in the rescaling of education policy reflect different conceptions of central‐local relations and the role of local government. More broadly, the article shows how national governments strategically use scalar reorganisation (scalecraft) to support broader political goals (statecraft), contributing to a better understanding of the spatial dimensions of public policy reform.
{"title":"Rescaling education policy: central‐local relations and the politics of scale in England and Sweden","authors":"Ingela K. Naumann, C. Crouch","doi":"10.1332/030557320x15835195302535","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320x15835195302535","url":null,"abstract":"Governments worldwide have sought to introduce greater choice and competition as mechanisms to improve the quality of education provision and outcomes. However, there is considerable cross-national variation in education policy, particularly regarding the role of local government. To explain such differences, this article focuses on recent reforms in compulsory education in England and Sweden. It shows that although governments in both countries have advocated choice, competition and participation, education reform has led to the centralisation of school governance in England but decentralisation in Sweden. Drawing on the concept of ‘scalecraft’ as a specific form of ‘statecraft’, it argues that these differences in the rescaling of education policy reflect different conceptions of central‐local relations and the role of local government. More broadly, the article shows how national governments strategically use scalar reorganisation (scalecraft) to support broader political goals (statecraft), contributing to a better understanding of the spatial dimensions of public policy reform.","PeriodicalId":47631,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Politics","volume":"59 1","pages":"583-601"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87580908","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1332/030557320x15986403024733
Jakob Trischler, J. Kaluza
This article analyses whether involving public service users in the recruitment of frontline employees (FLEs) helps to identify candidates who have the skills needed to co-produce with citizens. It investigates user involvement in FLE recruitment in three public service organisations in Sweden – from the perspectives of service managers, service developers, Human Resource Managers, union representatives and frontline employees. It finds that involving users was perceived to be beneficial for attracting and identifying applicants with a user-centred mindset. User involvement was also seen useful for establishing realistic expectations of what public services can deliver. However, a perceived challenge was to ensure equality and equity of user contributions. This included finding users who were sufficiently informed but without resorting to ‘expert users’. Many users required preparation, which added to the complexity and cost of recruitment, and it was important to overcome internal resistance by involving staff in designing and trialling the process.
{"title":"Co-production in the recruitment of frontline public service employees","authors":"Jakob Trischler, J. Kaluza","doi":"10.1332/030557320x15986403024733","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320x15986403024733","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses whether involving public service users in the recruitment of frontline employees (FLEs) helps to identify candidates who have the skills needed to co-produce with citizens. It investigates user involvement in FLE recruitment in three public service organisations in Sweden – from the perspectives of service managers, service developers, Human Resource Managers, union representatives and frontline employees. It finds that involving users was perceived to be beneficial for attracting and identifying applicants with a user-centred mindset. User involvement was also seen useful for establishing realistic expectations of what public services can deliver. However, a perceived challenge was to ensure equality and equity of user contributions. This included finding users who were sufficiently informed but without resorting to ‘expert users’. Many users required preparation, which added to the complexity and cost of recruitment, and it was important to overcome internal resistance by involving staff in designing and trialling the process.","PeriodicalId":47631,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Politics","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80950307","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1332/030557320x15956825120821
Holger Strassheim
Behavioural public policy has spread internationally over recent years. Worldwide, expert units are translating insights from behavioural sciences into policy interventions. Yet, behavioural expert networks are a puzzling case. They seem to oscillate between two modes of collective action: as an epistemic community, they are based on the consensual belief that biases in behaviour pose a problem for policymaking. As an instrument constituency, they bring together a diversity of actors, unified not by consensual beliefs about problems but by practices of promoting behavioural instruments as solutions. Drawing on a review of literature, this article provides a systematic analysis of the relation between epistemic communities and instrument constituencies. It argues that there has been an ‘agency shift’ from one mode to the other. The implications are that experts should be aware of the fact that the instruments they are proposing might develop a political life of their own.
{"title":"Who are behavioural public policy experts and how are they organised globally?","authors":"Holger Strassheim","doi":"10.1332/030557320x15956825120821","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320x15956825120821","url":null,"abstract":"Behavioural public policy has spread internationally over recent years. Worldwide, expert units are translating insights from behavioural sciences into policy interventions. Yet, behavioural expert networks are a puzzling case. They seem to oscillate between two modes of collective action: as an epistemic community, they are based on the consensual belief that biases in behaviour pose a problem for policymaking. As an instrument constituency, they bring together a diversity of actors, unified not by consensual beliefs about problems but by practices of promoting behavioural instruments as solutions. Drawing on a review of literature, this article provides a systematic analysis of the relation between epistemic communities and instrument constituencies. It argues that there has been an ‘agency shift’ from one mode to the other. The implications are that experts should be aware of the fact that the instruments they are proposing might develop a political life of their own.","PeriodicalId":47631,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Politics","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87335155","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","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：